How would you deal with this?

[MKJ]

I have to say, I am not sure why calling homosexual behavior sodomy would ever make sense. Sodomy is a particular act which a lot of people having same-sex sex don't engage in, and people having opposite-sex sex do.

 

[rusmeister]

I have to say, I am not sure why calling homosexual behavior sodomy would ever make sense. Sodomy is a particular act which a lot of people having same-sex sex don't engage in, and people having opposite-sex sex do.

Well, as soon as you say "have sex" you have already fallen into the linguistic trap, which has done enormous damage to us over the past century in terms of sexual morality, and led us to the pass we find ourselves in. Coined in 1929, by DH Lawrence (of that great book of moral rectitude, "Lady Chatterly's Lover"), the purpose of the term was to create a term that would express fornication without stigma. Before that time, the marital act was decidedly marital, and the language describing anything else was condemnatory in nature. It is understanding what has been done linguistically which is a great key to helping us begin to recover our language, which has been twisted in the service of sin, and needs to be straightened out insofar as it is possible for us to do so. If you can eliminate "have sex" from your vocabulary, you are making progress. If they can coin words, so can we. We have coined "same-sex attraction", which accurately describes the homosexual state without the very intent in coining the word "homosexual".

We can either repeat what others say and what we have been taught by media, schooling, and even family blindly, without thinking, or we can think about and begin to sanctify our language, to return it to what it ought to be.

 

[MKJ]

Well, as soon as you say "have sex" you have already fallen into the linguistic trap, which has done enormous damage to us over the past century in terms of sexual morality, and led us to the pass we find ourselves in. Coined in 1929, by DH Lawrence (of that great book of moral rectitude, "Lady Chatterly's Lover"), the purpose of the term was to create a term that would express fornication without stigma. Before that time, the marital act was decidedly marital, and the language describing anything else was condemnatory in nature. It is understanding what has been done linguistically which is a great key to helping us begin to recover our language, which has been twisted in the service of sin, and needs to be straightened out insofar as it is possible for us to do so. If you can eliminate "have sex" from your vocabulary, you are making progress. If they can coin words, so can we. We have coined "same-sex attraction", which accurately describes the homosexual state without the very intent in coining the word "homosexual".

We can either repeat what others say and what we have been taught by media, schooling, and even family blindly, without thinking, or we can think about and begin to sanctify our language, to return it to what it ought to be.

I did not like Lady Chatterleys Lover much. I was probably not old enough to get much out of it I suppose - I found it boring.

Anyway, my only point is that the term sodomy is not really all that accurate or useful. Something like 21% of gay men don't even like it, lesbians obviously don't do it, and it is increasingly popular among same-sex couples.

In any case, i cannot see myself switching to the term marital relations, or coitus or whatever, for general use.

 

[rusmeister]

I did not like Lady Chatterleys Lover much. I was probably not old enough to get much out of it I suppose - I found it boring.

Anyway, my only point is that the term sodomy is not really all that accurate or useful. Something like 21% of gay men don't even like it, lesbians obviously don't do it, and it is increasingly popular among same-sex couples.

In any case, i cannot see myself switching to the term marital relations, or coitus or whatever, for general use.

Well, seeing yourself doing something is a matter of seeing the need to do it (or not seeing).
If you had asked me at any time except for the last few months in my sojourn in California, where I had determinedly built a life from scratch for three years, that I would be tearing that life down and moving to Russia, I would have told you that I couldn't see myself doing it. But I ended up doing it, when I saw the need.

I get your point, though I am skeptical of numbers. And there is nothing to argue there.

MY point on DH Lawrence and LCL was that the author's worldview and intent were highly immoral, and at the time of publication the book shocked for being a hitherto taboo treatment of adultery in a sympathetic light and its graphic description of sexual intercourse. There had always been inappropriate contentography, but it was always underground, never openly published as regular literature. At any rate, the language usage enabled the discussion of sexual relations as something divorced from marriage altogether.

 

[Dorothea]

I have to say, I am not sure why calling homosexual behavior sodomy would ever make sense. Sodomy is a particular act which a lot of people having same-sex sex don't engage in, and people having opposite-sex sex do.

According to Fr. Tom, heterosexuals aren't supposed to be doing that or oral sex. Just listened one of his podcasts on homosexuality and such he did some time last year.

 

[Dorothea]

MY point on DH Lawrence and LCL was that the author's worldview and intent were highly immoral, and at the time of publication the book shocked for being a hitherto taboo treatment of adultery in a sympathetic light and its graphic description of sexual intercourse. There had always been inappropriate contentography, but it was always underground, never openly published as regular literature. At any rate, the language usage enabled the discussion of sexual relations as something divorced from marriage altogether.

Years after I saw Bridges of Madison County (liked it very much the first time I saw it in the mid 1990's), I realized it was kinda doing the same thing: sympathetic light on adultery.

 

[MKJ]

According to Fr. Tom, heterosexuals aren't supposed to be doing that or oral sex. Just listened one of his podcasts on homosexuality and such he did some time last year.

No, at least not as an end-state thing, and the term sodomy for homosexual acts kind of obscures that I think.

Years after I saw Bridges of Madison County (liked it very much the first time I saw it in the mid 1990's), I realized it was kinda doing the same thing: sympathetic light on adultery.

I did not see the movie, but the book was awful. Much worse than Lady Chatterley, which was at least well written.

 

[Dorothea]

I did not see the movie, but the book was awful. Much worse than Lady Chatterley, which was at least well written.

I only saw the movie. I remember the ravings of how great the book was at the time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

sodomy is defined as oral or anal sex, or sex between homosexuals. so sodomy is not unique to one orientation. both can and do commit it. or, as Fr Hopko points out, since Dot referenced him before, just because something can fit somewhere, does not mean that is where it belongs.

I think folks want to redefine the term, because they engage in the act, but don't like the negative connotations that surround it. sorta like back in the day, if someone has sex outside of wedlock, a woman was a harlot and a guy was a whoremonger. you can't get away with that nowadays, even though that is the definition of the term

 

[gracefullamb]

.

 

[rusmeister]

Years after I saw Bridges of Madison County (liked it very much the first time I saw it in the mid 1990's), I realized it was kinda doing the same thing: sympathetic light on adultery.

Hi Dot,
I realize there are a million such books, films, etc today. But it was DH Lawrence, and a few others that opened the floodgates there. I'm trying to say how all this got started. Of course, there were many events before and after that, but the term "have sex" comes to us from him, our grandparents swallowed the new expression little realizing What effects it could have, and taught us to speak like this, so that we do not know better, truer ways of speaking.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Quoting you both simply because your posts bring up the topic, this is in no way directed at either of you.

Before this goes down the road it has always gone in the past I have to make a plea to some of you married people, who quite frankly shared way too much information in the past. Don't share, yet again, what you and your spouse are doing in the bedroom, demanding a canon or Church father explaining why that is wrong. Please people, keep in mind there are children that visit this site and they really don't need to know what you are doing in your bedroom nor your justification for it. That none of us are your priest, this really does qualify as a topic you should ask him if it is right or wrong and not us. I also would like to point out the whole world doesn't need to be invited into your bedroom, so please don't invite us in by sharing what you and your spouse do in the bedroom. If you feel need to debate this topic, please keep it general, I beg you!

Thank you for taking my plea into consideration and carry on with the discussion.

forgive me if that was too graphic, I was just trying to define the term properly. that goes for anyone who may have taken offense

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ok Meghan, so you read Lady Chatterly's Lover and Bridges of Madison County...what's next, watched all the Emanuelle movies read the biography of Marilyn Chambers?

I did not see the movie, but the book was awful. Much worse than Lady Chatterley, which was at least well written.

 

[Dorothea]

Quoting you both simply because your posts bring up the topic, this is in no way directed at either of you.

Before this goes down the road it has always gone in the past I have to make a plea to some of you married people, who quite frankly shared way too much information in the past. Don't share, yet again, what you and your spouse are doing in the bedroom, demanding a canon or Church father explaining why that is wrong. Please people, keep in mind there are children that visit this site and they really don't need to know what you are doing in your bedroom nor your justification for it. That none of us are your priest, this really does qualify as a topic you should ask him if it is right or wrong and not us. I also would like to point out the whole world doesn't need to be invited into your bedroom, so please don't invite us in by sharing what you and your spouse do in the bedroom. If you feel need to debate this topic, please keep it general, I beg you!

Thank you for taking my plea into consideration and carry on with the discussion.

Understood, graceful, and I wasn't planning to bring anything up of my private marriage life. Thanks, though, for the reminder.

 

[Dorothea]

Hi Dot,
I realize there are a million such books, films, etc today. But it was DH Lawrence, and a few others that opened the floodgates there. I'm trying to say how all this got started. Of course, there were many events before and after that, but the term "have sex" comes to us from him, our grandparents swallowed the new expression little realizing What effects it could have, and taught us to speak like this, so that we do not know better, truer ways of speaking.

I didn't know that. Thanks for that info, Rus.

 

[gracefullamb]

forgive me if that was too graphic, I was just trying to define the term properly. that goes for anyone who may have taken offense

Nah your good Matt. You didn't offend me. I just remember in the past when the topic came up and some would share the definition, others would then personalize their argument.

Understood, graceful, and I wasn't planning to bring anything up of my private marriage life. Thanks, though, for the reminder.

I didn't think you were, I just felt compelled to put the plea out there before anyone took us down that rabbit hole.

 

[MKJ]

Ok Meghan, so you read Lady Chatterly's Lover and Bridges of Madison County...what's next, watched all the Emanuelle movies read the biography of Marilyn Chambers?

Ha Ha - I have not read any of those things.

Bridges of Madison County, IIRC, is not at all graphic though. Just sentimental and silly.

I saw The Bad Lieutenant though. That was a little shocking.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh good...for a minute there I was picturing my Canadian friend watching movies with trapeze artists, leather masks, whips and chains, with the name "Debbie" in the title! LOL

Ha Ha - I have not read any of those things.

Bridges of Madison County, IIRC, is not at all graphic though. Just sentimental and silly.

I saw The Bad Lieutenant though. That was a little shocking.