Yet Another "Gay" Thread

[outlaw]

I'm not entirely convinced by this line, I've got to be honest. We don't, I agree, know what Paul meant by arsenokoites but it has an etymology that leads us to a fairly obvious guess. The only reason that we might look for a more sophisticated interpretation is if, for instance, it made absolutely no sense for a loving and wise God to proscribe such activity.

As the debate over homosexuality and the Bible has become more explicit, various attempts have been made to defend the interpretation of arsenokoités as a reference to male-male or homosexual sex in general. A common error made in such attempts is to point to its two parts, arsLn and koitLs, and say that "obviously" the word refers to men who have sex with men. Scholars sometimes support this reading by pointing out that the two words occur together, though not joined, in Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible and in Philo in a context in which he condemns male homosexual sex. Either Paul, it is suggested, or someone before him simply combined the two words together to form a new term for men who have sex with men.

This approach is linguistically invalid. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoités that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Furthermore, the claim that arsenokoités came from a combination of these two words and therefore means "men who have sex with men" makes the additional error of defining a word by its (assumed) etymology. The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning.



Dale B. Martin Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences 1996 Westminster John Knox Press

 

[outlaw]

We are going to have to toss morals also. But its not to hard to explain. First we have the penis, and the vagina. Theses are the only two sexual orgins on the humman body with the express pourpose of procreating.

And what exactly does a uterus do? How about the testicles? The ovaries?

The womans egg must be fertilized by the mans sperm. This is only going to occur in natural means, by sexual intercourse leading to orgasim during intercourse. At this point the female can become pregnate and carry on the species. In this example, even by the TOE , and natural selection gay relations are perverted and fruitless.

By this criteria…sexual relations with a woman who has had a hysterectomy is “perverted” and fruitless"

Two men cannot bear young therfore, if gay relations were continued, the species would have died out. Nature its self did not intend male on male relations uless of course the species is hermaphadotic. But that wouldnt be "gay" since the species has both sex orgins.

You should really educate yourself on natural selection and the variety of reproductive schemes found in nature.



In a significant number of species the majority of males never reproduce. Bees, ants, gorillas, wolves, elephants etc are all examples of species where only a very few males ever pass their genetic material on to the next generation.

Gay relations amoung a group would have been weeded out by natural selection. Not even by natural means dose same sex intercourse make sense.

you have made the strange assumption that sexual orientation is a directly inherited trait. It is not. Stacey and Biblarz have shown that the children of homosexuals are no more and no less likely to grow up to be homosexual than the children of heterosexuals.

Stacey and Biblarz “(How) Does Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, 2001, Vol. 66 (April:159–183) 159



Further there is strong evidence that homosexuality is inherited through the maternal line. Dean Hamer, examining the family trees of gay men, noticed a pattern of inheritance through the maternal side; Hamer found gay men to have more maternal relatives who were gay than paternal relatives.

Dean Hamer et al, "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation" Science 261 (1993-JUL-16): pp 321-27.





A similar situation exists with hemophilia. Until very recently hemophiliacs (all of which are male) did not live to adult hood, their inability of clot blood leading to death in early childhood. Were direct inheritance responsible hemophiliacs would be unknown, weeded out by natural selection tens of thousands of years ago. But hemophilia is carried through the maternal line.

 

[Dirtydeak]

And what exactly does a uterus do? How about the testicles? The ovaries?



By this criteria…sexual relations with a woman who has had a hysterectomy is “perverted” and fruitless"



You should really educate yourself on natural selection and the variety of reproductive schemes found in nature.



In a significant number of species the majority of males never reproduce. Bees, ants, gorillas, wolves, elephants etc are all examples of species where only a very few males ever pass their genetic material on to the next generation.





you have made the strange assumption that sexual orientation is a directly inherited trait. It is not. Stacey and Biblarz have shown that the children of homosexuals are no more and no less likely to grow up to be homosexual than the children of heterosexuals.

Stacey and Biblarz “(How) Does Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, 2001, Vol. 66 (April:159–183) 159



Further there is strong evidence that homosexuality is inherited through the maternal line. Dean Hamer, examining the family trees of gay men, noticed a pattern of inheritance through the maternal side; Hamer found gay men to have more maternal relatives who were gay than paternal relatives.

Dean Hamer et al, "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation" Science 261 (1993-JUL-16): pp 321-27.





A similar situation exists with hemophilia. Until very recently hemophiliacs (all of which are male) did not live to adult hood, their inability of clot blood leading to death in early childhood. Were direct inheritance responsible hemophiliacs would be unknown, weeded out by natural selection tens of thousands of years ago. But hemophilia is carried through the maternal line.

Without all the ducking and dodgeing. What is the intended use of our genitalia?

 

[Dirtydeak]

Deleted:

 

[Athene]

You have got to be kidding,. right? I didnt mean the mag. I ment your point. What were you geting at? I don't mean this to be sarcastic.

Ok, let me break this down for you. I first stated that it homosexual activity between various species of animal has been observed, and then I posted an article confirming this. I was posting in agreement to a previous post who also stated that there are homosexual animals.

 

[outlaw]

No.... it simply is not natural.

If something is unnatural it does not occur in nature….homosexuality occurs in nature…therefore it is natural.

Nor is it normal, nesisary, or a survival behavior.

Being left handed is not “normal” it is not necessary and it is not a survival behavior



A side note…you seem obsessed with reproduction as the definition of survival nature. In reality the survival of a species requires more than just being able to reproduce. The care and upbringing of the young, food acquisition, defense against enemies, and thousands of other things contribute to the survival of a species.

It must be justified by other means.

Like left handedness it really does not need to be justified.

It has no purpose,

As noted there are more things to survival than base reproduction. You cannot claim homosexuality has no purpose unless you can actually show it has no purpose.



Several studies have noted the coloration between homosexuality and ecstatic states. MD Beer, The nature, Causes and Types of Ecstatcy. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 2000

In many non-technological societies homosexuals are their communities religious leaders because of the enhanced ability to enter ecstatic trance states and commune with the spirit world.

and cannot be convayed as natural or justifiable.

If it happens in nature it is natural.

Our sexual orgians have not evolved, or been created in the maner of same sex itnercourse,

Yet they work quite well for such activity.

which leaves us with the reality that same sex intercourse is perverse

Actually no it does not. You wish it to be so but wishes do make things truth.

Also in the light of natural selection what is the puropuse of sex?

Obviously more than just reproduction otherwise humans would not engage in sexual activity other than to reproduce.

To what end is anal or oral sex going to lead. Again the seed wiil be lost. Still there is no point.

Same can be said of masturbation…are you going to try to claim that masturbation is “unnatural” as well?

And also since we know the penis is made for the vigina, how con it not be perverse to be with the same sex?

We don’t know that…again you want desperately to have this be so to prop up your personal prejudice but wishing does not things true.

It is not the proper use of our sexual origans that have evolved into there set pourpse. 'perverse' is other than norm.

You originally claimed to be dispensing with “morality” yet you announce the “moral” use of various body parts.

 

[outlaw]

Without all the ducking and dodgeing. What is the intended use of our genitalia?

Ducking and dodging?







That aside it would seem the primary use of the penis and vagina involve removal of bodily wastes. Just compare the number of children you fathered with how many times you have urinated.

 

[Dirtydeak]

Ok, let me break this down for you. I first stated that it homosexual activity between various species of animal has been observed, and then I posted an article confirming this. I was posting in agreement to a previous post who also stated that there are homosexual animals.

So because it happens with animals it is ok to happen with men, right? I see where your going with this. So mabey we can sniff some butts, and get busy with a leg here and there right? Mabey our females should kill and eat us after mating. This is where we have problems with equating ourselves with animals. We are not animals on the discovery channel. We are hummans, and know better.


Excuse me ....... Im going to go throw poop at the people out side the fence......... Be right back.

 

[TheGMan]

This approach is linguistically invalid. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoités that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Furthermore, the claim that arsenokoités came from a combination of these two words and therefore means "men who have sex with men" makes the additional error of defining a word by its (assumed) etymology. The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning.

Dale B. Martin Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences 1996 Westminster John Knox Press

Really, I'm not arguing that the case from the etymology of the word is conclusive. However, naively, without any further contextual evidence, I don't think it is wrong to interpret the word as 'male homosexual'. Of course, if you do have any contextual evidence to suggest a more sophisticated meaning then let's hear it. Otherwise all the 'liberal' argument seems to be saying is "we can't be sure it means that". Which I agree with but, in the absence of any further evidence, the etymology is the only way we have of making sense of it.

I'd also observe that using examples like "understand" and "chairman" is not a valid argument either. They are examples from English. In Greek, compound words do tend to be the sum of their parts. At least I am having a hard time coming up with any similar examples in Greek.

None of this, of course, directly addresses my original question but it is interesting.

 

[Dirtydeak]

Ducking and dodging?







That aside it would seem the primary use of the penis and vagina involve removal of bodily wastes. Just compare the number of children you fathered with how many times you have urinated.

Whats this? Why do you have to say somthing about my children? I don't have a problem with you or the gay lifstyle. And I am not here to fight. If I am offending you I will back off. I do appolagize.

 

[Helo]

We are going to have to toss morals also. But its not to hard to explain. First we have the penis, and the vagina. Theses are the only two sexual orgins on the humman body with the express pourpose of procreating. The womans egg must be fertilized by the mans sperm. This is only going to occur in natural means, by sexual intercourse leading to orgasim during intercourse. At this point the female can become pregnate and carry on the species. In this example, even by the TOE , and natural selection gay relations are perverted and fruitless. Two men cannot bear young therfore, if gay relations were continued, the species would have died out. Nature its self did not intend male on male relations uless of course the species is hermaphadotic. But that wouldnt be "gay" since the species has both sex orgins. Gay relations amoung a group would have been weeded out by natural selection. Not even by natural means dose same sex intercourse make sense.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in over 450 species of animals including Chinstrap Penguins, Bottlenose Dolphins, and sheep.

This is a list of animals that homosexual behavior has been scientifically observed. Since God allegedly created the animals, why is it ok for them to be gay but not us?

Attempts to break up same-sex couples in the animal world have failed, this should be sending some kind of message


Even if by some leap of logic AND science, it is un-natural, so what? We use and do plenty of things that are un-natural. We stand on two legs, thats un-natural, our boddies were originally designed to walk on four as we evolved from creatures that walked on four legs.

We sit for long periods of time, something our boddies werent designed for. We consume chemicals and preservatives, we use man-made materials, we shoot rockets to the moon. None of these things are natural, so why arent you objecting to them?

 

[TheGMan]

No.... it simply is not natural. Nor is it normal, nesisary, or a survival behavior. It must be justified by other means. It has no purpose, and cannot be convayed as natural or justifiable. Our sexual orgians have not evolved, or been created in the maner of same sex itnercourse, which leaves us with the reality that same sex intercourse is perverse considering the very make up of our sexual orgians. Also in the light of natural selection what is the puropuse of sex? To what end is anal or oral sex going to lead. Again the seed wiil be lost. Still there is no point. And also since we know the penis is made for the vigina, how con it not be perverse to be with the same sex? It is not the proper use of our sexual origans that have evolved into there set pourpse. 'perverse' is other than norm.

Okay, so if I can try again to understand. It is not that homosexual intercourse does not produce children but that the purpose of human sexuality is to produce children and homosexuality subverts that purpose for some other. So even though 'vanilla' sex (I'm a bit prudish and am a bit uncomfortable bandying anatomical terms) doesn't necessarily result in children one is still using human sexuality in the intended fashion.

If I could resort to an analogy - one uses a hammer to hammer in nails. This isn't to say you're always successful. The nail may bend or the surface you're hammering into may be impregnable. However, regardless of the success, you are still using the hammer for its right purpose. But homosexuality is like using the hammer as a paperweight. Not only do no nails get hammered in, you're not even trying. You're misusing the hammer.

Have I understood correctly?

 

[Toboe]

No.... it simply is not natural. Nor is it normal, nesisary, or a survival behavior. It must be justified by other means. It has no purpose, and cannot be convayed as natural or justifiable. Our sexual orgians have not evolved, or been created in the maner of same sex itnercourse, which leaves us with the reality that same sex intercourse is perverse considering the very make up of our sexual orgians. Also in the light of natural selection what is the puropuse of sex? To what end is anal or oral sex going to lead. Again the seed wiil be lost. Still there is no point. And also since we know the penis is made for the vigina, how con it not be perverse to be with the same sex? It is not the proper use of our sexual origans that have evolved into there set pourpse. 'perverse' is other than norm.

And if it also occurs in nature what then do we just say that we shouldn't because we are smarter?

 

[Dirtydeak]

Homosexual behavior has been observed in over 450 species of animals including Chinstrap Penguins, Bottlenose Dolphins, and sheep.

This is a list of animals that homosexual behavior has been scientifically observed. Since God allegedly created the animals, why is it ok for them to be gay but not us?

Attempts to break up same-sex couples in the animal world have failed, this should be sending some kind of message

Granted, and agreeded. In these 450+ observations were the animals physicaly made for same sex intercourse, or were they made in different sexes male and female? Also were the homsexal acts the norm or the exception?

 

[Toboe]

Granted, and agreeded. In these 450+ observations were the animals physicaly made for same sex intercourse, or were they made in different sexes male and female? Also were the homsexal acts the norm or the exception?

In Pygmy Chimpanzee they are wholey bisexual.

[size=-1]SOCIAL BEHAVIOR:
The bonobo has a fission-fusion society, and the subgroups are generally multimale, bisexual groups with matrifocal subunits (Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, 1987). This species has a promiscuous mating system. These communities have ranges that overlap with other groups (Estes, 1991). Males of this species will protect members of the group as well as hunt (Estes, 1991). Males are philopatric while females are the ones who will disperse (Estes, 1991). Most of the grooming bouts and instances of food sharing occur between males and females, which is different from Pan troglodytes where it occurs between males (Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, 1987). Also the female-female relationship is much stronger in this species than it is for Pan troglodytes (Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, 1987).[/size]

 

[Dirtydeak]

Okay, so if I can try again to understand. It is not that homosexual intercourse does not produce children but that the purpose of human sexuality is to produce children and homosexuality subverts that purpose for some other. So even though 'vanilla' sex (I'm a bit prudish and am a bit uncomfortable bandying anatomical terms) doesn't necessarily result in children one is still using human sexuality in the intended fashion.

If I could resort to an analogy - one uses a hammer to hammer in nails. This isn't to say you're always successful. The nail may bend or the surface you're hammering into may be impregnable. However, regardless of the success, you are still using the hammer for its right purpose. But homosexuality is like using the hammer as a paperweight. Not only do no nails get hammered in, you're not even trying. You're misusing the hammer.

Have I understood correctly?

Uhh kind of.... I dont mean any disrespect to anyone, but a man cannot look at another man and think he is made to be a sexual partner. The male body is made for vaginal penatration. You can look at a man a see this. I was bi, and unless you are in compleat denile you know it is a man you are with. There isnt a proper place to egage in intercourse. You can wing it, but the male body was not made for it. However a woman was made to accept intercourse with a man. You cannot claim to not understand this. This is a fundimental reality. So this leads to the question: why were women made to accept male intercourse and not other men? It stands to 100% reason that the woman was made to be with man.

 

[Toboe]

Uhh kind of.... I dont mean any disrespect to anyone, but a man cannot look at another man and think he is made to be a sexual partner. The male body is made for vaginal penatration. You can look at a man a see this. I was bi, and unless you are in compleat denile you know it is a man you are with. There isnt a proper place to egage in intercourse. You can wing it, but the male body was not made for it. However a woman was made to accept intercourse with a man. You cannot claim to not understand this. This is a fundimental reality. So this leads to the question: why were women made to accept male intercourse and not other men? It stands to 100% reason that the woman was made to be with man.

Yeah males and females evolve to have intercourse but can you really aply morlity, I am bi and it really seems pretty far fetched.

 

[Dirtydeak]

Yeah males and females evolve to have intercourse but can you really aply morlity, I am bi and it really seems pretty far fetched.

Im sorry, I don't understand the first scentance in your stament. Help please?

 

[TheGMan]

Uhh kind of.... I dont mean any disrespect to anyone, but a man cannot look at another man and think he is made to be a sexual partner. The male body is made for vaginal penatration. You can look at a man a see this. I was bi, and unless you are in compleat denile you know it is a man you are with. There isnt a proper place to egage in intercourse. You can wing it, but the male body was not made for it. However a woman was made to accept intercourse with a man. You cannot claim to not understand this. This is a fundimental reality. So this leads to the question: why were women made to accept male intercourse and not other men? It stands to 100% reason that the woman was made to be with man.

Okay... I'm still a little unclear on what your position actually is. Yes, I can certainly see that it's... um ... a bit more difficult to know what to do when you have two men. But does that in itself make it wrong? That's the jump I don't understand.

To take another example, my legs, I think it's clear, were made for walking on. They weren't made for kicking footballs. Is football immoral? Naively, by your argument, it would seem so. But I've probably not properly understood it yet.

Sorry for being rather slow here.

 

[Helo]

Granted, and agreeded. In these 450+ observations were the animals physicaly made for same sex intercourse, or were they made in different sexes male and female?

They were of divided sexes, as all animals are.

Also were the homsexal acts the norm or the exception?

If they were the norm, the species wouldnt BE there, this is a pointless question.

Uhh kind of.... I dont mean any disrespect to anyone, but a man cannot look at another man and think he is made to be a sexual partner.

I can let you talk to several men who would disagree.

The male body is made for vaginal penatration.

Who says?

Your whole argument for practicality is meaningless, you cannot prove that people were DESIGNED to have sex with male and female.