As homosexual "sex" is clearly not sex in the penile-vaginal penetration / procreation notion of the term, should we call it something else?
Just as in the homosexual marriage arguments, their union is considered by some to not meet the definition of "marriage" and thus would need to be called something else.
So, question #2, if we call it something else, would it still be sinful for being an unnatural form of "sex". Clearly not, as it is not "sex".
Similarly, merely kissing and hugging and caressing (not sex) do not lead to procreation. Since we don't call these things "sex", we also shouldn't call homosexual relations "sex" and thus, shouldn't call homosexual relations "unnatural"? How can we say a man kissing a woman is natural, but a woman kissing a woman is not?
Thoughts?
2006-12-03
10:11:41
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Phoenix, Wise Guru
7
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Forgive me, that first unnatural should have been in quotations - "unnatural".
Oral sex could easily be called something other than "sex", i.e. cunnilingus or felatio. We only tack "sex" onto it because we generally consider "sex" to be more than penile-vaginal penetration for procreation. Which is a large portion of the point of this question.
Sodomy does not necessarily refer to anal sex. In the Bible, it merely refers to the general crimes of the Sodomites, homosexuality never actually being mentioned. If we were to use the intended definition of "sodomy", it would merely mean depraved behavior. The Bible, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, does not tell us that homosexuality is one of these depraved behaviors. The term "sodomy" has simply come to mean anal sex through years of selective and incorrect interpretation of the Bible.
2006-12-03
10:28:41 ·
update #1
A. There's no need to redefine "sex" - as other have pointed out you'd also need to insist we no longer say "oral sex" or "anal sex" when refer to the activity among heterosexuals (yes, *they* do it, too! :)
B. Homosexuality is natural and occurs everywhere in nature.
I think I understand your question in the light of trying to be helpful to the gay community by changing these definitions. But I'm guessing that gay people would be better helped by people's simply understanding that homosexuality is in fact quite natural, and that simply because the Bible says something, doesn't make it true. Though, you're right, Sodomy in the Bible doesn't just refer to homosexuality, there are other places in the Bible that pretty clearly seem to indicate that a man "lying down" with another man is an "abomination." The Bible is simply *wrong* in these cases (if that's what it really said in the original) and simply reflects the non-scientific and irrational thinking of the time period.
Interestingly enough, Jesus never had a single thing to say about homosexuality. However, if he had explicitly said it was wrong, I'd be quite happy to say he was wrong, too.
2006-12-03 10:15:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good Question, BUT, the term "sex" used by our American Culture = may include, but not limited to and and all actions that are involved with the body in a function called 'sex.'
Just as 'homosexual marriage' is not a marriage in the purest definition of the term 'marriage.'
Perhaps you could think of 'grape nuts' which are neither grapes nor nuts? Perhaps you could also use 'christian science' which is also Not Christian nor Science!
Remember our politically correct [Really Incorrect] society has "CHANGED THE LANGUAGE TO FIT THE SIN!"
Even the sale of a House, "HOME FOR SALE" = knowing that people are not SLAVES to be bought and sold! Home for Sale, means, you sell the HOUSE, with the PEOPLE!
Hope that helps....?
Thanks, RR
2006-12-03 10:19:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Original term, Sodomy.
I Cr 13;8a
12-3-6
2006-12-03 10:14:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
it quite is basically as dumb as asserting that Obama isn't a US citizen. I call shenanigans, why? First, this guy is the only source of this. there is not any one else to assist his declare. 2d, that image of "Obama" is extremely suspect, there is not any sparkling data it relatively is him. 0.33, this junk as been coming from a touch desperate business enterprise (objective or accuracy in media) attempting to pin Obama as a "gay" and Frank Marshall Davis as a newborn molester. there is not any data in any know to those claims from them. they only "declare that." Your final link proves that it quite is basically stupid smear marketing campaign by some quite gruesome persons who lost the election. next time, relatively examine what you positioned up, the link you presented to the Huffington positioned up of course talks relating to the Davis' NOVELS. the guy wrote pornographic novels, no longer something extra or much less.
2016-10-17 16:08:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ask Bill Clinton who said: "I did not have sex with that woman".
When you can answer that, come back to the question.
2006-12-03 10:15:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Deirdre H 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
What about oral sex....that happens between male/female, female/female, male/male...you'd have to change that too... But then, I think that where sexual gratification is attempted or achieved, it's sex...
2006-12-03 10:15:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Blooming Sufi 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe we shouldn't worry about it too much.
Anyway 'sex' is a general term, it has many forms.
2006-12-03 10:15:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If it's not sex, then it's not sexual immorality like the Bible says it is.
Therefore, I agree. There's nothing wrong with it.
Actually, I don't agree... but there's still nothing wrong with it. :)
2006-12-03 10:18:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Snark 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your lack of education is shining through brightly. Good job if that is what you are going for. Nice try, if it is not.
2006-12-03 10:14:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by the guru 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
You are obviously very conflicted. If you aren't Gay, then what do you care one way or another?
2006-12-03 10:14:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋