My only *real* point of even going down this line of reasoning is to show that the ethic of sexuality that you have suggested in one which lacks a substantive interaction with the history of human sexuality beyond a wholesale condemnation of it.
Alright. I think I found the source of our disagreement. I think you are talking subjectively, while I am talking objectively.
Obviously, subjective to historical context, a person can be in line with morality even if they commit objectively immoral actions.
For example, slavery. Across the world in our current time, the objective condemnation of slavery is pretty much universal. The simple act of owning another human being as property is seen as immoral. Does this mean that
every single person who ever owned a slave is out of line with morality?? Of course not. Why? Because their actions are subjective to historical context. A person can be subjectively in line with morality even if they commit objectively immoral actions.
When it comes to sexuality, the same concept applies. Am I saying that King David was an immoral man for having sexual relations with more than one woman? Of course not. Why? Because his actions are subjective to historical context. King David can be subjectively in line with morality even though he committed objectively immoral actions.
So I do
not believe that the ethic of sexuality that I have suggested lacks a substantive interaction with the history of human sexuality beyond a wholesale condemnation of it.
In fact, it works a lot like Christ's objective condemnation of divorce.
Matthew 10:2-6
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female....
Does Jesus' condemnation of divorce lack substantive interaction with history? Of course not. Why? Because he addresses that divorce was allowed as a subjective moral standard, "for your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment", but Christ still affirms the standard of divorce as objectively immoral, "but from the beginning of creation".
So does the ethic of sexuality that I have suggested lack a substantive interaction with human history? Of course not. I am not saying that
every single person who committed a disordered act of sexual intercourse are out of line with
subjective morality. However, I
am saying that
every single disordered act of sexual intercourse is out line with
objective morality.
Do you agree that this might sum up the totality of our disagreement?