Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Against Heterosexuality
First Things ^ | March 2014 | Michael W. Hannon

Posted on 03/03/2014 6:30:00 AM PST by sitetest

Alasdair MacIntyre once quipped that “facts, like telescopes and wigs for gentlemen, were a seventeenth-century invention.” Something similar can be said about sexual orientation: Heterosexuals, like typewriters and urinals (also, obviously, for gentlemen), were an invention of the 1860s. Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes. Sexual orientation is a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that. It is a history that began far more recently than most people know, and it is one that will likely end much sooner than most people think.

Over the course of several centuries, the West had progressively abandoned Christianity’s marital architecture for human sexuality. Then, about one hundred and fifty years ago, it began to replace that longstanding teleological tradition with a brand new creation: the absolutist but absurd taxonomy of sexual orientations. Heterosexuality was made to serve as this fanciful framework’s regulating ideal, preserving the social prohibitions against sodomy and other sexual debaucheries without requiring recourse to the procreative nature of human sexuality.

On this novel account, same-sex sex acts were wrong not because they spurn the rational-animal purpose of sex—namely the family—but rather because the desire for these actions allegedly arises from a distasteful psychological disorder. As queer theorist Hanne Blank recounts, “This new concept [of heterosexuality], gussied up in a mangled mix of impressive-sounding dead languages, gave old orthodoxies a new and vibrant lease on life by suggesting, in authoritative tones, that science had effectively pronounced them natural, inevitable, and innate.”

(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: against; catholic; heterosexual; heterosexuality; homosexual; homosexualagenda; moraltheology; sex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last
To: CommerceComet
I think that Paul was referring to the overall intimacy involved in the entire act of human sexuality. It was the spiritual, emotional one-ness that he seems to have in mind.

I think that sounds a little Manichean, arguing against the goodness and intentionality of our being created, male and female, in the image and likeness of God. Specifically as beings who are male-and-female, we express the image of God in our capacity to cooperate in procreating new human life. Jesus Himself specified about marriage that the two become one flesh, not spiritually and emotionally.

St. Paul also said, "Glorify God in your bodies." It's hard to square that with using your spouse up the **** because her natural makeup isn't good enough.

61 posted on 03/03/2014 12:31:21 PM PST by Tax-chick (I've forgotten most of those languages, but I remember the joke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

bkmk


62 posted on 03/03/2014 1:10:46 PM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Or a graduate student in philosophy.


63 posted on 03/03/2014 1:33:55 PM PST by Tax-chick (I've forgotten most of those languages, but I remember the joke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Um, excuse me. But you lifted my words out of context and attempted to change their meaning.

I was saying that I’m not sure that Paul agrees with the Catholic view that all “sodomy” is equal. Paul clearly puts same sex sex acts into a different category than other sins, including other sexual sins. That is indisputable for anyone who reads Scripture. Yet, I do think the author of the original article makes a good point that we shouldn’t simply acquiesce in sociologically-driven constructs such as The Homosexual. I think there is great wisdom.

But Paul certainly does have a category of those people who have been turned over to their depraved mind...and those people are clearly people who perform same sex sex acts.


64 posted on 03/03/2014 3:05:41 PM PST by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Jesus Himself specified about marriage that the two become one flesh, not spiritually and emotionally.

Jesus did say that they become one flesh (quoting Genesis 2:24) AFTER the man leaves his father and mother and is cleaved to his wife. What does it mean to cleave? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly. Notice that it is cleave AND become one flesh. There is a bonding between the husband and wife that replaces the bonding to the parents and of which, sex is one part. That sure seems to be talking about the spiritual and emotional bonding to which you are objecting. When God created Eve for Adam, He wasn't just making a complementary set of genitalia. He was making a helpmate to meet all Adam's earthly needs, not just for procreation.

St. Paul also said, "Glorify God in your bodies."

The same Paul also wrote this in Romans 14:

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

The entire chapter has the theme of allowing each to practice his or her own conscience before the Lord. God's Word is binding on the believer, not someone else's conscience or sensitivities. Unless you have chapter and verse to back up your distaste of these practices, I think that Paul is telling you to mind your own business. I'm not defending those sexual practices but I am saying that only God gets to define sin for others. If you find those practices distasteful and you think they are sinful, then don't do them but your conscience isn't binding on other believers who have different convictions unless you have specific guidance from God's Word.

65 posted on 03/03/2014 4:05:33 PM PST by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

LOL! Ever notice how students start echoing the “voice” of the writers they are reading at the moment? This guy was researching “the English perversion”...


66 posted on 03/03/2014 4:18:22 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet

I think you’re confusing the nature of the act, which we can observe is wrong by natural reason, with the imputation of sin to a person who commits the act. We don’t need “chapter and verse” to see that using a woman as if she were a man or an animal is contrary to our bodies’ design.

Going back to the author’s premise, we can learn certain things from nature, if we truly believe God is the intentional Author of nature. If we start complicating things with too much sociology or psychology, we drift off them simplicity of the fact that some acts are moral and some acts are immoral.


67 posted on 03/04/2014 2:57:59 AM PST by Tax-chick (I've forgotten most of those languages, but I remember the joke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I think you’re confusing the nature of the act, which we can observe is wrong by natural reason, with the imputation of sin to a person who commits the act. We don’t need “chapter and verse” to see that using a woman as if she were a man or an animal is contrary to our bodies’ design.

Is it sin for a husband and wife, legally married to one another, to engage in the sex acts you mentioned in post #45?

Going back to the author’s premise, we can learn certain things from nature, if we truly believe God is the intentional Author of nature. If we start complicating things with too much sociology or psychology, we drift off them simplicity of the fact that some acts are moral and some acts are immoral.

This natural design argument is unnecessary when God's Word clearly speaks and says something is sin, such as homosexuality. Where God' Word doesn't speak, we need to tread lightly in declaring things moral or immoral. Mankind may conclude that some act is wise or unwise based on such things as design of the physical body but to issue a moral judgement and declare something immoral or sinful absent God's Word is presumptuous.

68 posted on 03/04/2014 7:41:51 AM PST by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet

I think we’ve reached an impasse, but that’s okay, life is like that.

Thank you for the discussion!


69 posted on 03/04/2014 7:46:10 AM PST by Tax-chick (I've forgotten most of those languages, but I remember the joke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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