Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hemingway's Ghost; Tax-chick
And anything heteros do is by definition normal, natural and healthy?

Doesn't this rather undercut the message that we don't have anything against what homosexuals are, but simply what they do?

What we're against isn't gender-conflicted Johnny. Bless him, he's a precious creature of God who is in some ways disordered (aren't we all.) What we're against is sodomy.

55 posted on 01/28/2008 7:47:30 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Just for the record.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o

What I noticed was the impression - which I’m not attributing to any FReeper - that normal sexual relations between a man and a woman aren’t “erotic.” The behavior of those who can’t have normal relations is “erotic” to them.


57 posted on 01/28/2008 8:00:10 AM PST by Tax-chick ("Gently alluding to the indisputably obvious is not gloating." ~Richard John Neuhaus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs. Don-o

>> And anything heteros do is by definition normal, natural and healthy?

Within the confines of marriage — to each his own. “Healthy” can be a loaded word when used in the psychological context ... but certain activities are simply not forbidden between loving married hetrosexual couples.

>> Doesn’t this rather undercut the message that we don’t have anything against what homosexuals are, but simply what they do?

I have always taken this as a disagreement with the unnatural act of homosexuality (that of undertaking particular activities with a person of the same gender that one should undertake only within the confines of marriage with a person of the opposite gender) — not a disagreement with the particular sexual activities themselves.

It is the homosexuality which is forbidden ... not oral sex (for instance).

>> What we’re against isn’t gender-conflicted Johnny. Bless him, he’s a precious creature of God who is in some ways disordered (aren’t we all.)

True.

>> What we’re against is sodomy.

We’re against the removal of certain sacred acts from the confines of marriage. Homosexuality, in this case, is no different from fornication — the fact that all sexual contact (oral, anal, manual and otherwise) is banned between unmarried couples does not mean that such activity is banned between married couples. And, the fact that the same activities are off-limits for unmarried homosexual couples does not mean that the same activities are not sanctioned within the confines of marriage.

I’ve not seen Biblical texts which forbid oral, anal or manual sexual gratification between married couples ... and certain verses in the Song of Solomon certainly seem to encourage the full enjoyment of sexual activities between married couples.

H


67 posted on 01/28/2008 9:30:15 AM PST by SnakeDoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson