Christians need to stop using the term "homosexuality"

[Hetta]

Back to the subject, militant sexuality in all of it's forms , kills and destroys and has the same exact issues and brain changes exactly the same as every other form of addiction or perversion . they all are defiling our humanity and God's perfect plan and how he created us to live .

Explain how what someone else does in bed "defiles OUR humanity." What millions of other people are doing right now should have no effect on you - only on them.

 

[Tallguy88]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has undergone a cleanup. Please keep the following rule in mind:

Flaming and Harassment
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
● Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
​

If a post of yours is missing, and you didn't receive a PM about it, it was deleted for quoting or addressing a post that was in violation of the rules.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Inkfingers]

So, are we any closer to a substitute for "homosexuality" or "homosexual"? Personally, I don't think it's necessary but I am curious as to what people come up with.

The only labels needed are "chaste" and "unchaste", as I pointed out wayyyy back in the OP.

 

[tremble]

The only labels needed are "chaste" and "unchaste", as I pointed out wayyyy back in the OP.

But "unchaste" can refer to any kind of sexual morality. What if someone wants to comment specifically on same sex immorality?

 

[Inkfingers]

But "unchaste" can refer to any kind of sexual morality.

Yes, as I set out in my OP.

What if someone wants to comment specifically on same sex immorality?

If in doing so they are ignoring the same immorality in opposite-sex couples (or groups) then they are being hypocritical.

All that matter is whether someone is chaste (sex only in marriage, and only for procreation) or unchaste (everything else), because that is what makes the distinction between idolatry of self or not.

 

[tremble]

Yes, as I set out in my OP.
If in doing so they are ignoring the same immorality in opposite-sex couples (or groups) then they are being hypocritical.

Let's assume that they are not ignoring immorality in opposite-sex couples. They just want to make a distinction between heterosexual sin and homosexual sin like the difference between "adultery" and "fornication".

How would you suggest wording the distinction?

 

[Inkfingers]

Let's assume that they are not ignoring immorality in opposite-sex couples. They just want to make a distinction between heterosexual sin and homosexual sin like the difference between "adultery" and "fornication".

How would you suggest wording the distinction?

Same-sex (act - oral, anal, etc).

 

[tremble]

Same-sex (act - oral, anal, etc).

Ok thanks for clarifying that, inky. Would you be okay with a slight modification to "samesexual" used in the same way that people now use homosexual? I don't think gays would see a problem with that label, though I wonder if they'd also want to start referring to heterosexuals as oppisexuals or differsexuals. lol

 

[Inkfingers]

Ok thanks for clarifying that, inky. Would you be okay with a slight modification to "samesexual" used in the same way that people now use homosexual? I don't think gays would see a problem with that label, though I wonder if they'd also want to start referring to heterosexuals as oppisexuals or differsexuals. lol

As I said, all that really matters is whether someone is chaste or not. Any singling out beyond that is it least in danger of hypocrisy.

 

[dragongunner]

I agree with the bible .. the marital bed is undefiled .
lol D-r you should know me better then that

I was replying to the overall point of the post without trying to hair-split it .
we hair-split a lot on cf .but then the topic branches off into heated mini debates about A PART of what the OP said and the over all point they were making (albeit imperfectly presented) is lost in the mayhem .

however I do think that if a married "CHRISTIAN" couple are living for the lord then sex is not a driving factor in their life .. walking in the spirit is .
And of course we must balance it all with seasons .
there are allowable seasons .. newly weds were exempt on the OT from being called up to war for the first year of marriage for example .
so they could stay home and "please their new wife " .. paraphrased... go at it like rabbits .. makes sense , while younger procreation is more likely ,healthier, safer etc .
then as time goes on such seasons change ,relationships shift from physical to emotional from emotional to intellectual from intellectual to spiritual (said in the context of the arranged marriage of the day )as the two grow in maturity with the lord and with one another .
'I would risk to say .. you know your getting the balance right as a married couple when during very adult intellectual spiritual and physical intimacy your conversing about and to the lord ..
you have moved on to where "sex" is not the drive or motive .
relationship with God - Is.

( apologies I think I have said this very disjointedly .. not a concept I'v spend a lot of time voicing before )

I was hoping you were trying to agree where possible with the post, there was a lot there, and was not sure if you caught that part....thus my question. "sex" should never be the driving force....in the beginning or towards the end. Those who have married only for it have found out to late it was a bad ideal.....thats kinda paraphased from the book "Nate Saint, Jungle Pilot" Nate was murdered during his Christian mission work.

 

[Hetta]

All that matter is whether someone is chaste (sex only in marriage, and only for procreation) or unchaste (everything else), because that is what makes the distinction between idolatry of self or not.

It's silly to say that sex should only be for procreation. There are millions of infertile people and millions more who are passed the age for procreating. There's no reason for any of them to stop having sex.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

So, are we any closer to a substitute for "homosexuality" or "homosexual"? Personally, I don't think it's necessary but I am curious as to what people come up with.

We could go back to some older terms, maybe.
"Uranian/Urning"? "Homogenic love"? "Adhesive love"?

 

[Sunshine Locket]

So, are we any closer to a substitute for "homosexuality" or "homosexual"? Personally, I don't think it's necessary but I am curious as to what people come up with.

Homosexual and homosexuality are apt descriptions. What is not is, "gay".

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Homosexual and homosexuality are apt descriptions. What is not is, "gay".

I always hear people say that, but I don't see why. Why is "gay" not apt?

 

[Sunshine Locket]

I always hear people say that, but I don't see why. Why is "gay" not apt?

How is it apt?
Homo-sexual exactly describes the behavior.

 

[Lollerskates]

I always hear people say that, but I don't see why. Why is "gay" not apt?

I think because gay traditionally meant joyous and happy, with no sexual connotation.

Even the song "I Feel Pretty," today, changes the words "pretty and witty and gay" with "pretty and witty and bright."

 

[Fenny the Fox]

How is it apt?
Homo-sexual exactly describes the behavior.

Sure homosexual does. Hence why it is most often used. I agree. As well as quite aptly describing the orientation as well. Which is why I see no reason to do away with it.


But I fail to see how "gay" - a word that, at least since the mid 1800s, has been most frequently used to imply promiscuity, sexual libertines, prostitutes, etc. - does not aptly describe homosexuals. As well as poking at common perceptions of homosexual men - as being showy and primped, another common and very old implication of the word.

Even as far back as the 1600s it held a similar connotation - if not to homosexuals in particular. Chaucer used the word in a rather risque and sexual sense, speaking of a character being "fresh and gay" in bed (a sexual libertine, very good at sex).

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I think because gay traditionally meant joyous and happy, with no sexual connotation.

Even the song "I Feel Pretty," today, changes the words "pretty and witty and gay" with "pretty and witty and bright."

See above. "Gay" has sexual connotations for centuries.

 

[Lollerskates]

The word of French origin "gai" turned to "gay" has meant "light-hearted, carefree dapper/well dressed, etc" since the 14th century. It became associated with promiscuity, and then same sex relations by the late 19th century. It did not always have sexual connotation etymologically.

 

[Cute Tink]

How is it apt?
Homo-sexual exactly describes the behavior.

As well as attraction.