Legalization of "Sodomy"

[alan]

For those states where sodomy is a crime, will legalizing gay marriage therefore make sodomy legal?

[Altjaeger]

For those states where sodomy is a crime, will legalizing gay marriage therefore make sodomy legal?

I honestly don't think it will make any difference. With one failed exception I have not seen sodomy prosecuted in years except where it was an additional charge to rape, statuatory rape or other charge. Prosecutors are not going to waste government money and resoures to take a simple sodomy charge. If so very few members of this board would not be liable having experienced oral and/or anal sex with members of the opposite sex.

A federal district court of appeals out of New Orleans some years ago invalidated the Texas sodomy laws when it involved a gay couple in their apartment and police forced entry raiding to catch them in the act. They ruled that what gays do in the privacy of their homes concensually was not of concern to the State. This is not a particularly liberal court having been the first federal distrit ciurt to rule that the 2nd Amendment applied to the individual.

With a little thought and self-examination I don't think many would want prosecution practiced differently.

[Rock Chuck]

For those states where sodomy is a crime, will legalizing gay marriage therefore make sodomy legal?
Maybe in the eyes of the law, but not in God's eyes. There is a penalty to be paid.

[GF.]

So does "God's' law mean there's a penalty to be paid for 'straight' forms of 'sodomy', too?

Or is it more like eating stuff like pork or shellfish, where you can sort of pick and choose who it applies to? :rolleyes:

[ncboman]

The way I understand it, pretty much anything goes between a man and wife butt it's a messy topic. :D

ncboman

[Altjaeger]

The way I understand it, pretty much anything goes between a man and wife butt it's a messy topic. :D

ncboman

But legally oral or anal between man and woman is sodomy and we are discussing worldly law here, U.S. law specifically.

[Bill Gunn]

The way I understand it, pretty much anything goes between a man and wife butt it's a messy topic. :D

ncboman

I could never understand why the heck you'd want your prized possession
to look like an old rusty sword :( :confused:

.
.
.

[GF.]

The way I understand it, pretty much anything goes between a man and wife butt it's a messy topic. :D


Did you have to spell that with two T's ???? :D

The thing is, we're trying to reconcile public laws with private behavior. And beyond that, we're basically dealing with intensely personal understandings about the supposed 'morality' of that very private behavior. Same deal on the same-sex partner benefits thing, when you get down to it, because if we're going to write laws based on what some folks see as 'sin' and other see as Perfectly Normal Human Behavior....:eek:

'Cuz strictly speakin', NC, I think that anyone who tries to make a 'literal interpretation of the Gospel' argument that homosexuality is a See-in would have to say the same about 'sodomy' between a man and his wife. I haven't studied up on this, specifically, but I can't imagine there is any express permission for that sort o' thing given in Old testament or New, so if we want to go 'literal', I'm afraid we're in for some hot weather, Amigo...

But if it makes you feel any better.... ;) ..... I have it on rock-solid authority -- and this really should be no secret - that most of the main-stream Protestant US denominations have been at basically a 50:50 stalemate on the homosexuality issue for about 50 years now. And if the Learned Theologians with all their study of the teachings and traditions can't agree, then who am I to pretend to have a pipeline to The Truth :confused::confused::confused:


But I have to say.... And back to Alt's point.... When we start talking about writing the Laws of a country (one founded on the Freedom of Individual Religious Beliefs!) based on unsettled and/or hotly contested Opinions regarding those Religious Beliefs, we're headed for a heap o' trouble....

[Altjaeger]

I will leave questions of theology and moral beliefs to the individual except where they cross lines such as force or child/adult ( No I do not want a 15 or 16 year old "in love" charged with statuatory rape of a 14 year old).

I do not want same sex benefits extended by our government for far more practical reasons, my tax dollar. Any society that hopes to sustain itself must have birth rates that replaces it's losses. Man/woman marriages help promote that and I am willing to support that through tax breaks, social security benefits, etc. I am not willing to do that for same sex unions that do not benefit society in the same fashion.

Same sex partners are more than welcome to form legal unions providing wills, life insurance etc to protect each other, but do not call it marriage and do not support it with my tax dollars.

[Rock Chuck]

The law will say what it says, but Biblically, there are only 2 restrictions on sex:
1. you must be married to your partner
2. your partner must be of the opposite sex.
That's it, in total. The Bible says nothing about oral, anal, or positions. Inside a heterosexual marriage, all's fair in the sack. Outside of it, all sex is evil. God said it, not me.

So, back to original question. We were created as a Godly nation but we've been breaking away from that very rapidly in recent years. Legalizing an act that God calls an abomination will only hasten our demise.

[Altjaeger]

So, back to original question. We were created as a Godly nation but we've been breaking away from that very rapidly in recent years. Legalizing an act that God calls an abomination will only hasten our demise.

We were a nation built on what our forefathers saw as God given rights with his blessings. But they built a secular nation that left freedom of religion for non-christian citizens to include freedom from religion. We begin entering dangerous territory when we start enacting laws based on one groups interpretation of the bible. We saw it in Europe in the Wars of the Catholics and Protestants and today we see a variation in the Muslim world over interpretation of the Koran. No thank you.

[TinStar]

Altjaeger,

The wars you spoke of were more political than religious in nature. An act that God considers to be an abomination is consider to be so by all denominations that go by His Word. And even by many that are not believers as they consider it to be a danger to the family unit. These people look at it as act against nature.
My question is; where does all this stop? Do we allow folks to have sex with kids and animals because "they" think it's okay? Where do we draw a line in the sand? Or have we almost gotten to the point where we don't? This "I'm okay; you're okay" BS has got to stop sometime or it will stop us.

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

[Altjaeger]

Altjaeger,

The wars you spoke of were more political than religious in nature. An act that God considers to be an abomination is consider to be so by all denominations that go by His Word. And even by many that are not believers as they consider it to be a danger to the family unit. These people look at it as act against nature.
My question is; where does all this stop? Do we allow folks to have sex with kids and animals because "they" think it's okay? Where do we draw a line in the sand? Or have we almost gotten to the point where we don't? This "I'm okay; you're okay" BS has got to stop sometime or it will stop us.

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

War by its very nature is an extension of political conflict and the attempt to force that political will at the next level. To deny that religion was not a major part and often the main motivation in the European Religious Wars is denying reality. Almost all had in one form or another attempts to force religious beliefs by civil statute.

Yes many religions besides Christianity share a belief that many of the acts discussed are aberations. That does not mean that they promote or encourage the use of legislation or civil force to enforce them. The middle east already shows us the dangers of religious government.

If you read my second post above you see where I draw the line, its at rape and pedophilia. Just as we do not need "hate crimes" because assualt and murder are already crimes we do not need zoophilia laws. It is illegal for a couple, even a married couple, to engage in sex in public view. Those same laws would apply to the idiot involved with his sheep in the pen by the highway. I am not going peeking in his barn.

Society has always had the ability to punish and ostracize its citizens without having to resort to civil laws, prosecution and punishent at the tax payers expense. I am not going to promote these practices, but I don't need the goverment involved either if not a public nuisance.

We already have a problem of a false sense of society suddenly gone terribly wrong because of new laws creating new criminal classes resulting in more and more of our citizenry becoming criminals and convicts. Instead of legislatures creating new laws, especially theological law, we need legislatures that concentrate on how many laws they can remove from the books.

[GF.]

An act that God considers to be an abomination is consider to be so by all denominations that go by His Word.

I guess maybe we'd have to qualify exactly what you mean by words like 'All'...

Fact is, only these few major Christian denominations categorically reject gays as members:
Adventists
Churches of Christ (that's the actual name of the denomination)
Mormon/LDS
Oriental Orthodox
Jehovah's Witnesses
Old Order Amish
Pentecostals

Every other Christian denomination is more or less split on the issue.

Every other Christian denomination is more or less split on the issue.

Every other Christian denomination is more or less split on the issue.

Every other Christian denomination is more or less split on the issue.


Further, practicing gays are eligible for ordination among some or all branches of the Anglican, Baptist, Epsicopal, Lutheran, Mennonite, United Reform, Quaker, Old Catholic, Reformed Catholic, Swedenborgian, United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ (UCC) and several other main-sream denominations (including the Unitarians, but you know what they say about them - the last time the words 'Jesus Christ' were spoken out loud in the Unitarian church was when the janitor stuck a foot into his mop bucket and fell down the stairs :D )


And let's not pretend that the Roman Catholic church hasn't knowingly ordained closeted & semi-closeted gays for years and years and years--I've even heard interviews with straight men who dropped out of Catholic seminary because they found the environment to be just overwhelmingly 'gay'....

Point being, this matter is nowhere near cut & dried, theologically, as many would lead us to believe -- and claiming that it is doesn't make it so.

In a country founded on religious freedom, you can't base the law of the land on a widely contested theological point, no matter how strongly people feel about it. (By comparison, there is no meaningful debate on issues involving polygamy, incestuous relationships, inanimate objects or non-human animals, so that whole line of 'reasoning' holds no water in a serious discussion.)

So backing up just a touch.... If all men are created equal, then they all get equal treatment under the law. If the law provides certain rights exclusively to those individuals who have entered into a binding, legal commitment to each other, then - as a matter of equality - that legal commitment ought to be available to all.

And Alt - while you and I are probably closer to agreeing on some of this stuff with each other than we are with some other folks, I have to challenge your point as well - under your logic, childless male-female unions (whether by choice, by chance, or because they just haven't yet gotten around to it) would not be deserving of all of the same rights, protections and benefits as couples with children. Further, what are you going to do about a same-sex couple that does have children? Where do they fit in?


I know a lot of folks don't approve of gay couples with kids (I'm not all that comfortable with it myself, honestly), but lots of them do have kids - and you can't deny those children the same legal protections that other kids get whether their parents are married or not, because the kids have no choice in the matter--they're here, they need to be cared for, and the law has an obligation to ensure that those who are responsible for those children are held accountable for acting like it.

[Altjaeger]

And Alt - while you and I are probably closer to agreeing on some of this stuff with each other than we are with some other folks, I have to challenge your point as well - under your logic, childless male-female unions (whether by choice, by chance, or because they just haven't yet gotten around to it) would not be deserving of all of the same rights, protections and benefits as couples with children. Further, what are you going to do about a same-sex couple that does have children? Where do they fit in?



Having three sets of uncle and aunts that were unable to produce children I am aware that some couples do not have children by accidents of nature or plan. Two sets adopted and one did not. However, I prefer by far to see children raised in a two parent home which is what marriage is conducive to. Therefore it seems worth the bet to encourage marriage through these protections.

The chances of a gay couple producing children is nill. At the same time if they adopt then at least one does get the tax break so the "couple" is not totally out in the cold. I would assume that if they are truly a couple with shared finances then they both benefit. One of our resident tax experts can tell us if that works out the same as a married couple filing seperately. If we encourage gay couples through tax incentives then we are encouraging unions that have no chance of producing the needed progeny required perhaps at the detriment of encouraging man/woman couples.

I am not real comfortable that gay couples adopt. I am led to believe though that no spike occurs in the number of children raised in those circumstances ending up gay compared to straight couples. Further I am led to believe that most end up better adjusted than those raised in single parent households. So I can't argue against it to strongly either.

[Rock Chuck]

GF,
To start with, your list includes several NON-Christian religions. Then you group all Baptists together. In reality, there are many totally unrelated churches who use the name Baptist. It simply means a church that believes in baptism of believers, not infants.

A denomination that allows queers in the ministry isn't Christian as the Bible clearly denounces the practice as extremely evil. That's not to say that queers shouldn't be allowed in church, but they must be told that their ACTS are very sinful and can't be allowed. We all sin and must be forgiven, but queers demand that God accept their sin as a normal lifestyle and Brother, that ain't gonna happen!!! God has written his position on that and it will never change.

[Altjaeger]

GF,
To start with, your list includes several NON-Christian religions. Then you group all Baptists together. In reality, there are many totally unrelated churches who use the name Baptist. It simply means a church that believes in baptism of believers, not infants.

A denomination that allows queers in the ministry isn't Christian as the Bible clearly denounces the practice as extremely evil. That's not to say that queers shouldn't be allowed in church, but they must be told that their ACTS are very sinful and can't be allowed. We all sin and must be forgiven, but queers demand that God accept their sin as a normal lifestyle and Brother, that ain't gonna happen!!! God has written his position on that and it will never change.

Well first GF did not say all Baptists. His lead in the sentence said "Some or all the branches" and then listed the various denominations.

That said you have offered a prime example of why we should not codify religious beliefs into civil law. It is certainly your right, and one I will defend, to believe in God and your faiths interpretation of him freely. A the same time I will defend the members of those other congregations to believe they are Christian just as strongly as you believe they are not. We do not need the kind of division in government that led to the European wars of religion or the kind fought today between the factions of the islamic religion.

[Twanger]

My experience is like GF's (well written, BTW, GF).

There is open tolerance of gay lifestyles in many Christian religions.... This tolerance seems much more prevalent in blue states than in red. :D I've seen it in Baptist, Episcopalian, Catholic, and other churches. I'm not sure why this is so, given what is written in the bible, but there it is. I'm not really sure why Gays would go to church, or even be religious, given the general intolerance of the Church's doctrine, but they do go, and many are religions. The gays I've known that went to church would never give up their lifestyle, yet felt fully welcome at the church they went to. I don't quite see how someone can be fully committed to the gay lifestyle yet consider themselves to be religious and 'saved.'

It's a funny world we live in.

Maybe it all comes down to the fact that we're all sinners, and it doesn't particularly matter which sin it is. You can still go to church to get absolution or forgiveness.

It's actually something that I've scratched my head about from time to time. It applies to any 'forbidden' or illegal behavior. How can someone continue to steal every week, for example, and still be religious? How can they be forgiven or 'saved' if they're gonna go right out and break the law tomorrow, next week, and next year?

[GF.]

Rock Chuck -

I understand your personal position on the subject, and you're entitled to it...Just as each denomination is entitled to examine its own theological traditions and come to a position on the same.

But as I said, there are many groups within the Christian fold who are not about to agree with you that being tolerant of homosexuals somehow disqualifies them as 'Christian' faiths. Yes, there are disagreements among individuals and congregations, but that's exactly the point--there are disagreements. A lot of people have made up their minds individually--one way or the other-- but the issue is not settled as a matter of church doctrine--and to think that your own personal congregation within your branch of your denomination somehow has a straighter and wider Pipeline To The Truth than everybody else is just the height of arrogance.

There is disagreement on the subject of homosexuality. What's more, there is clearly room for disagreement on this point within the bounds of mainstream Christianity, just as there is room for disagreement about just how 'literally' we should interpret the Bible (and just in passing, that was a raging, divisive debate even as it was being written down).

JMO, the problem with fundamentalist christians is the same problem with fundamentalist muslims - they both want their societies to reflect their individual interpretations of the scriptures, and to justify their positions, they are willing to believe that their own definition of a 'literal' interpretation is better than everybody else's while simply ignoring all of those inconvenient contradictions and/or the context in which a particular passage was written.


If people want to get seriously hard line about 'literal', that's up to them, I guess. But if the shrimp cocktail doesn't send 'em straight to hell, then the pork roast surely will....:rolleyes:

[GF.]

Nice work, Twang....

I used to go to church in a little congregation in Minneapolis which had a policy of welcoming gays. I'm sure a bunch of people will say that I had fallen into some kind of fringey outfit, but the pastor there is now The Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America... All 4.7 million of us.... Doesn't seem too fringey to me, but I'm not that good with math, I guess....

Anyway, I honestly wasn't sure how I felt about that policy at the time, but one day I was sitting next to two women who were holding hands. I don't know why--maybe they were a couple, maybe just friends and one of 'em needed a little extra moral support that day. None of my business, and they sure weren't bothering anybody...

Anyway, I got to thinking about it, and I did realize that I was a lot more comfortable with the idea of sitting in a chuch next to a couple of lesbians than with the idea of sitting in church and being surrounded by people who would make those women feel unwelcome in a house of God.

Now, as it happens, this was after my ex and I had split up and I was dating a gal who was just finishing up her seminary work. I had a lot of questions, and we had a lot of really good, in-depth theological conversations, so I'm maybe not so far out of my depth here as you might think ;). Anyway, at the time, the church also had sponsored a lecture series on the whole sexuality thing, with one speaker taking the conservative side of the coin and one the more progressive. It was really great to watch two highly educated, intelligent people having an informed debate and disagreeing without raising their voices. Too bad it makes for crappy television ratings when you do it that way....

Anyway, since you raised a couple of questions that I've heard before...

Yes, there are some passages in the new testament which come down pretty hard on homosexual activity; but both of the speakers in the lecture series agreed that the specific instances involved people who were basically whoring around for the sheer sport of it and/or pressing young (not necessarily 'gay' ) men and/or boys into service as prostitutes for the enjoyment of older men who apparently preferred boys to women. So basically, institutionalized child abuse, and Alt has pretty well covered that....

So one speaker came away with the conclusion that homosexuality is explicitly condemned, and the other countered with the thought that what was truly objectionable about it was the fact that sex - as a Gift From God - was not being honored but defiled. Which, if you think about it, is actually the higher standard of the two interpretations--it's also a whole lot less comfortable for anyone who ever had sex outside of their one and only marriage, because it pretty much puts you in the same boat with the man-on-man bunch instead of allowing you to feel Righteous and Superior.

There was really only one passage on which the two agreed that the text was unequivocal, and that was in Exodus, I believe... something about it being 'against nature'. So I asked 'what about the fact that the best available science says that gays are most likely hard-wired for it?' 'Cuz if that is the way God made them, then maybe the passage could be revisited with some thought to the individual person's 'nature' rather than the basic reproductive blueprint?

Both agreed that that one was worth thinking about, but the conservative speaker was not about to abandon his POV....:D

Anyway, I think that's what it boils down to for most gays who want to go to church. They can't understand how it is that God could have made them such that they can't be true to their own nature (as they understand it) and remain acceptable in His sight. Does He love them or not? And if not, then is He really who He says He is???

And more to your point, there are plenty of sinners in this world, it's just that some sins are more socially acceptable than others...But the 'Ick Factor' really should have nothing to do with it. Sin is Sin, right?

I look at myself - I divorced my 'first' wife, so does that make me (or my Last Wife) an 'adulterer/ess'? It depends on how technical you want to get and how 'literally' you read the scripture, doesn't it? There's a passage in there, one quoted numerous times to --maybe it'd be more accurate to say 'held over the head of' -- my wife by 'well-meaning' Kristian friends) which looks pretty well cut & dried to the literal-minded set, and which (according to them) says we most certainly are in the wrong. She and I are going straight to Hell.

But even in a hard-line fundamentalist church, you'd like to think there would be room for us, wouldn't you?

Is it less of a sin for us to be 'unrepentant, practicing adulterers' than for someone else to be an unrepentant, practicing homosexual? (And I do mean unrepentant, because we have no intention whatsoever of hangin' up the spurs ;) :D )

[Herne]

Well its all a matter of degree, but in a supposedly Christian state, or one whose mores are based upon the judaeo christian ethic, one ought to be encouraging marriage generally (tax, inheritance laws, benefits etc) for all sorts of sound reasons, not least the benefit of the children. (and within reason that includes discouraging divorce, and discouraging young single teenage mothers - but it is a still a difficult balancing act)

Even so, it is one thing permitting freedoms for consenting adults in private, and another publically to raise (note the unsplit infinitive!)it all to a different level. It is I believe unwise, especially when state sposored.

(We now have homosexuals in the army - hell of a job sharing a tank with one. ;). If someone wants to bend, or lift, that's fine, lifters being less dodgy of course, but I don't see that it needs assistance, knowledge lessons in school, or whatever)

Pass me another boy, please - this one's split.

(Sorry very old English public school joke)

[alan]

It seems to me that homosexuality is all ready allowed and legal and defined as "Domestic partnership" or 'Civil Unions". "Marriage" is different. What gays & lesbians are doing is degrading the sanctity of marriage and attempting to normalizie their perverted (But legal) behavior. That seems to be their total objective: To "Normalize" their behavior. I have no problem allowing them reasonable legal benefits but keep don't dare calling your perverted behavior "Marriage". Their perverted relationship although legal is not normal an in no way can compare to "Christian Marriage" To do so is blasphemy and degrading to society.

[GF.]

Look, I know you have strong feelings on the issue, and that's fine, but you really shouldn't point a loaded word around so carelessly.... ;)

Striclty (and philosophically) speakin'.... If something is 'perverted', that means it has been corrupted; put to a use other than that for which it was intended.

So describing homosexuality as 'perverted' only holds water if you believe that the sole purpose of sex is for procreation...

And if you want to hold that line, then you have to pass the same damning judgement on all forms of sexual activity other than procreative attempts by a married couple- and not just oral, anal, manual or self-gratification, but all sex not expressly intended to result in conception. Needless to say, this puts 'protected' sex among straight, unmarried couples waaaay out there into 'perverted' territory, and it likely holds true for straight, married couples beyond child-bearing age. :eek:

So it really depends on what you think sex is 'for'. Maybe I'm just saying this because my wife and I are at an age where the numbers are starting to resemble the bore markings on a DG 'stopping rifle', but personally, I think sex is a whole lot more complex and serves a lot more purposes (particularly among humans) than just passing along the genes.

But if sex can be 'unperverted' even without the potential for procreation, then it gets a lot harder to assert that it is necessarily the sole province of straight, married couples. Is it what you do that matters, or why you're doing it? Or does it matter only who is doing it? :confused:


Maybe the reason the issue gets so hotly debated is that some folks have an absolute sense of moral certainty on the issue while others refuse to pass judgement on the next guy as long as they can see the word HYPOCRITE tattooed across their own foreheads when they look in the mirror. What? We're all sinners, but your sin(s) should cost you 1300 different civil rights and mine have no consequences at all? :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:

JMO, sex is not just a means to give rise to families, but also the glue that God gave us to hold marriages and families together. So I can't say with any certainty that it can only serve a 'marriage' between a man and a woman.

But this much I do know: Show me a truly happy man in a marriage without sex and I'll show you a Eunuch who's married either to a very bitter, angry woman or to a woman who has something cooking on the side. And on the other hand, show me an unhappy couple that enjoys a good roll in the hay on a regular basis, and I don't have to worry about showing you a damn thing :D

[Rock Chuck]

So describing homosexuality as 'perverted' only holds water if you believe that the sole purpose of sex is for procreation...
You lost me on that one. God created sex as the ultimate relationship between a husband and wife and it goes far beyond procreation. Homosex perverts that entire relationship.

[ncboman]

GF has got so far out there on this, I tire of the topic.

I guess there's sex, sinful sex, and perverted sex.

and then there's the post turtles. :rolleyes:

ncboman

[Altjaeger]

GF has got so far out there on this, I tire of the topic.

I guess there's sex, sinful sex, and perverted sex.

and then there's the post turtles. :rolleyes:

ncboman

Somethings have been accepted as perversions for so long that to deny it now amounts to trying to change the language. Homosexuality, bestiality and pedophilia are but three examples. I may not be for using civil law to root out and punish every form of such actions, but I am certainly not going to join the poltically correct segment of our society in attempting to rewrite our language.

[BILL K]

Wow, you guys are a lot more tolerant than me.

[ncboman]

Wow, you guys are a lot more tolerant than me.

maybe, maybe not. :rolleyes:

I think my feelings toward the suckymouths are well documented in threads here and elsewhere, but I have no dog in the fight. ... and I tire of very well disguised emails that sometimes fool me into making a click that won't go away.

I try to live happy and long ago curbed a tendency toward violence but if I could manage to ID the sob that caused my camera software to disappear, I'd beat that bastard to a bloody pulp.

How's that for tolerance? :D

ncboman

[Altjaeger]

If force or children are involved I will cheerfully hang them from a tree by their genitalia before sawing it off. Otherwise my attitude is keep it out of sight and away from others not wishing to be involved. The word discretion comes to mind.

[TinStar]

Alt,

Perversion and discretion do not go hand in hand.

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

[alan]

Look, I know you have strong feelings on the issue, and that's fine, but you really shouldn't point a loaded word around so carelessly.... ;)
You are entitled to your opinion as am I but I think the word "Perverted" is clearly appropriate for this unnatural and clearly Perverse, abhorant behavior; I know there are those that disagree but I am not throwing out words carelessly.

[GF.]

Same behavior happens in 'nature', too, Alan - all the time... It's just that the critters don't have 'pride' marches for it :D

But you'll have to clarify for me a bit before I can agree that you're not being careless with your language... (and Alt - when a word is commonly misused, insisting on its proper use is hardly the same as 'redefining it'...).

Is it the oral sex, the anal sex, or something else about the sex that's 'perverted'?

And either way, what exactly is it that's 'perverted' about it?

Is it a question of:

A) What is being done?

B) Who is doing it?

or

C) Why they're doing it?


Is it a question of what it is, or what it looks like?

For that matter, if you're going to claim that it's 'against nature', whose 'nature' is it that counts?

If you don't have any friends who have struggled with this issue, then sure - it's pretty easy to condemn a stranger. If you do know a person (or several) of great faith in God who has/have struggled for years coming to grips with who they are, and who has prayed and prayed for God to take this off of them, then it's not so easy to stand in judgment.

Maybe this really is the way God has made these folks - in which case, can it be a 'sin' to be exactly who God created you to be?Or maybe they've been damaged by this bad old imperfect world we live in. The bigger question (IMHO) is whether we're called to stand in judgment of our fellow sinners, or if we're called to compassion and community wth others whose sins may be different, but are certainly no 'worse' than our own.

It's one thing to have some judgment, quite another to pass your own on the next guy.

Personally, I'm just trying to go through life without too many rocks in my hands. It's too easy - too tempting - to throw them without thinking.

[Altjaeger]

(and Alt - when a word is commonly misused, insisting on its proper use is hardly the same as 'redefining it'...).



There I believe you are wrong. Language is ever changing and meanings reflect time and usage.

For example "gay" had a completely different meaning in 1950 than it does today. Other words and phrases enter our language such as 20 years ago "my bad" would have been meaningless. Today it is understood by most Americans.

Italian, french and spanish are all derived from a common language but time and geographical distance has resulted in complete changes in the languages. Less dramatic is both terminology and spelling between ourselves and England such as check or cheque, trunk or boot of a car or hood and bonnet.

Being fundimentalist and puritanical in language does not make a person correct. :D

[GF.]

There I believe you are wrong.

'Believe' as you will :D ;)

Fact is, the word 'pervert' means 'to corrupt'; consequently, no two people can agree that sex has been 'perverted' unless they agree on what sex is supposed to be in the first place. And whether they generally agree or not, they can't understand each other unless they understand the other's underlying assumptions & definitinos as well. So I find it's always best to at least spell out one's opening position, and when in doubt, I will ask the next guy about his own....



Language is ever changing and meanings reflect time and usage.



Therein lying the problem with 'literal' interpretation of scripture, no? After all, if you had grown up inside The Mob and you were told that someone 'paints houses' for a living, you wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the guy had never owned a paint brush, would you? Just different words saying exactly the same thing, right?


:eek:


And while we're talking about what words mean....(and since Fundamentalist & Puritannical are pretty loaded words in their own right).

JMO..... :D


I will stay on the side of the argument which says there exists some number greater than One of valid definitions/interpretations for virtually every word in every known language; in my own mind, anyway, that keeps me out of the 'fundamentalist' category on pretty much everything. Just because I have always use particular word in a certain way is absolutley no indication that 'mine' is the only valid definition or usage. And to declare otherwise is the height of arrogance and self-centeredness.

[alan]

But you'll have to clarify for me a bit before I can agree that you're not being careless with your language... .
And either way, what exactly is it that's 'perverted' about it?
For that matter, if you're going to claim that it's 'against nature', whose 'nature' is it that counts?

My criteria for this perverted behavior is $ex between anything but male & female human beings. Personally, I use the Bible as a standard and I believe the story of SODOM & Gamora is quite clear about the issue.

[GF.]

OK, we're getting somewhere..... So what about oral/anal sex between straights? What about Plain Old Sex between unmarrieds? What about a man whose 'wife' always says 'yes' out of fear of another beating?

JMO, it has to be a voluntary offering from one equal partner to another... That definitely rules out children, non-human animals, force, coercion and humans whose faculties are temporarily or permanently out of order....

I don't know--is it so simple as 'sin is sin' or are some sins greater than others? Personally, a gay couple who both know what they're getting into and why strikes me as a lot less troublesome than a woman being pressed into the service of a man while under the influence of drugs, alcohol, fear for her own safety, or simply because she is incapable of understanding what she's getting herself into--whether that be because she's just naive or is literally not all there in the first place.... (and the same could be said of a man who is seduced by a craftier, more experienced woman.....).

As before, whether or not I find the behavior distasteful is immaterial - if nobody is being abused, then who am I to judge....?

So long and short, making it as simple as gay vs. straight seems to me a pretty low standard, and I would think that God - having equipped us with the capacity to make finer distinctions than that -would expect us to put a little more thought into it.

Lotta times, I could swear I'm seeing these 'simple & straightforward' answers being used as mighty thin cover by some people whose own actions likely wouldn't stand up to much in the way of scrutiny.....



Hey, look over there!


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: