dgs49 wrote:It is sophomoric to superimpose modern sensitivities on an institution that existed under entirely different social, religious, and economic realities.
Thank you, Dave. You have just conceded that it is, therefore, equally sophomoric to superimpose biblical sensitivities on modern understandings of the morality of homosexuality, which also existed under entirely different social, religious and economic realities.
It's always easiest when you opponent makes your argument for you, but it's so much more fun with you, who have such a propensity to shove your foot in your mouth without realizing it.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
wesw wrote:well, the bible does say that more damage is done to oneself by what comes out of ones mouth than what goes into ones mouth....
No shit! Telling my wife that she is "number one wife", a heartfelt and true sentiment, has caused much greater personal hardship than a third glass of wine, Port and Amaretto finished with Armagnac ever did!
When comparing the institution of slavery from one historical era and culture to another, the evaluation has to consider the alternative life possibilities for the poorest of the poor in the respective circumstances. Is employment for keep or monetary compensation a possibility? Is there any sustenance available from social institutions (church – or its equivalent, or government)? Is human charity reliable enough to ensure maintenance of life over time? Is it possible to sustain oneself without land or other assets, without resort to criminal activity? Also, what are the prevailing conditions for slaves? Are they valued as chattels (certainly not as “people”), or considered expendable? It is possible that in biblical times, slavery was the best available alternative for both the slave and the slave owner FOR SOME PEOPLE. Contrast that with the importation of powerless Africans by force, and their maintenance as virtual prisoners, forcing them to work as commanded for life; obviously, this was morally unacceptable, in spite of the fact that the whole society was able to rationalize it while it existed.
On the other hand, homosexuality is the same now as it was at the time of Christ. It is a persistent trait, inclining a small percentage of the male population to a specific sort of activity. That defining activity is sexually perverse, and repulsive to the remaining 98% of the male population, and from an evolutionary and biological standpoint, it is a complete anomaly, in that it employs parts of the reproductive and digestive systems for non-reproductive, non-nutritional purposes. It is not difficult to understand why Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, and so on have unanimously considered it to be immoral and unacceptable. And nothing has changed on this front in the past 2,000 years. Homosexuality is the same anomaly now as it was then. Some people with the inclination give in to it, and some people elect to either remain celibate or live normal lives in spite of this proclivity. In all cases, however, the moral issue is defined by BEHAVIOR and not the inclination. Further, anyone who takes “morality” seriously knows that all behavior is voluntary, which makes us morally responsible for what we do (not what we are inclined to do).
The current culture has decided that activities that are immoral but not overtly harmful should not be punished as criminal, and homosexual sodomy benefits from that change in attitude. Nevertheless, from a moral standpoint, there is nothing about homosexual sodomy that changed in the past 2000 years. There is no “scientific evidence” that it is normal or unavoidable behavior (free will has not been repealed). No Catholic Pope, or any other religious leader who takes the Bible seriously will condone homosexual sodomy as morally acceptable. The Episcopal Church has become a joke for this very reason, with its only members remaining so out of disinterest or inertia. The Unitarian Church has always been a joke, so no change.
How ironic that Canadians who do not believe in Natural Law want to defend the “morality” of homosexual sodomy. When did you start caring about morality?
On the other hand, homosexuality is the same now as it was at the time of Christ. It is a persistent trait, inclining a small percentage of the male population to a specific sort of activity.
Point of order, Madam Chairman - "homosexual" does not denote sexual activity between males (Latin: homo/homines).
It is a compound word invented by a 19th century German to describe sexual activity between members of the same gender using the Greek word: homos. So don't be a male chauvinist.
You have hold of the wrong root there, old boy.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
I'm definitely in the minority on this point, but I believe (male) homosexuality and lesbianism are two completely different and unrelated phenomena and should not be discussed as two sides of the same coin. Between males, the sexuality is the driving force; between females, not so much. Indeed, many lesbian couples are not interested in sexual congress at all, but move in that direction for other reasons. For illustration, consider the actress Linda Hunt, who is a "lesbian." Enough said.
dgs, the word means what it means. Don't use it to invent your own definition. As to the rest, rubbish.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
So you are saying that "homosexual" includes "lesbian."
OK.
I am unaware of any comparable word that is limited exclusively to male-male relationships, so I take the liberty of using homo in that way. I freely acknowledge that I am taking a semantic liberty.
If you believe that male-male and female-female relationships are the same, I respectfully disagree for the reasons stated above. In fact, I would propose that many "lesbian" relationships are not immoral at all, in that they have essentially no physical, sexual component, or physical activity is so sporadic as to be inconsequential.
No, I'm not saying it. Dictionaries say it; lexicographers say it; facts say it.
Admit it... you just like to watch if it's girls, right?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Well, maybe that's so. I can think of ... two men in my life with whom I'd have been happy to set up a non-sexual household if women hadn't intervened. I like women. But in older age, I could see if Margaretta passed that sharing a house with a man wouldn't be a problem - on a strictly platonic basis. If you can trust a Greek, that is.
I don't see a problem with men loving men and women loving women. That's not a sin.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
dgs49 wrote:I'm definitely in the minority on this point, but I believe (male) homosexuality and lesbianism are two completely different and unrelated phenomena and should not be discussed as two sides of the same coin. Between males, the sexuality is the driving force; between females, not so much. Indeed, many lesbian couples are not interested in sexual congress at all, but move in that direction for other reasons. For illustration, consider the actress Linda Hunt, who is a "lesbian." Enough said.
1) A lesbian is a female homosexual
2) How do you know the "driving force" for most male homosexual relationships is sex and that for lesbians it's not so much?
3) Why do you believe that the homosexual driving force in a relationship is different than it is in heterosexual relationships?
4) Are you saying that you know that Linda Hunt and her spouse are not interested in sex in their marriage?
5) Are you serious?
dgs49 wrote:I would propose that many "lesbian" relationships are not immoral at all, in that they have essentially no physical, sexual component, or physical activity is so sporadic as to be inconsequential.
What are you smoking?????
My lesbian friends love to strap on and fuck each other silly - just like all other normal, healthy human beings in intimate relationships.
Yeah, sometimes they don't feel like sex when their partner is being an azzhole or they had a bad day or they're ill, etc. - but lesbian relationships have 'no physical, sexual component'?????
GOOD COP, NAUGHTY COP
How to: Kneel right behind your partner, give her a pillow to cushion her head and bend her over so her hips are in the air. If she prefers manual stimulation you can take that route, or gear up with a strap-on and penetrate her doggy style.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Now there's a scientific way of addressing the question.
Or,...
"Over the past 30 years, much has been said and written about 'lesbian bed death,' or the idea that long-term romantic relationships between women tend to be characterized by rather inactive sex lives. This originally stemmed from an observation in national survey data that female same-sex couples have a lower sexual frequency than both mixed-sex (male-female) couples and male same-sex couples [1], a finding that has been replicated many times since."
"Consistent with past research, women in same-sex relationships reported having sex significantly less often than persons in both mixed-sex and male same-sex relationships."
The article focuses on the time spent in doing sexual stuff and how satisfied the participants are. Which is also relevant..."we don't do it often, and that's fine with us."
I don't actually have a dog in this fight, I couldn't care less, actually - but to anyone not wearing blinders or being argumentative for the sport of it, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in emphasis between male-male homosexual lifestyles and female-female homosexual lifestyles. OBVIOUSLY, these lifestyles vary all over the map on an individual basis, but when you look at what is typical, the differences are substantial. As much as the Progs would like to think that everything in life is "equal" male and female sexuality are dramatically different, regardless of the objects of their affection.
dgs49 wrote:As much as the Progs would like to think that everything in life is "equal" male and female sexuality are dramatically different, regardless of the objects of their affection.
Really?
Next you'll be trying to convince us that women are more emotional than men and men are more stimulated by visual images than women.
You're clearly on the cutting edge of understanding the psychology of women vs men.
Right, dgs . . . women and men have different levels of sexual desire, which is why many hetero women are having sex they'd rather not have but do it to placate their male partners. Wonder if your wife would agree?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Now there's a scientific way of addressing the question.
Or,...
"Over the past 30 years, much has been said and written about 'lesbian bed death,' or the idea that long-term romantic relationships between women tend to be characterized by rather inactive sex lives. This originally stemmed from an observation in national survey data that female same-sex couples have a lower sexual frequency than both mixed-sex (male-female) couples and male same-sex couples [1], a finding that has been replicated many times since."
"Consistent with past research, women in same-sex relationships reported having sex significantly less often than persons in both mixed-sex and male same-sex relationships."
The article focuses on the time spent in doing sexual stuff and how satisfied the participants are. Which is also relevant..."we don't do it often, and that's fine with us."
I don't actually have a dog in this fight, I couldn't care less, actually - but to anyone not wearing blinders or being argumentative for the sport of it, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in emphasis between male-male homosexual lifestyles and female-female homosexual lifestyles. OBVIOUSLY, these lifestyles vary all over the map on an individual basis, but when you look at what is typical, the differences are substantial. As much as the Progs would like to think that everything in life is "equal" male and female sexuality are dramatically different, regardless of the objects of their affection.
Frequency of sex is not a measure of the health or happiness of a relationship. A couple who has a satisfying sex life and relationship is better off than one that does not, no matter how often they have sex.
And equality, in the meaningful sense of equality of respect and autonomy, is altogether different than merely being identical. A difference in sex drive is no more inherently important than a difference in height or eye color. Percieving and attending to the needs of the 'other' which are different from your own are the substance of a relationship whether it is a desire for affection or for more attractive domestic surroundings.
