Yet Another "Gay" Thread

Toboe · Dec 24, 2005

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

I agreed to what you were saying. But I ment to say that I doubt that you can imply morality to it.

Dirtydeak · Dec 24, 2005

TheGMan said:
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.

What I am interested in is an extra-Biblical corroboration of the position that homosexuality is immoral.

This is the question in question, right? Without the bible all you have is nature to go on. nature dose not have morals. We humans have the ability to reason in a manner equal to no other hominoid. We arent animals the mate at first urge. We make love. We are ment to be with a partner. As far as morals that is not for me to judge. Nor will I ever. However physicaly, men are not ment for eachother sexualy.

Helo · Dec 24, 2005

Nor will I ever. However physicaly, men are not ment for eachother sexualy.

The only proof of that you have is your own guesswork. There is ZERO scientific evidence to back you up. Just because something happens a certain way, doesnt mean its the ONLY way it can happen.

Dirtydeak · Dec 24, 2005

Helo said:
The only proof of that you have is your own guesswork. There is ZERO scientific evidence to back you up. Just because something happens a certain way, doesnt mean its the ONLY way it can happen.

Thats fine. You then take the stance that the rectem and mouth evoled into male sex orgins? As far as I know, the only being specificly evolved with all the functioning hardware for sex with a male is a woman. So because it can be done dose it make it right? How so?

Dirtydeak · Dec 24, 2005

Also, the rectem is part of your digestive tract, and used to remove soild waste from the body. Nowhere in any field of study is it reconized as a sex orgin. Neither is the mouth. The vagina is. Scientificly speaking of course.

RenegadeOfPhunk · Dec 24, 2005

This is the question in question, right? Without the bible all you have is nature to go on. nature dose not have morals. We humans have the ability to reason in a manner equal to no other hominoid. We arent animals the mate at first urge. We make love. We are ment to be with a partner. As far as morals that is not for me to judge. Nor will I ever. However physicaly, men are not ment for eachother sexualy.

You talk as if nature is a perfect factory line, pumping out clones.
It isn't. Nature adds all kinds of wonderful and wild variety to it's creations.

..and as you correctly state, nature has no inherent 'morals'. So why do you assume nature intends for all people to be hetrosexual, when the clear evidence is telling you that it's perfectly OK for some people to be homosexual?
...the OK bit being verified by the fact that the species survives. As has been clearly pointed out to you, nature does not intend ALL organims to reproduce. The only imperative is that the species survives.

Thats all good. But this is not a thread on TOE, aspeciation, abiogennissis or what have you so I have not gone into great detail, and I might know just a little.

It's good of you to admit you dont' know much on this subject. It makes you wonder why you were so confident in telling the rest of us WHAT natural selection will and will not do.
Do you often make such strong statemnts on subjects you're not well educated on?

And with all due respect...

My point in hand is that no matter what animal is doing it, it is perverted in nature.

No. YOU think it's perverted in 'nature'. There is a difference.
Also:

Tell me please what the function of the penis and vagina are?

Waste disposal and reproduction. If one function is not brought into action, it does not mean the 'organs' are useless. They are dual purpose.
And as has been stated time and time again, it is NOT the imperative of every single organism on this planet to reproduce.
I really hope this sinks in at some point... it's quite important...

You make it sound as if the ones making proper intercourse are weird.

Then you don't understand a word I'm saying.

Since your on TOE, were primates correct?

Unpolitically correct, but biologically - sure, I'd consider it a sensible grouping.

What is the sexual oriantation of the majiority of any primate population?

Hetrosexual of course. Your point being...?

If the majority is having intercourse with women, and only a few with other males. Arent the same sex relations the other than normal?

Yes, of course. But other than 'the norm' or 'minority' doesn't equal 'perverted'.
What's next? Shouting 'Ohh - look at the disgusting left-handed person..'?!

If then they are other than normal, they are perverted in their sexual act.

Perversion has been established in a sexual context by history - not by logically analysing biology.

Helo · Dec 24, 2005

Also, the rectem is part of your digestive tract, and used to remove soild waste from the body. Nowhere in any field of study is it reconized as a sex orgin. Neither is the mouth. The vagina is. Scientificly speaking of course.

Its interesting to note that the penis and vagina serve two-fold purposes of disposing waste AND sex.

Your butt is also home to a large complex of nerve endings and sensitive skin, now why would that be?

Thats fine. You then take the stance that the rectem and mouth evoled into male sex orgins? As far as I know, the only being specificly evolved with all the functioning hardware for sex with a male is a woman. So because it can be done dose it make it right? How so?

Again, supposing its un-natural, why does that make it wrong? We do MANY things that are un-natural and I dont see you crusading against them.

saami · Dec 24, 2005

levi501 said:
because it's gross.

And heterosexual sex isn't gross and messy? And if done well strainghts uses all sorts of the same actions and same ins and outs (except women have an extra one)?

You then take the stance that the rectem and mouth evoled into male sex orgins? As far as I know, the only being specificly evolved with all the functioning hardware for sex with a male is a woman. So because it can be done dose it make it right? How so?

Those who are very much used by male to female sex (m2f) and my husband loves the prostrate massaged inside and out for a much stronger experience. Now do I need my plumbing in order to give him that? No. So if God created him to get and give pleasure in ways other than missionary position for procreation then lets use them.

Dirtydeak · Dec 24, 2005

Ohhh.....(flailing hand in the air) I know this one.....

Well first off, lets see.... Hmmmm... theres the (ooa) and multi-regional evolution theroies. It is also proposed that a comman maternal ancester, some 100,000 yrs ago, left Africa, and traveled north to the mediterranean. I believe the oldest fosil (ardipithecus) is like 4 million years old (suposedly) Anyhow, supossedly in about 2 mill yrs, they Evolved into the first speicies of homos. From the homo habilis all other hominids (including Homo sapiens) Evolved. Specation is the evolutionary formation of a new species by the means of a single species forming into two or more genecticaly different species. There is also genitic drift to consider and any number of other varibles in the making of a species of hominoid. Am I close?

Now that you have utterly humiliated me by putting me in my place, Im off work, and Ill be back for more of your vastly superior intellect midnight tomorrow.

angelosKD · Dec 24, 2005

Dirtydeak said:
Also, the rectem is part of your digestive tract, and used to remove soild waste from the body. Nowhere in any field of study is it reconized as a sex orgin. Neither is the mouth. The vagina is. Scientificly speaking of course.

Which gets rid of waste products every month.

How do I satisfy my gay husband and show him my love for him physically? In amny of the same ways a gay lover would. I even use my mouth and always have - even before I knew he was gay. Check out some good Christian sex books for instructions.

RenegadeOfPhunk · Dec 24, 2005

Well first off, lets see.... Hmmmm... theres the (ooa) and multi-regional evolution theroies. It is also proposed that a comman maternal ancester, some 100,000 yrs ago, left Africa, and traveled north to the mediterranean. I believe the oldest fosil (ardipithecus) is like 4 million years old (suposedly) Anyhow, supossedly in about 2 mill yrs, they Evolved into the first speicies of homos. From the homo habilis all other hominids (including Homo sapiens) Evolved. Specation is the evolutionary formation of a new species by the means of a single species forming into two or more genecticaly different species. There is also genitic drift to consider and any number of other varibles in the making of a species of hominoid. Am I close?

Well, not bad
...if I thought grabbing a few sound-bites and putting them together into a paragraph was impressive I suppose...

Now that you have utterly humiliated me by putting me in my place

Never even crossed my mind. You sound a tad paranoid.
By the way, I suppose you'd think me patronising if I reminded you that the above isn't really an argument?

Im off [to] work,

...is that before or after your going to be throwing your own s**t at passers by?

and Ill be back for more of your vastly superior intellect midnight tomorrow.

Mocking with my 'superior intellect'. Tomorrow. Check.

..ohh wait - it's Christmas Day tomorrow. To be honest, I have better things to do. (Like enjoy my family's company, give out some presents, have a nice meal and pretend that at least a few of us are thinking about the birth of a 2000-year old dead Jew...)

...but I will 'answer any more points' (I'm guessing that's what you meant) in due course.

Have a good one

...btw - working on Christmas Eve? That's a bit rough

TheGMan · Dec 24, 2005

Dirtydeak said:
What I am interested in is an extra-Biblical corroboration of the position that homosexuality is immoral.

This is the question in question, right? Without the bible all you have is nature to go on. nature dose not have morals. We humans have the ability to reason in a manner equal to no other hominoid. We arent animals the mate at first urge. We make love. We are ment to be with a partner. As far as morals that is not for me to judge. Nor will I ever. However physicaly, men are not ment for eachother sexualy.

Well I'm not sure I agree with you here. Human beings certainly have morals even if nature doesn't. Indeed, very often our morals run up against nature. A good case in point is adultery. Certainly adultery seems to be a very natural instinct. It makes good sense from the point of view of propagating my genes to the next generation. However, I realise that it is also a very hurtful thing to someone I love and therefore immoral.

You see, I don't think morality is about what is natural. It is about not doing things that are harmful to ourselves or to others and sometimes this is very much against our natural instincts. Or do you define it differently?

FSTDT · Dec 24, 2005

So, the only explanation provided in this thread that homosexuality is wrong is because they cant have children. Of course, this is ignoring the fact that many gay couples can and do have children, such as through artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, adoption, or previous heterosexual relations.

You know, I'm going to bet that the people who use that kind of reasoning have no problem at all with elderly couples too old to reproduce getting married, or voluntarily childless couples getting married, or infertile couples getting married, or couples where one spouse has had a vescetomy or hysterectomy getting married. You never ever ever see any groups demand that all of those childless marriages be nullified, so it is very doubtful that having children or not is relevant at all to whether homosexuality is wrong.

Of course, DirtyDeak hasnt explained why something being "unnatural" makes it bad. Wearing glasses is, by all rights, unnatural; so is having pacemaker; so is skydiving; so is going to the moon. So, I doubt if being "unnatural" has anything to do with whether homosexuality is wrong at all.

This is the same kind of garbage reasoning that we see over and over and over again, its so bad and awful that it comes to nothing more than a few words in place of saying directly "I just have a plain irrational prejudice against gays".

outlaw · Dec 24, 2005

Dirtydeak said:
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.

Not what anyone saidI realize that your argument is founded on only your desire to justify personal prejudice but that is no reason to misrepresent the posts of others.

Because it happens with animals it is NATURALyou have made the claim multiple times that it is somehow not natural and as such you are wrongdeal with the fact you are wrong and move on.

outlaw · Dec 24, 2005

TheGMan said:
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".

From the earliest English translations of the Bible, arsenokoités has suffered confusing treatment. Wyclif (in 1380) translated it as "thei that don leccherie with men" and until the twentieth century similar translations prevailed, primarily "abusars of them selves with the mankynde" (Tyndale 1534; see also Coverdale 1535, Cranmer 1539, Geneva Bible 1557, KJV 1611, ASV 1901; the Douai-Rheims version of 1582 was a bit clearer: "the liers vvith mankinde"). A curious shift in translation occurred in the mid-twentieth century. Suddenly, the language of psychology and "normalcy" creeps into English versions. Although some still use archaic terms, like "sodomite" OB 1966, NAB 1970, NRSV 1989), several influential versions substitute more modem concepts like "sexual perverts" (RSV 1946, REB 1992) or terms that reflect the nineteenth century's invention of the category of the "homosexual," such as the NIV's (1973) "homosexual offenders."

Between the end of the nineteenth and the middle of the twentieth century, the translation of arsenokoités shifted from being the reference to an action that any man might well perform, regardless of orientation or disorientation, to refer to a "perversion," either an action or a propensity taken to be self-evidently abnormal and diseased. The shift in translation, that is, reflected the invention of the category of "homosexuality" as an abnormal orientation, an invention that occurred in the nineteenth century but gained popular currency only gradually in the twentieth. Furthermore, whereas earlier translations had all taken the term (correctly) to refer to men, the newer translations broadened the reference to include people of either sex who could be diagnosed as suffering from the new modem neurosis of homosexuality. Thorough historical or philological evidence was never adduced to support this shift in translation. The interpretations were prompted not by criteria of historical criticism but by shifts in modem sexual ideology.

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.

The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. The word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. Unfortunately, we have very few uses of arsenokoités and most of those occur in simple lists of sins, mostly in quotations of the biblical lists, thus pro- viding no explanation of the term, no independent usage, and few clues from the context about the term's meaning.

As others have noted, vice lists are sometimes organized into groups of "sins," with sins put together that have something to do with one another. First are listed, say, vices of sex, then those of violence, then others related to economics or injustice. Analyzing the occurrence of arsenokoités in different vice lists, I noticed that it often occurs not where we would expect to find reference to homosexual intercourse that is, along with adultery (moicheia) and prostitution or illicit sex (porneia) but among vices related to economic injustice or exploitation. Though this provides little to go on, I suggest that a careful analysis of the actual context of the use of arsenokoités, free from linguistically specious arguments from etymology or the word's separate parts, indicates that arsenokoités had a more specific meaning in Greco-Roman culture than homosexual penetration in general, a meaning that is now lost to us. It seems to have referred to some kind of economic exploitation.

One of the earliest appearances of the word (here the verb) occurs in Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10 Although the date of this section of the oracle indeed, of the finished oracle itself is uncertain, there is no reason to take the text as dependent on Paul or the New Testament. The oracle provides an independent use of the word. It occurs in a section listing acts of economic injustice and exploitation; in fact, the editors of the English translation here quoted (J. J. Collins) label the section "On Justice"Never accept in your hand a gift which derives from unjust deeds.)Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life.Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.)Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly.

The term occurs in a list of what we might call "economic sins," actions related to economic injustice or exploitation: accepting gifts from unjust sources, extortion, withholding wages, oppressing the poor. "Stealing seeds" probably refers to the hoarding of grain; in the ancient world, the poor often accused the rich of withholding grain from the market as a price-fixing strategy. I would argue that other sins here mentioned that have no necessary economic connotation probably do here. Thus the references to speech and keeping secrets may connote the use of information for unjust gain, like fraud, extortion, or blackmail; and "murder" here may hint at motivations of economic gain, recalling, for example, the murder of Naboth by Jezebel (1 Kings 21). In any case, no other term in the section refers to sex. Indeed, nothing in the context (including what precedes and follows this quotation) suggests that a sexual action in general is being referred to at all. If we take the context as indicating the meaning, we should assume that arsenokoitein here refers to some kind of economic exploitation.

This suggestion is supported by the fact that a list of sexual sins does occur elsewhere in the same oracle, which is where we might expect to find a reference to male-male sex (2.279-82). The author condemns "defiling the flesh by licentiousness," "undoing the girdle of virginity by secret intercourse," abortion, and exposure of infants (the last two often taken to be means of birth control used by people enslaved to sex; such people proved by these deeds that they had sex purely out of lust rather than from the "nobler" motive of procreation). If the prohibition against arsenokoitein was taken to condemn homosexual intercourse in general, one would expect the term to occur here, rather than among the terms condemning unjust exploitation.

A similar case exists in the second-century Acts of John. "John" is condemning the rich men of Ephesus:

You who delight in gold and ivory and jewels, do you see your loved (possessions) when night comes on? And you who give way to soft clothing, and then depart from life, will these things be useful in the place where you are going? And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoités, the thief and all of this band. ...So, men of Ephesus, change your ways; for you know this also, that kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, and warmongers shall go naked from this world and come to eternal misery and torment (section 36; Hennecke-Schneemelcher).

Here also, arsenokoités occurs in a list of sins related to economics and injustice: delighting in wealth, robbery, swindling, thievery. Note also the list of those who prosper by their power over others: kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, warmongers. The emphasis throughout the section is on power, money, and unjust exploitation, not sex.

As was the case in the Sybilline Oracle, "John" does denounce sexual sins elsewhere in the text, and the word arsenokoités is absent (section 35). If this author took arsenokoités to refer generally to homosexual sex or penetration, we would expect him to mention it among the other sexual sins, rather than in the section condemning the rich for economic exploitation. Thus, here also arsenokoités probably refers to some kind of economic exploitation.

Another second-century Christian document offers corroborative, though a bit less obvious, evidence. Theophilus of Antioch, in his treatise addressed To Autolychus, provides a vice list. First come the two sexual sins of adultery and fornication or prostitution. Next come three economic sinners: thief, plunderer, and defrauder (or robber). Sixth is arsenokoités. The next group includes savagery, abusive behavior, wrath, and jealousy or envy, all of which the ancients would recognize as sins of "passion": that is, uncontrolled emotion. Next come instances of pride: boastfulness and conceit or haughtiness. I take the next term, pléktés ("striker") to denote someone who thinks he can go around hitting people as if they were his slaves. Then occurs the term "avaricious," or "greedy." Finally are two phrases related to the family: disobedience to parents and selling one's children. These last three may all have been taken as belonging to the category of greed, surely in the case of selling one's children and also perhaps in the reference to parents, if the particular action is understood as a refusal to support one's parents in their old age.

arsenokoités is separated from the sexual sins by three terms that refer to economic injustice. Would this be the case if it was understood as a condemnation of simple male homosexual intercourse? Furthermore, as Robert Grant notes, Theophilus takes these terms, with the exceptions of phthoneros and hyperoptLs, from vice lists in the Pauline corpus. Therefore, it is notable that Theophilus places arsenokoités in a different position. Grouping it with economic sins, I suggest, reflects his understanding of the social role to which it referred and his rhetorical goal of grouping the vices by category.

Given the scarcity of evidence and the several contexts just analyzed, in which arsenokoités appears to refer to some particular kind of economic exploitation, no one should be allowed to get away with claiming that "of course" the term refers to "men who have sex with other menThe more important question, I think, is why some scholars are certain it refers to simple male-male sex in the face of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps ideology has been more important than philology.

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

outlaw · Dec 24, 2005

Dirtydeak said:
Also, the rectem is part of your digestive tract, and used to remove soild waste from the body.

The penis is part of the urinary systemand used to remove liquid waster from the body

Nowhere in any field of study is it reconized as a sex orgin.

wrong...agian:

A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, narrowly defined, is any of those parts of the body (which are not always bodily organs according to the strict definition) which are involved in sexual reproduction and constitute the reproductive system in an complex organism; namely:

Male: penis (notably the glans penis and foreskin), testicles, scrotum, prostate, seminal vesicles, epididymis, Cowper's glands

Female: vulva (notably the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]), vagina (notably the cervix), labia, uterus, Fallopian tubes, ovaries, Skene's glands, Bartholin's glands.

More generally and popularly, the term sex organ refers to any part of the body involved in erotic pleasure. The larger list would certainly include the anus for either sex, the prepuce, the breasts (especially the nipples) for females, and the nipples for males.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_organs

mylittlelambs · Dec 24, 2005

levi501 said:
because it's gross.

Says who? You? I dont think a lot of men would agree with you when it comes to two women together.

mylittlelambs · Dec 24, 2005

Dirtydeak said:
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.

So should a man who is sterile be denied rights and marriage becuase he is not able to carry on the human race?

Dirtydeak · Dec 24, 2005

Wow it is truely amazing how I have been misunderstood. This has nothing to do with personal bias or morals. Im only tring to state my point from a natural stand point, and not bibical. Give me a moment to read the responses to my threads and I will get back to ya.

Helo · Dec 25, 2005

Dirtydeak said:
Wow it is truely amazing how I have been misunderstood. This has nothing to do with personal bias or morals. Im only tring to state my point from a natural stand point, and not bibical. Give me a moment to read the responses to my threads and I will get back to ya.

Your problem is your claims have been refuted and you wont accept it

Yet Another "Gay" Thread

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Helo

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Helo

Guest

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Caught in the Crosswalk

Active Member

Follower of Jesus of Nazareth

Yahweh

the frugal revolutionary

the frugal revolutionary

the frugal revolutionary

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

Helo

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency