Replies

Kissing a navel, or anyplace else, is just hunky-dory. Kissing is kissing: anything that comes to mind that you want to kiss, as long as your spouse is OK with it, fine and dandy. What's objectionable is semen down the throat or up the rectum.

It's not the sort of think I like to write about, but it fully justifies the description of "filthy" or "pollution" in both senses, religious and the physical.

What do you think it is that makes gay men's orifices so microbiologically zooey? I'll clue you in: mixing oral, anal, and penile biota.

I hope I won't have to be more specific than that.

>> What’s objectionable is semen down the throat or up the rectum.

I have not seen any such objection in the Bible. Homosexual contact is clearly forbidden — those activities referenced (including their conclusions, to which you refer) are not clearly forbidden between married couples.

>> What do you think it is that makes gay men’s orifices so microbiologically zooey? I’ll clue you in: mixing oral, anal, and penile biota.

The quantity of partners common in the homosexual lifestyle would come to mind — as well as the fact that such relationships are universally uncommitted (i.e. unmarried). Diseases are not exclusively a homosexual problem, are not exclusively a problem connected with oral or anal sexual activity — and are not exclusively connected to the act of semen deposit (diseases can be contracted without the grand finale).

For instance — the current trend of uncommitted heterosexuality, and the upswing in the quantity of partners in heterosexual lives has caused similar problems among heterosexual men and women. There are some filthy female orifices out there as well.

Inside a married relationship between two people who haven’t been around the block — as was intended Biblically — such extra-curricular activities (with or without semen transfer) simply cannot cause venreal disease.

It is not the acts themselves which are banned, it is the context in which the act can occur which is restricted.

>> I hope I won’t have to be more specific than that.

I have equally tried to remain as coy and tasteful as possible.

Might I add — thank God for Salvation. I might be right, I might be wrong ... but without Salvation, any errors in moral interpretation would have much more severe ramifications.

I try to lead a Godly life. I am sure I have failed in interpretation in MANY areas (possibly including this one, though I remain unconvinced that I have erred) — but it is only with the Salvation of Christ Himself that such interpretations become academic discussions rather than deciders of my fate.