12 replies to this topic

[cmotherofpirl]

http://catholiceduca...ity/ho0003.html

[Ice_nine]

interesting read. I think people tend to think "there's just gay and straight (and bi and trans and questioning . . . ) and that's the way things are"

Well, if there weren't any distinctions before, why do we assume these distinctions are "real" and indisputable? *shoulder shrug*



Of course the author doesn't really provide evidence for the historical points and there are some leaps in logic made (widespread homosexuality has led to denigration to women in the Arab world?). I think I'd like to read the Greenberg book mentioned. Hopefully it's a more rigorous examination of history

Edited by Ice_nine, 18 May 2012 - 08:58 PM.

[Norseman82]

Unfortunately, turning it into a religious issue undos the efforts to fight homosexual activity on natural law grounds, which is what needs to be done when debating anti-religious secular types.

[Kia ora]

And regarding male homosexuality --- female homosexuality is not mentioned --- this Bible speaks in such clear and direct language that one does not have to be a religious fundamentalist in order to be influenced by its views. All that is necessary is to consider oneself a serious Jew or Christian.

If one chooses which of the Bible's moral injunctions to take seriously (and the Bible states its prohibition of homosexuality not only as a law, but as a value --- "it is an abomination"), of what moral use is the Bible?

Exactly. I find it troublesome that most Christians pick and choose which of the Bible's moral injunctions to take seriously. I hardly ever find Christians following the Bible in condemning eating shellfish as an abomination (the same word that's used to describe homosexual acts). It's so sad that they don't consider themselves serious Christians.

A final reason for opposition to homosexuality is the homosexual "lifestyle." While it is possible for male homosexuals to live lives of fidelity comparable to those of heterosexual males, it is usually not the case. While the typical lesbian has had fewer than ten "lovers," the typical male homosexual in America has had over 500. In general, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals confront the fact that it is this male homosexual lifestyle, more than the specific homosexual act, that disturbs most people. This is probably why less attention is paid to female homosexuality. When male sexuality is not controlled, the consequences are considerably more destructive than when female sexuality is not controlled. Men rape. Women do not. Men, not women, engage in fetishes. Men are more frequently consumed by their sex drive, and wander from sex partner to sex partner. Men, not women, are sexually sadistic. The indiscriminate sex that characterizes much of male homosexual life represents the antithesis of Judaism's goal of elevating human life from the animal-like to the Godlike.

Today I learned that women don't have sexual fetishes and can't rape. Male gays are super icky and deserve much more disapproval. Lesbians on the other hand are pretty razzle dazzle.

Edited by Kia ora, 19 May 2012 - 12:36 PM.

[Hasan]

Today I learned that women don't have sexual fetishes and can't rape. Male gays are super icky and deserve much more disapproval. Lesbians on the other hand are pretty razzle dazzle.

Not to mention that women cannot be sexual sadists. This individual seems woefully unaware of female sexuality. Does this mean that the author himself is a homosexual? Probably. In fact, almost certainly. But since it's not definitive it's best to just let it go and not through around wild and unfounded accusations.

[Ice_nine]

Today I learned that women don't have sexual fetishes and can't rape. Male gays are super icky and deserve much more disapproval. Lesbians on the other hand are pretty razzle dazzle.

Yeah the ignorance of female sexuality is kind of ironic because, you know, he goes on and on about how terrible it is that men own everything about sexuality and women are only used in the periphery.

Although it is true that diagnosed paraphilias are almost exclusively male (the sharpest gender ratio of any psychiatric disorder I believe) the author of this blog does make a lot of sweeping generalizations. Again though there are some good historical points that I don't think many people consider. For example, if you mention that homosexuality (as it is defined today) is a pretty novel idea (and thus not inherently human) lots of times people will respond "that's cause of the church's sexual repression! No one could be gay cuz they wuld get burnedd"

But for most of history men were screwing pretty much whatever they wanted to and it was nbd. So flaws in his argument aside, I think it's important to have the historical facts therein brought to attention to the population. I think that's what I like about this article. Not the best by far, but it at least asks some new questions that aren't in the current debate.

[CatherineM]

My marriage and sexuality class was full of seminarians. I was the only lay student. When they started talking about how only men deal with lust, I started laughing like it was April's Fool. I was good for the seminarians. They are going to miss me.

[Kia ora]

Again though there are some good historical points that I don't think many people consider. For example, if you mention that homosexuality (as it is defined today) is a pretty novel idea (and thus not inherently human) lots of times people will respond "that's cause of the church's sexual repression! No one could be gay cuz they wuld get burnedd"

But for most of history men were screwing pretty much whatever they wanted to and it was nbd. So flaws in his argument aside, I think it's important to have the historical facts therein brought to attention to the population. I think that's what I like about this article. Not the best by far, but it at least asks some new questions that aren't in the current debate.

The problem with sweeping generalisations is that it leaves out the important details. It makes me think he's being selective with his facts. He says that Judaism pretty much invented marriage as we know it between a man and a woman, but leaves out the fact that the Bible allows female slaves to have sex with. Concubinage was a Biblical institution as was polygamy. He doesn't address this anywhere in his article.

He says that homosexuality is a cause for sexism, and gives an example of ancient Greece. Athens truly was one of the most sexist places to exist, but Sparta was pretty darn egalitarian in its treatment of women at the time, and it had institutionalised pederasty. Islam has historically looked with disapproval upon homosexual acts just as Christianity has done, so according to the author you'd think it'd be an egalitarian religion, but a lot of people criticise it for sexism.

He's missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't have anything to do with heterosexuality or homosexuality. It has to do with men, both gay and straight. The fact that men have thought that they knew best throughout history is the cause for sexism. Tall, short, black, white, gay, straight, bisexual, religious, atheistic, conservative, liberal...seeking to blame sexism on any one of these traits is misguided.

Edited by Kia ora, 19 May 2012 - 07:53 PM.

[TheresaThoma]

My marriage and sexuality class was full of seminarians. I was the only lay student. When they started talking about how only men deal with lust, I started laughing like it was April's Fool. I was good for the seminarians. They are going to miss me.

Maybe they can skype you in or something, just to keep things balanced?

[Ice_nine]

The problem with sweeping generalisations is that it leaves out the important details. It makes me think he's being selective with his facts. He says that Judaism pretty much invented marriage as we know it between a man and a woman, but leaves out the fact that the Bible allows female slaves to have sex with. Concubinage was a Biblical institution as was polygamy. He doesn't address this anywhere in his article.

He says that homosexuality is a cause for sexism, and gives an example of ancient Greece. Athens truly was one of the most sexist places to exist, but Sparta was pretty darn egalitarian in its treatment of women at the time, and it had institutionalised pederasty. Islam has historically looked with disapproval upon homosexual acts just as Christianity has done, so according to the author you'd think it'd be an egalitarian religion, but a lot of people criticise it for sexism.

He's missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't have anything to do with heterosexuality or homosexuality. It has to do with men, both gay and straight. The fact that men have thought that they knew best throughout history is the cause for sexism. Tall, short, black, white, gay, straight, bisexual, religious, atheistic, conservative, liberal...seeking to blame sexism on any one of these traits is misguided.

I fully agree. That Greenberg book he mentioned does seem to be a more through anthropological survey of sexuality and marriage that I hope to check out soon (although it's a few decades old). I do think Prager was being selective and I'd like to examine the whole picture when I get the chance.

[Socrates]

Exactly. I find it troublesome that most Christians pick and choose which of the Bible's moral injunctions to take seriously. I hardly ever find Christians following the Bible in condemning eating shellfish as an abomination (the same word that's used to describe homosexual acts). It's so sad that they don't consider themselves serious Christians.

The Christian Church has always taught that since the coming of Christ, Christians need not follow the ritual and dietary purity law of the Jews, but are still required to follow the moral precepts regarding sexual and other morality.

This is recounted in detail in the New Testament in the Acts of the Apostles, in which the first council of the Church was held by the Apostles to settle the issue of whether Gentile converts to the Christian Faith were required to be circumcised and obey the ritual and dietary laws of Torah (in short, whether Gentile Christians were required to become Jewish), and it was decided that they did not, though they were required to "refrain from immorality") which meant sexual immorality including but not limited to homosexuality. It includes the story of St. Peter receiving a vision in which he is instructed to eat "unclean animals," which are declared to have been made clean.

This distinction between ritual purity aspects of the Jewish Law and the moral law is not something invented by modern-day American Republican Christians in the Bible Belt to justify their hateful bigotry, but is part of the Church's teachings going back to the earliest days of the Church as recorded in Acts (taking place in the years immediately following the death and resurrection of Christ). Homosexual activity is clearly condemned in several of the letters of St. Paul, and is included in the list of moral commands in the Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents which is almost as old as the books of the New Testament.

Contrary to protestant myth, the Bible came from the Church, not the other way around. The books of the New Testament put in written form what was already preached orally by the Christian Church.

While I doubt this post will get any response to you other than further mockery, it is obvious that you have little or no knowledge of the Christian Faith beyond lame-brained talking points on atheist websites, and thus you are in no position to mock or criticize Christian beliefs for inconsistency. If you are really interested in learning about the Christian Faith, there are plenty of Catholic resources on the matter I could direct you to.

[Socrates]

Not to mention that women cannot be sexual sadists. This individual seems woefully unaware of female sexuality. Does this mean that the author himself is a homosexual? Probably. In fact, almost certainly. But since it's not definitive it's best to just let it go and not through around wild and unfounded accusations.

From my limited research, it appears that Dennis Prager was in fact married and divorced three times, and has children and grandchildren.

And trying to dismiss arguments against homosexuality by accusing the author of being homosexual is a cheap and childish form of ad hominem. Besides, if there is absolutely nothing wrong with being homosexual, why the hell should whether or not the author is homosexual matter? Quite frankly, whether or not Dennis Prager is homosexual is completely irrelevant to me with regards to his views on the subject.

And are we to assume, for instance, that everyone who writes strongly against child molesting is a closet pedophile? Or should we infer from your constant bashing of conservatives and Christians that you are a closet conservative Christian?

[Kia ora]

While I doubt this post will get any response to you other than further mockery, it is obvious that you have little or no knowledge of the Christian Faith beyond lame-brained talking points on atheist websites, and thus you are in no position to mock or criticize Christian beliefs for inconsistency. If you are really interested in learning about the Christian Faith, there are plenty of Catholic resources on the matter I could direct you to.

Oh ye of little faith. I know about those things. Normally I wouldn't have taken the approach I have, but Prager is wide open to it:

And regarding male homosexuality --- female homosexuality is not mentioned --- this Bible speaks in such clear and direct language that one does not have to be a religious fundamentalist in order to be influenced by its views. All that is necessary is to consider oneself a serious Jew or Christian.

If one chooses which of the Bible's moral injunctions to take seriously (and the Bible states its prohibition of homosexuality not only as a law, but as a value --- "it is an abomination"), of what moral use is the Bible?

He doesn't mention Christian tradition or the New Testament, since he's not a Christian. He's shackled to his Bible, or rather his literalistic interpretation of it, and it's so sad he can't see it. He's just implied that millions of Christians are not serious Christians because they don't read the Bible like he does.

Edited by Kia ora, 20 May 2012 - 05:18 PM.