Christians need to stop using the term "homosexuality"

[Sunshine Locket]

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

No. Gay started to have homosexual connotations in the 1940's.
Gay - Etymology

While the term homosexual is indeed centuries old.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

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.

No. Gay started to have homosexual connotations in the 1940's.
Gay - Etymology

While the term homosexual is indeed centuries old.

I said "sexual connotation", and I said very clearly it did not always mean "homosexual", but that the implication of sexual misconduct,as a whole, has been normalized for centuries - dating back as far as, at least, the 1600s. If not before - see the note on Chaucer I made ( which would put it before 1400 at the least, and I doubt he was the only person using it that way then).

And the article you posted clearly states that the term "homosexual" only was coined in the mid 1800s. Not centuries ago. (Which is accurate, as it was coined by Kertbeny in 1868.)

 

[Sunshine Locket]

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.

That's true.
Remember the Flintstones cartoon series? The theme song to that show includes the lyric, "we'll have a gay old time..." . They weren't talking about being homosexual or homosexual acts there. And that show started sometime in the 50's or 60's.

 

[SaphireOwl]

Yours appears to be a convoluted way of denying Kertbeny was describing same sex people engaging in sexual behavior.

At this point it is irrelevant what the intention was. Either his directly or anyone elses by inference.
What matters is what identifies pro-creation, and homo-sexuality.

Homosexuals do not pro-create.

PC jargon doesn't change biological and physiological facts.

Presumption? I am going by fact here.

The latin for intercourse, in a polite sense, was "coeo (coire)" - from which we get copulate.
(in a crude sense, "futuo" - which looks oddly similar to the english version thereof...)

Etymology of "sex":
Online Etymology Dictionary


And "homosexuality" (as an adjective, along with "homosexualist" as a noun form) was coined officially by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1869 (though he was anonymous in the actual paper, it was revealed later that he wrote the pamphlet). And he had used it prior in a letter.

Yes, he used it in the paper to refer to two people of the same sex having intercourse, but does not actual mean "sex between same-sex people", as you inferred. It simply comes out to "of the same sex (as in, male vs female)" - being equally applicable to orientation OR sexual activity.

 

[SaphireOwl]

That's true.
Remember the Flintstones cartoon series? The theme song to that show includes the lyric, "we'll have a gay old time..." . They weren't talking about being homosexual or homosexual acts there. And that show started sometime in the 50's or 60's.

Good catch!

The Flintstones Theme Song - YouTube

 

[Lollerskates]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L7BQRGXFLJs

 

[NannaNae]

well it appears someone was being a typical anti truth nincompoop ninny ....

so here is a list of info . to study if anyone really wants to figure it out.
because sin does kill. of course cancer in breasts or vagis.. has more than one cause . but if virgin and monogamy increases life of people by 20 % or about 10 years over a non monogamous single woman or single mans average. Shouldnt people have those facts and those statistic before it is too late ?

of course no liberal scientist would ever make such a study or come to a conclusion that God was right all along.. but there is enough studies to dance all around it and figure out God's truths for yourself.
I think it would be smart to inform the population and especially the youth that God knows what he is talking about and man kind is stinking nuts and that nasty isn't going to make you happy, learning to work things out and what love and forgiveness really means really will make you happy and live longer and more content. and that the two do become one flesh. or should that be that the twenty also becomes one flesh too probably.

1.
Why Monogamy Might Be Good for Your Health | Greatist
NOTE " IMMUNE SYSTEM"and pay attention to the words like "Live longer" .

2. lots of good stuff here
Body odor and subconscious human sexual attraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MHC is expressed codominantly, and a more diverse set of MHCs leads to a stronger immune system. Females are thus likely to be more attracted to males with MHC alleles different from their own to provide offsprings a stronger immune system.[11]

3.

Crying Over Spilled sperm | Psychology Today

NOTE
"sperm contains hormones including testosterone, estrogen, prolactin, luteinizing hormone and prostaglandins, and some of these are absorbed through the walls of the vagina and are known to elevate mood." what else does it elevate yes your immune system.

yes you are swapping dna with your mate/ s and hormones and many other substances. your attracted to a mate with an opposite immune system to yours so that you can make the best kids and live a long and happy life together . if you follow his plan as close as possible.

God's ideal build into his creation leads to increased LIFE even if it was only a few years of extra life.. because of other issues which can effected someone health in a very very fallen world. how much would you pay for even a few more years with your grandkids or your mate ..
mankind's ideal never does lead to life or contentment.
but God's plan can.

 

[NannaNae]

Cervical Cancer[bless and do not curse]Risk Factors - Cervical Cancer Health Information - NY Times Health

NOTE

HIGH SEXUAL ACTIVITY
Human papilloma virus (HPV) is the main risk factor for cervical cancer. In adults, the most important risk factor for HPV is sexual activity with an infected person. Women most at risk for cervical cancer are those with a history of multiple sexual partners, sexual intercourse at age 17 years or younger, or both. A woman who has never been sexually active has a very low risk for developing cervical cancer.


Sexual activity with multiple partners increases the likelihood of many other sexually transmitted infections (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis).Studies have found an association between chlamydia and cervical cancer risk, including the possibility that chlamydia may prolong HPV infection.



Anal cancer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE
Sexual activity: Having multiple sex partners due to the increased risk of exposure to the HPV virus.[6][7] Receptive anal intercourse, whether male or female, increases the chances of anal cancer sevenfold due to Human papillomavirus.[7] Those who engage in anal intercourse with multiple partners are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than those who don't.[8]

these people are also swapping dna and other fluids... and science will never put two and two together . because they don't want God to be right.

 

[Armoured]

*eyeroll*

 

[Neogaia777]

What the term "homosexual" is going to become somehow "politically incorrect" now, or prejudgiced or wrong somehow... come on, really, what's next...?

What should we call them then "Heterosexually Challenged"...

Is it wrong to call heterosexuals, heterosexuals then, if not, then why is it wrong to call someone a homosexual...?

God Bless!

 

[Hetta]

Why don't we all stop having sex. Then no more problems.

Of course, no more human race either.

 

[Sunshine Locket]

What the term "homosexual" is going to become somehow "politically incorrect" now, or prejudgiced or wrong somehow... come on, really, what's next...?

What should we call them then "Heterosexually Challenged"...

Is it wrong to call heterosexuals, heterosexuals then, if not, then why is it wrong to call someone a homosexual...?

God Bless!

It's not wrong to call it what it is. Homo-Sexual. Same sex.

I was watching late night TV once a few years ago. David Letterman had Chastity Bono as a guest. She's gay. But Letterman, being old school, was using the term homosexual in the discussion they were having about gay rights.
Just before they went to commercial Chastity tells Letterman that the next undertaking she's going to pursue, when she now denies she was ever a gay rights activist, while history proves different, is to get Letterman to stop using the term homosexual.

It is the gay lobby that is pushing this. Evidently, they don't like the literal identification that describes their same sex behavior and proclivities.

 

[Armoured]

It's not wrong to call it what it is. Homo-Sexual. Same sex.

I was watching late night TV once a few years ago. David Letterman had Chastity Bono as a guest. She's gay. But Letterman, being old school, was using the term homosexual in the discussion they were having about gay rights.
Just before they went to commercial Chastity tells Letterman that the next undertaking she's going to pursue, when she now denies she was ever a gay rights activist, while history proves different, is to get Letterman to stop using the term homosexual.

It is the gay lobby that is pushing this. Evidently, they don't like the literal identification that describes their same sex behavior and proclivities.

Read the OP... he doesn't seem to be pushing this as part of a homosexual "agenda".

 

[Inkfingers]

Read the OP... he doesn't seem to be pushing this as part of a homosexual "agenda".

Indeed.

Quite the contrary.

I'm pointing out that the problem is not "homosexuality", but that rather it is inchastity that is found across both same-sex and opposite-sex attraction and 'relationships'.

The use of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" is utterly misleading.

The issue is whether people are chaste (sex only in marriage and only for procreation) or not.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Indeed.

Quite the contrary.

I'm pointing out that the problem is not "homosexuality", but that rather it is inchastity that is found across both same-sex and opposite-sex attraction and 'relationships'.

The use of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" is utterly misleading.

The issue is whether people are chaste (sex only in marriage and only for procreation) or not.

I think you made a valid point in the OP, that labeling groups as homosexual or heterosexual misses the point entirely, that it actually exacerbates the issue by permitting two rather arbitrary distinctions to exist, and as such permits individuals to identify with one or the other distinctions.

Further, the existence of such arbitrary distinctions (i.e. identities) permits the very thing that has become the hallmark of the "homosexual" debates - discrimination on the basis of how one chooses to identify themselves.

And you are right, the real issue is not identity, but chastity - or more generally, behavior.

Consequently, those who seek to justify their behavior rather than change it (regardless the reason), do so on the basis of identity, that that is "who I am," denying both God's word against the behavior (even to the point of asserting God approves of it), and any assertion that it is abnormal (because no identity can be "abnormal").

Homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are both behaviors, nothing more.

But I would be careful characterizing the issue strictly on the basis of chastity alone, as in your last sentence - for that argument has come up in the homosexulity debates as well (which you touch on in a preceding sentence) - the argument being that one's identity as "homosexual" doesn't necessarily demand they engage in homosexual behavior, "homosexual" is their identity, that they can be chaste and be "homosexual" too.

So I agree. I thought your OP was salient and thoughtful, and made a valid point. Thanks.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Why don't we all stop having sex. Then no more problems.

Of course, no more human race either.

Well, if the is out of some concern for the continuation or propagation of the human race, rather than all of us cease having sex, we could just as well all engage in homosexual sex and end up in the same predicament.

If then the IS out of such concern, then isn't the in fact a call for us to limit our sexual behavior to strictly heterosexual sex?

...in which case I'm all

 

[FaithOfSaints]

I'm surprised that most Christians take the "scientific materialism" view of sexuality. Has society brainwashed people so much?

People have pseudo Christian laws around sex, but they don't have a spiritual understanding of it. If they did, they would realise that it is a creative act which influences their life. It's not just for the production of babies, but for edification, creation and the sharing of information.

 

[Cute Tink]

Well, if the is out of some concern for the continuation or propagation of the human race, rather than all of us cease having sex, we could just as well all engage in homosexual sex and end up in the same predicament.

If then the IS out of such concern, then isn't the in fact a call for us to limit our sexual behavior to strictly heterosexual sex?

...in which case I'm all

Rest assured that the idea of everyone becoming homosexual is completely absurd

 

[MWood]

Back in the old days they were called queers and dikes.
If you don't like the term homosexual, I guess we could revert back to the old days.
Either way it turns out to be the same thing regardless of the name that is applied.
And regardless of the name the act is still an abomination to God.
So call it what you want, it still ain't right.

 

[concretecamper]

Indeed.

Quite the contrary.

I'm pointing out that the problem is not "homosexuality", but that rather it is inchastity that is found across both same-sex and opposite-sex attraction and 'relationships'.

The use of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" is utterly misleading.

The issue is whether people are chaste (sex only in marriage and only for procreation) or not.

Amen!

When sex is exclusively for pleasure, the gender of the participants is meaningless.