posted
I am curious about something; is it possible that sodomy was declared a "sin" in the bible for health reasons?
It is commonly beleived that certain rules in the Bible are for health reasons. Perhaps, because sexually transmitted diseases are spread more often by anal intercourse than by vaginal, sodomy was deemed sinful to preserve the health of the people?
It is just a hypothesis, but it may explain the passages. Of course, these days this wouldn't be a problem because of better contraception, etc.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, I thought I should inform you that you are very good at putting disdain in everything you type. You might consider trying a little harder to be courteous. Just a suggestion.
Oh, and I did say that I classify oral and anal sex as sexual behaviors.
quote: Hospitality. Giving a warm reception to strangers harks back to the culture of the desert. Developed over centuries, where the desert environment bound traveling nomads to depend on the graciousness and generosity of others, hospitality enabled inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula to survive thirst, hunger and sudden raids/attacks. Many Middle Eastern peoples continue this custom of showing courtesy and consideration to strangers. Demonstrating friendliness, generosity and hospitableness become expressions of personal honor, even sacred duties.
quote: "Southern hospitality" is deeply imbedded in the local culture of the southwestern United States where I grew up. This informal "code" of hospitality helped otherwise fiercely independent people get along with each other. There may be some similar factors in the background of the hospitality customs of the ancient Middle East. However, the biblical customs concerning how a person should treat travelers and temporary residents were much different. They were more than simply ways to be polite or friendly, and went beyond entertaining guests. Hospitality customs were a vital part of the culture of the ancient world. The people followed these customs as formal, even sacred, codes of conduct....
posted
Jacare: as always, our own debate on this boils down to whether one believes that homosexuals can be a valuable part of a community. I believe that they can. They can bond together, raise children (whether their own or adopted), and serve the community as upstanding and involved citizens.
Would a committed gay couple erode the community they were in? If not, why not let them join? If so, is it the fault of the gay couple's existence or the community's shortsightedness?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, Trevor, I get annoyed when this happens:
Me: "Blah blah." Person A: "Did you just say Blah Blah?" Me: "Yes." Person A: "Okay just checking." Person B: "Did you REALLY say "BLAH BLAH"??? Me: "You know, if you keep repeating it, it'll make people think it's really dumb."
It happens alot around here, with people popping in and questioning the same thing over and over with more and more disdain. I'll answer the same question fifty times as long as you're nice about it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am curious, honesly curious, about one thing. Is it the act that is immoral or the fact that it's two people of the same sex doing it? What if a married couple has anal sex or engage in prostate massage or some such? Would that also be immoral for LDS? And whose business would THAT be, exactly?
*Very* good question. I think that for awhile the church spoke out against oral sex, I think because it so often degenerated into a man demanding his wife to do things that gave him pleasure and her none, but the church has pretty much backed off on that completely and said something to the effect of, "You two decide what you are comfortable with. As long as no one is being degraded or hurt, follow what feels right to you."
So my answer is that those things are OK in marriage according to LDS official doctrine *as long as* both are comfortable with it and no one is being forced to do something they find degrading. The idea is that sex between husband and wife is to be enjoyed. And when you are only having sex with one person, sometimes it is nice to experiment a little. But one should never hold the other "captive" to their own selfishness.
So yeah, the issue is about same-gender just as it is an issue between two people not married. (And homosexual marriage will not be accepted by the LDS church for reasons I have already stated.)
I have not read far enough yet to know if anyone else has answered this. I am curious to read other responses.
posted
Sorry, HRE, I guess this thread really got out of control. I think your essay will be well received.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an odd view of family then. I don't just see it as the nuclear family, kids, a man and a woman... I sometimes consider close tight friends as family...
But... Somehow, we've got to break out of the mode of typical gayness arguments... Drives me up a tree..
*Horrified by that biblical story*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly the number of nuclear families is declining. I personally feel it is a loss and am sad about it.
Those who did not have a positive family experience or did not experience a nuclear family at all, may have no emotional attachment to the traditional arrangements. They may not mind seeing it fading away.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I sometimes consider close tight friends as family...
To me, one of the big differences is that you choose your friends.
I can tell you that there are members of my family that I would have never chosen to be friends with. But it is a good thing sometimes to be forced to deal with people like that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
(Actually, my coworkers tend to be really nice people, so I guess I'm lucky on that front. But I've heard plenty of horror stories.)
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the same thing. With family, dealing with them also involves trying to like and love them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
HRE, I don't think your personal experience with Southern Hospitality adds to the otherwise relatively impartial tone of your piece.
LDS leaders have left the line at "unnatural uses". It is not "whatever works for you individually." They don't get specific, though.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Justa, I thought I should inform you that you are very good at putting disdain in everything you type. You might consider trying a little harder to be courteous. Just a suggestion.
Oh, and I did say that I classify oral and anal sex as sexual behaviors.
I guess I should inform you that you are completely incorrect about what you believe you are perceiving. I don't disdain you for believing that. I don't have to. You aren't correct in any sense but your own mind, and that's what counts for you.
I do happen to find your view heaping with closed-mindedness, though. I also find your attempts to attribute emotion that isn't present in my posts a little annoying. So, there's a little annoyance and the image of closed-mindedness of your view, but other than that, you're jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jutsa, you do disdain the believer's beliefs. It comes through in your writing.
quote: I do happen to find your view heaping with closed-mindedness, though.
Case and point.
Though I imagine your problem in this specific case is that PSI is using a very restricted definition of a word that you feel is her personal lexicon. People all have their own lexicons. Some are more far off from the dictionary than others, but we all have our own personal take on certain words.
I would say that if she used the phrase "sexual intercourse" instead of "sex", I would agree. It is what the dictionary says.
Main Entry: 1sex Pronunciation: 'seks Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus 1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females 3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 4 : GENITALIA
Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis
posted
Justa, I don't have to defend myself. Your post argues against you.
Oh, and to be honest, I had never seen the dictionary definition of "sex" before. See what happens when you actually contradict a point instead of just grousing about how wrong it is? Amazing!
quote: Jacare: as always, our own debate on this boils down to whether one believes that homosexuals can be a valuable part of a community. I believe that they can. They can bond together, raise children (whether their own or adopted), and serve the community as upstanding and involved citizens.
Would a committed gay couple erode the community they were in? If not, why not let them join? If so, is it the fault of the gay couple's existence or the community's shortsightedness
I don't think that homosexuals can't be a valuable part of the community. Everyone I know (including, obviously, myself) does things which I don't think are right. These things erode the community or the family or the individual. However, of course people who do these things can be and generally are good people who are productive and an asset in their community.
Here is the problem as I see it: in general humans can only have a single community which holds their highest loyalty, though all of us belong to several different communities. If we choose the United States as an example, we can see that while there have been all manner of different communities, one of the important factors which pretty much all of these communities held in common was the view of the family (father, mother and children) as the fundamental unit of society. The nuclear family was the ideal and the rules of acceptable behavior reflected this. Obviously during this time there were adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals etc., but the wider community can accept their existence as long as A) they are a minority and B) Their behavior is carries a stigma and is recognized as "wrong" by the community.
What happens if the stigma is removed or if their behavior becomes mainstream? in such a case the community which allows such to happen is no longer built upon the premise of the nuclear family as the basic building block of society and the values, acceptable behaviors and other factors which define the community must change to reflect that.
This, then, is what people who support gay marriage are asking for: not merely some minor change which will affect the rest of us not at all, but a major paradigm shift which will change the fabric of our community.
To be fair, the change is already well on its way for reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Things like simple and effective contraception, no-fault divorce and other historical factors have already changed the societal dynamic such that things such as unmarried couples living together are commonplace and divorce for any reason or no reason at all occurs all of the time. Adding state-supported gay marriage is one more step along this same road. I happen to think that these changes in society will only have a negative effect because I still believe that the family is and must be the fundamental unit of society. However, as long as the commuinty which holds my highest allegiance continues to hold this ideal, the direct effect of these societal changes will be mitigated for myself and my family.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"one of the important factors which pretty much all of these communities held in common was the view of the family (father, mother and children) as the fundamental unit of society. The nuclear family was the ideal and the rules of acceptable behavior reflected this"
How do you feel about the extended family? Is this also unamerican?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are people telling me what I believe? That is rather silly, if you ask me. Do I tell you what you believe, beverly?
quote:I would say that if she used the phrase "sexual intercourse" instead of "sex", I would agree. It is what the dictionary says.
You mean if she used sexual intercourse instead of sex, then it would mean something different according to the dictionary? Quote from dictionary.com definition of sex: 1. a. The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions. b. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.
2. Females or males considered as a group.
3. The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and psychological differences that distinguish the female and the male. See Usage Note at gender.
4. The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.
Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.
So, are you saying that the dictionary is always right, or that the dictionary you want to use is always right? Neither you nor PSI have the right to dictate to others what to believe and what to not believe. If you want to use your own criteria to judge as you wish, you have every right to do so. However, just because someone who does not believe the same as you feels you are being closed-minded about it because they do not adhere to your criteria for believing in something, they do not automatically have disdain.
Please stop assuming my motives for me. It stinks of a persecution complex.
[ August 04, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and to be honest, I had never seen the dictionary definition of "sex" before. See what happens when you actually contradict a point instead of just grousing about how wrong it is? Amazing!
*looks at previous post, with dictionary.com definitions linked and listed*
Indeed.
Since you are obviously using sarcasm, can I automatically assume you are now being a disdainful jerk too?
[ August 04, 2004, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, you should judge me by the standard that you judge yourself, since I essentially repeated what you did.
It's quite possible that you didn't mean to sound superior. But you should be more concerned with the fact that a lot of people perceive you that way, so it's likely that it's coming across in your writing. Instead of getting upset with other people about that, you could consider that any useful ideas you may want to share are getting looked over because of the tone you use to express them.
The most important thing here is that you came in during an amazingly civil discussion about a generally inflammatory topic, which doesn't really need snarkiness to ignite, and yet that seemed to be your goal...and WHY? To make a comment about how I define sex? What difference does it make? Do you honestly think that my definition of sex affects the outcome of this debate one whit? If you'll notice, I used sex to refer to anal and oral sex in this discussion because we are speaking a common language and need to have common ideas about which words mean what. I understand that. I don't refuse to use the word sex, in a social setting, in the same manner that the other participants do to enhance clarity. Therefore, my personal definition does not come into play here, and I only gave it because I was asked.
And if you honestly think I'm being a jerk, remember: I was kind until you treated my personal views with contempt. But as soon as you do that, it's on.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jutsa, I'm judging things as they appear to me, that is true. It is based what I have observed. There are plenty of "non-believers" here, some more respectful than others. From what I have seen, your posts have been *less* respectful. Perhaps that is just the way you are and sound and you hold no more disdain than anyone else. I don't know what goes on in your head, I only hear what you say. And from what you say, it appears that you hold disdain for believers.
As for your response to my post about definitions, you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I was saying. I wasn't looking for a definition that said any specific thing. I was curious about what a dictionary said about sex. I went to the one I use most often. I saw that there was another definition for sexual intercourse. I checked it out. I thought it was interesting that the definition *in that dictionary* had a definition of "sexual intercourse" that matched PSI's definition of "sex". I thought it was pertinent and so I shared it.
The fact that another dictionary says something else just goes to show that definitions are not fixed entities. It is OK for people to have slightly differing definitions of words. And you were mocking her definition of "sex". (It seemed like mocking to me, anyway. And mocking, BTW shows disdain.) I thought what you said was disrespectful.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you honestly think I'm being a jerk, remember: I was kind until you treated my personal views with contempt. But as soon as you do that, it's on.
I don't think you are getting it, PSI. I wasn't assuming you were being a jerk. I was applying your own defensive attribution of motive to what you said. I don't think you're a jerk, and I don't think you're really trying to be a jerk. I think that right now you are being overly defensive because you are assuming I am being a jerk. So nothing I say will be taken otherwise by you, because you've already assumed intent without simply asking first.
It can be "on" if you like, but only on your side. I'm not looking for a fight, and I'm not trying to fight, but I will defend what I said and the motives for saying them.
If all I'm going to get for having an opinion and disagreeing with you is attacked and called names, then I will just not try to discuss disagreements with you. It's not like I have to sit and take baseless accusations about my character and motive just because you don't like some word choice of mine. If that were the case around here, every thread would either be a constant tip-toeing around subjects or turn into a contest of who can be most offended by what the other person says.
So you win the offense contest. I don't care. I already pointed out above how the dictionary does happen to point out "sex" the act as meaning the same thing as "sexual intercourse," which even beverly's dictionary definition does not relegate to just vaginal penetration. You can continue to be offended at me if you wish, I can't change that.
The fact of the matter is that sex, when referring to the act, is sexual intercourse, which is not exclusive to vaginal penetration by a penis. So, in the end, you are believing what you want to believe on your own criteria, not the socially and medically accepted view of it is. That is why I feel you are being closed-minded about it.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jutsa, I'm judging things as they appear to me, that is true. It is based what I have observed. There are plenty of "non-believers" here, some more respectful than others. From what I have seen, your posts have been *less* respectful. Perhaps that is just the way you are and sound and you hold no more disdain than anyone else. I don't know what goes on in your head, I only hear what you say. And from what you say, it appears that you hold disdain for believers.
Are you judging from this thread, or from all of my posts? You see, the accusation of disdain came long before I made any mention of any belief in anything in this thread. In another thread, discussing a few things with IanO, he never came back at what I said as being disdainful, and I even made it a point that my purpose isn't to argue faith. So, your claims are coming from a very selective pool of my posts.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to assume that people don't read every thread, Justa. In any conversation, people are only committed to knowing what you have said in that particular topic.
Of course, over time people do tend to get to know your posting style, but many people post only in the topic that interests them, and don't see how you act in other threads.
And the very first comment you made, at least to me was:
quote: So, giving oral pleasure does not count as premarital sex? Anal penetration doesn't count as having premarital sex? Amazing.
Now, the "amazing" at the end can only mean one of two things. Either you were amazed in an interested way, or amazed in a sarcastic way. If you were truly interested, you could have made that known by asking more questions. But since you left it as succinct as possible (a good indicator of sarcasm) one is left to derive the meaning that seems most likely.
posted
Jutsa, I have paid attention to you, I am aware of many of your posts outside this thread. The tone of your posts towards religious beliefs that you disagree with seems pretty consistent from what I have seen. But I can't speak for the posts that I haven't seen.
I have a question for you. Do you think PSI is "closeminded" only based on her definition of "sex"? (I can't imagine why though.) Or does it include other things as well? What is *your* judgement based on?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, the "amazing" at the end can only mean one of two things. Either you were amazed in an interested way, or amazed in a sarcastic way. If you were truly interested, you could have made that known by asking more questions. But since you left it as succinct as possible (a good indicator of sarcasm) one is left to derive the meaning that seems most likely.
Thanks for assuming the worst. I left it short because I didn't want to lead your answer by wanting any dinstinctions but your own. You are the one who began by assuming the worst.
Beverly:
quote:I have a question for you. Do you think PSI is "closeminded" only based on her definition of "sex"? (I can't imagine why though.) Or does it include other things as well? What is *your* judgement based on?
Since I only think she's being closed-minded on the issue of what sex is, it is clearly only from her answer to the definition of sex. Have I not shown how her definition does not fit the wider definition, which places her own personal definition as one of exclusive circumstances? That pretty well sums up being closed on the issue, as far as I can tell.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gee, Justa, when did I say that I wasn't open to learning more about what sex is? As a matter of fact, I admitted that I had never read the definition of "sex" in the dictionary. How is that closed?
Of course, by the definitions given above, you also had sex the last time you made out, or the last time a dog humped your leg.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gently said that I didn't hold the same definition of "sex" that she does. But I by no means think she is closeminded because of her definition. Do you think the Merriam Webster Online dictionary is "closeminded" because it's definition of "sexual intercourse" includes *only* penetration of the vagina by the penis?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on, guys, this is getting ridiculus. All I wanted was to clarify what PSI meant, since she was using the word in a more restricted way than I (and most of the people I usually converse with) do. I was trying to avoid misunderstanding.
Instead, we've got an irrelevant argument going on about who's insulted whom and why. What does this have to do with anything, really? The intended meanings have been established - can we please move on? This was a really interesting discussion before all of this bickering came into it. I, for one, still hold out hope that it can continue to be an intersting discussion.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be inappropriate for me to shut this conversation down by invoking Godwins Law, just to stop the bickering? Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, if you want to continue to feel insulted, go ahead and do so without me bickering about my own motives, which I maintain I know better than you.
Beverly:
quote:Do you think the Merriam Webster Online dictionary is "closeminded" because it's definition of "sexual intercourse" includes *only* penetration of the vagina by the penis?
If the Merriam Webster Online version of sexual intercourse is what you quoted above, perhaps you should read all of the definitions given carefully again.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would define sex as at least including anything that would be safer if conducted wearing a condom. (And I'm not counting the things dentists can wear on their fingers. CT once referred to them as finger condoms, but I've always heard them called finger cots.)
I mean, if we aren't counting non vaginal sex then how do homosexuals have sex?
P.S. Godwins law is to throw in the word "nazi" on one side or the other.
posted
I believe that one of the corollaries to Godwin's Law is that invoking Hitler and/or Nazis with the specific intention of ending a thread does not invoke Godwin's Law.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh! Okay, I've heard of that, just didn't know the name.
Thanks!
(Thanks, PSI - I hope that didn't sound too brash - I'm just getting frustrated with the severe decline in actual discussion - arguments seem to be such a waste of time, you know?)
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe you ought tos think about whether or not there might be a reason why you are being dopiled? It certainly doesn't happen to everybody who expresses an unpopular opinion.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be a shame if you were to do so, Justa. If you decide to stay, it's fairly likely that your posting style will eventually evolve into something that people find more palatable (note that I'm not saying anything at all about your opinions changing--just the manner in which you present them). There are a number of well respected members of the community who have started out being much more abrasive than you have, and have generally tempered their style until it works well for this site.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My opinion isn't unpopular! The dictionary definitions comply with what I said about her exclusivity of opinion!
Guys, forget it. Just count me out of the discussion. Forget I ever posted in it. I'm not mad, but if the constant annoying "it's your problem" method is going to be applied here, then it's obvious nothing I have to say is going to be taken seriously in any way, and would just be exacerbating already wounded pride in others. So I'm respectfully bowing out of this discussion.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
