The Actual Problem With Gay Marriages?

[ecco]

Im not. How are peiple having a hard time accepting gay sex is gay sex?

Maybe it has to do with your choice of words.

Such as, it's not unusual for someone who identified as heterosexual to have homosexual sex.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Ten year-olds do not choose to be homosexual, they just are. Just as some people are tall and others are short.

Perhaps you are familiar with the term "bi-curious" as applied to heterosexuals. If you used the term "same-sex" instead of "gay sex" you could make your point without getting so much flack.

 

[ecco]

Any given sex act is a lot more concrete. Two guys having sex are having homosex. They may not really have the slightest interest in homosex, but they're in prison or something and don't have another outlet. It's still homosex, even if neither would even consider homosex under normal circumstances.

See my post # 141 above.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps you are familiar with the term "bi-curious" as applied to heterosexuals. If you used the term "same-sex" instead of "gay sex" you could make your point without getting so much flack.

Is still gay sex. I don't split hairs over defining things for people who have to have their own special labels and terms to try to convince people that what they are or doing is different from how it is defined. And, yes, I am aware of bisexuality and sexual curiosity. Having sex with the same sex regardless is gay sex.

 

[sojourner]

Having sex with the same sex regardless is gay sex.

I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. Having sex with the same sex is "gay" only if the participants are … gay. If they're not gay, it's not "gay sex." You need to tighten your terminology. "Gay" refers to orientation, not acts.

 

[sojourner]

they did in fact have a concept of homosexuality.

Not as an orientation. Not in the same way we understand it. That's why you can't use biblical injunctions to deal with homosexuality in the here and now. The law simply doesn't fit the reality anymore.

 

[columbus]

I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. Having sex with the same sex is "gay" only if the participants are … gay. If they're not gay, it's not "gay sex." You need to tighten your terminology. "Gay" refers to orientation, not acts.

I completely disagree.

Sex between two guys is homosex. Doesn't matter what their orientation is.
I'm a guy. I've had a lot of sex with women. That was heterosex.
Doesn't matter what my orientation is. It was heterosex.

I don't understand why you find this difficult to understand. Individual humans, and their orientation, fall somewhere on a big spectrum. Individual events are pretty clear.
They are two different things.
Tom

 

[sojourner]

I completely disagree.

Sex between two guys is homosex. Doesn't matter what their orientation is.
I'm a guy. I've had a lot of sex with women. That was heterosex.
Doesn't matter what my orientation is. It was heterosex.

I don't understand why you find this difficult to understand. Individual humans, and their orientation, fall somewhere on a big spectrum. Individual events are pretty clear.
They are two different things.
Tom

She didn't say "homosex," she said "gay sex." There's a big difference, and differences matter. Language matters. Especially within this issue, because there's a HUGE amount of grey area, as you allude to here. There are too many terms that are used legalistically that are not tightly defined, and people are suffering because of it.

I don't know why you find this so difficult to understand. Because the spectrum is particularly wide, and acts, identities and relationships matter, we need to be diligent in finding terms that are precise and that honor, not demean people, identities and relationships.

There is a difference in the terms "gay sex" and "homosex." They are not interchangeable. I think what needs to happen is that we need to not try to shove everyone into a one size fits all box. As you allude to here. There is a relationship called "marriage." In this country, it doesn't matter if one or both partners are gay or straight. It doesn't matter whether the partners are same-sex, or both. What matters is the intent of the partners to live within the bounds of marriage which, in this country, is defined as "two committed, consensual adults."

 

[McBell]

Not as an orientation. Not in the same way we understand it. That's why you can't use biblical injunctions to deal with homosexuality in the here and now. The law simply doesn't fit the reality anymore.

I flat out stated in the post you quoted that they did not have the same understanding of the concept as we do.
My point is simply they did have a concept of homosexuality.

 

[sojourner]

I flat out stated in the post you quoted that they did not have the same understanding of the concept as we do.
My point is simply they did have a concept of homosexuality.

Yes. They did. It was a physical act. They had no concept that people had orientations. As you know, attraction and orientation are not the same thing. Not disagreeing with you, just hoping to clarify and tighten up the language.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. Having sex with the same sex is "gay" only if the participants are … gay. If they're not gay, it's not "gay sex." You need to tighten your terminology. "Gay" refers to orientation, not acts.

Two men having sex is gay sex. I'm not saying just "gay," I am attaching a range of behaviors of sexual activities that do include same sex partners, making it what is colloquially known as gay sex.

 

[Galateasdream]

Again, to avoid quibbling over terms that bring in orientation (not to mention gender) why not talk about 'same genital sex' (SGS)?

 

[Galateasdream]

Anyway, whatever people choose to call it, it does seem pretty clear and consistent that the bible, and historical majority Christianity (and Judaism) prohibited SGS absolutely.

Any understanding of orientation (and there was some debate about that in Ancient Greek writings) would have been irrelevant since the act itself, under any willing circumstances, is prohibited and held to be an abomination.

Robert Gagnon really is an expert on the biblical view of homosexual relations (his book 'The Bible and Homosexual Practice' is a core text in the area), and he seems to make a very good case for the absolute biblical prohibition of SGS.

Here's a taste of Gagnon:

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So what exactly is the problem?

Well, there's theories:

-On is to ignore that there is a problem and to be pro-gay marriages. But even if you are for gay marriages, this is still ignoring that something about this God doesn't like. Which means I'll skip to the meat of it:
- Awhile back, the Episcopal church voted to split over gay marriage. They became Anglican and Episcopalian. Then Methodists voted against, but wound up being forced to split anyway. Let's read Genesis, with of course those offensive words like 'man' and 'woman' changed to person.
"For this reason a person shall leave their father and mother and be united to their wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate. " It's not relevant who is the husband and who is the wife (but from previous threads, you'll note that I do not believe in two parties working or two parties raising children, one cannot work in terms of the child, the other fails economically). What is relevant is the attempt to divide the church. God has married the church, united it, and people should not be voting to split.
-There's also the fact that this whole thing smacks of government intervention, specifically a secular system trying to impose Obama era rules on a public who would rather go to church to worship.
-Oh yeah and there's also the classic arguments that it's calling something sinful morally good, or a gateway drug to other odd behavior, or that it ignores the actual meaning of marriage (which is not for couples but for families, though I could contend this last one would be fine if gays could adopt more easily). But Ibthink these are secondary to the two real issues.

I can fix your poll:
The Actual Problem with Homophobia

1. What? Problem? There's no problem here! (Denial)
2. Calling things that are classically evil "good"
3. That it normalizes someone's snowflake sexual insecurities
4. Studies say the homophobes are aroused with homosexual porn
5. "What God has joined together, let humans gripe about."
6. Forgetting the true meaning of marriage, which is raping as many girls as you can and owning the kids like property
7. State Power

 

[sojourner]

Anyway, whatever people choose to call it, it does seem pretty clear and consistent that the bible, and historical majority Christianity (and Judaism) prohibited SGS absolutely.

Any understanding of orientation (and there was some debate about that in Ancient Greek writings) would have been irrelevant since the act itself, under any willing circumstances, is prohibited and held to be an abomination.

Robert Gagnon really is an expert on the biblical view of homosexual relations (his book 'The Bible and Homosexual Practice' is a core text in the area), and he seems to make a very good case for the absolute biblical prohibition of SGS.

Here's a taste of Gagnon:

1) We don't know what form of sex was meant. Was it battle rape? Pederasty? What was it? We just don't know.
2) Due to several factors, not the least of which are the underlying reasons for the injunctions, differences in how homosexuality is understood (and practiced) today, and differences in cultural mores, there's no reason to assume that we should hang on to those injunctions in this time and place.

 

[Galateasdream]

1) We don't know what form of sex was meant. Was it battle rape? Pederasty? What was it? We just don't know.
2) Due to several factors, not the least of which are the underlying reasons for the injunctions, differences in how homosexuality is understood (and practiced) today, and differences in cultural mores, there's no reason to assume that we should hang on to those injunctions in this time and place.

I think (from my limited research, and again I recommend Gagnon) that it referred to all forms of SGS and was not limited to any specific form. Gagnon addresses directly these sorts of issues in his text on the subject.

I think the arguments that Gagnon presents are stronger and more evidenced than, say, the arguments of Vine, or Lee, or Miner & Connoley.

 

[ecco]

Sex between two guys is homosex.
I don't understand why you find this difficult to understand.

As I wrote to another...

Homosexuality is not a choice. Ten year-olds do not choose to be homosexual, they just are. Just as some people are tall and others are short.

Perhaps you are familiar with the term "bi-curious" as applied to heterosexuals. If you used the term "same-sex" instead of "gay sex" you could make your point without getting so much flack.

I don't understand why you find this difficult to understand.

 

[ecco]

Robert Gagnon really is an expert on the biblical view of homosexual relations (his book 'The Bible and Homosexual Practice' is a core text in the area), and he seems to make a very good case for the absolute biblical prohibition of SGS.

Here's a taste of Gagnon:

Why would rational people give a rat's behind about the views of a straight-laced Christian homophobe? He is representative of the mindset of the people who wrote the Bible 5000 years ago and 2000 years ago.

 

[Galateasdream]

Why would rational people give a rat's behind about the views of a straight-laced Christian homophobe? He is representative of the mindset of the people who wrote the Bible 5000 years ago and 2000 years ago.

If they are interested in ascertaining what the biblical authors likely thought on a subject. This is, of course, useful for the disciplines of: history, theology, and religious studies.

One cannot say whether or not they agree or disagree with what someone says unless they actually know what someone says.

 

[Milton Platt]

Is same-sex marriage allowed in India? Let's see...

The following acts cover India's marriage laws:

• Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (Hindi: भारतीय ईसाई विवाह अधिनियम, 1872)
• Special Marriage Act, 1954 (Hindi: विशेष विवाह अधिनियम, 1954)[a]
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Hindi: हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम, 1955)
• Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (Hindi: पारसी विवाह और तलाक अधिनियम, 1936)
• Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (Hindi: आनंद विवाह अधिनियम, 1909)
• Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (Hindi: मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ (शरीयत) आवेदन अधिनियम, 1937)

None of these codified marriage acts explicitly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Neither do these acts explicitly prohibit same-sex unions.[21] However, the laws have "heteronormative underpinnings" and have been interpreted not to recognise same-sex unions.

The state of Goa is the only Indian state to have a unified marriage law. Every citizen is bound to the same law, regardless of their religion.[22] However, Goa's Uniform Civil Code explicitly defines marriage as being between members of the opposite sex.
​

Yeah, it's complicated.

Glad I don't live in India..but it can get just as bizarre here.

 

[ecco]

If they are interested in ascertaining what the biblical authors likely thought on a subject. This is, of course, useful for the disciplines of: history, theology, and religious studies.

Very biased views are not useful for anything.

One cannot say whether or not they agree or disagree with what someone says unless they actually know what someone says.

Sure I can. When I see "Glory to Christ" on a video, I know that I will find the video to be pure nonsense that I will disagree with.