|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Do the reasons a person is homosexual really matter?
What matters, imo, is other people's attitudes.
If homosexuality is accepted as fine and natural then none of this is an issue.
...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, but it isn't. Not by everybody.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Do the reasons a person is homosexual really matter?
Yes. If it is genetic to even some degree, it makes any claim of homosexuality as immoral even more ridiculous.
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
My brain has always identified as essentially lesbian. I chose to follow a path of marrying a lovely man. I identify as part of the LGBT community, but I live a monogamous heterosexual life.
Which is my identity? Both. I'm best described technically as bisexual, but I don't express that behaviourally.
I haven't stopped having a brain that is essentially and automatically lesbian in the way it operates and thinks and reacts, I've just chosen to do something different.
If (heaven forefend) something happened to my dear hubby, would I choose another man? Not sure.
Has it been a problem within my marriage? Nope. If anything it's been an advantage. Do I wish that others would make the same choice as I did? Nope. I think each person has to make the right decision for themselves.
54% of women on the autism spectrum identify as lesbian/bisexual on current statistics. We don't know why. But that's a heck of a number. It points to it being a brain wiring difference. We await research.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Actually, I was thinking of teenage boys in total denial, which I've seen in homophobic secondary schools. I'd agree with the things Horseman of Bree said above. Or what about girls who identified as lesbian from early puberty - who aren't the most likely to be masturbating in front of pictures of other women.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I doubt that - people in denial are going to be inhibited about buying porn - plus [massive generalisation]women are generally less into visual stimuli[/massive generalisation].
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I agree with your massive generalisation Think - the subject would deserve a thread of its own.
<edited because I don't use the preview button nearly enough ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) >
...
[ 14. May 2010, 02:23: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Presumably looking 'lustfully' at and thinking about the same sex while masturbating is an 'experience.'
But why would you do that if you weren't sexually attracted to the same sex already? I did my fare share of looking lustfully with one hand on the magazine, but it was never men I was looking at. Wouldn't have occurred to me. Other people claim to be exactly the opposite way. It's pretty clear the inclination comes before the action, not because of it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Presumably looking 'lustfully' at and thinking about the same sex while masturbating is an 'experience.'
But why would you do that if you weren't sexually attracted to the same sex already? I did my fare share of looking lustfully with one hand on the magazine, but it was never men I was looking at.
All that would mean (if we accept the theory) is that THEY(*) got to you soon enough.
The idea in its original form, before the evangelicals got to it, is that we all start out sexually attracted to everybody. However, THEY discipline most of us in time so that by the time we're thinking about looking lustfully at the magazine we've already internalised their ideas about which magazines we should be looking at. Once you'd gone to two or three Disney cartoons, for example, you'd got the idea that boys go after princesses and princesses go after boys.
However, it's inevitable, and from THEIR point of view actually rather useful, that some little boys instead of just wanting to be Aladdin will also want Aladdin.
At this point, we probably start going into psychoanalysis and polymorphous perversity. This is all rather ironic since the whole point of Foucault's argument was to stop psychoanalysts and psychiatrists from trying to cure young gay men.
The take-home message, for those of us who are not sixties French left-wing intellectuals and not evangelicals trying to get the facts to fit the theory: what matters is the people someone is attracted to, not whether the people they're attracted to can be grouped together as all men or all women.
(*) Strict Foucaultian orthodoxy would say 'power' rather than THEY, but I think he really meant THEY all along.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I did my fair share of looking lustfully with one hand on the magazine, but it was never men I was looking at. Wouldn't have occurred to me. Other people claim to be exactly the opposite way. It's pretty clear the inclination comes before the action, not because of it.
This bit of clear-headed logic seems to be in short supply.
Now, in my case, I attempted to look lustfully with one hand on the magazine *because* my peers were doing it.
It finally occurred to me that I needed to switch magazines. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[I thought I'd previewed the post]
[ 14. May 2010, 17:07: Message edited by: iGeek ]
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
There are a lot of homosexuals who predate the internet, leo.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That is an urban myth leo, the biggest majority is advertising spam.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
That is an urban myth leo, the biggest majority is advertising spam.
That's email, and perhaps even regular internet traffic. But, as far as petabytes of available content, I'd think that porn does reign supreme.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Can you prove that the internet is more porn than anything else? The quotation, apparently, from my googling, comes from some very flawed "research" in 1995 that said 83.5% of the internet was porn. The research was discounted on the flaws and since then internet traffic has increased exponentially.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I see NO porn on the Internet.
I have a good filter ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
Now, in my case, I attempted to look lustfully with one hand on the magazine *because* my peers were doing it.
It finally occurred to me that I needed to switch magazines.
Do geek teenagers do it with Popular Mechanics?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I see NO porn on the Internet.
I have a good filter
...
unlucky ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Can you prove that the internet is more porn than anything else?
The "I'd think that" was meant to show this is not a factually supported statement, but a claim of opinion.
Like you, I'd certainly consider a study from the first days of a readily-available internet to be invalid.
I can't think of a content-type available on internet-connected hard drives which could surpass porn though, between the millions of video sites and probably trillions of pictures that are out there. Add the millions of copies of videos available for download through bittorrent and other sharing protocols, and the size of the world's porn cache is staggering.
Actual traffic figures? Spam still dominates. But, that's not what I disputed.
Either way, Leo's point still holds. Porn is so ubiquitous that people often wonder now why anybody would actually buy the stuff, when you have 1,000,001 sources available online (along w/ private modes in modern browsers).
Also, to pose a question:
When reading these nature vs. nurture theories, is anybody familiar with prevalent theories of homosexuality or transgenderism from Thailand? I ask, since it's probably the culture where this is the most accepted in the world (at least the transgenderism), for the longest period of time. What are they seeing?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
If you want to discuss the amount of porn on the internet, then please do start a new thread in Purgatory.
It's not a Dead Horse so the question doesn't belong here.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Also, to pose a question:
When reading these nature vs. nurture theories, is anybody familiar with prevalent theories of homosexuality or transgenderism from Thailand? I ask, since it's probably the culture where this is the most accepted in the world (at least the transgenderism), for the longest period of time. What are they seeing?
To add to my question, and to further getting the thread back in the rut....
How does the church in Thailand respond to the lady-boy culture? I know the church has never been much of an influence in Thailand...could that be in part due to a typical Christian reception for gays/etc (if that's the case)?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Ask & you shall recieve ...
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
So you know, Leo, I knew that I was going to be romantically attracted to women before I was sexually attracted to *anybody*. Many years before. I had hopeless crushes on female popstars and friends' mums. I would hear stories about the knight and the princess and could never understand why the princess would be interested in the knight rather than another princess. This bothered me from a young age. I didn't know that lesbians existed but I knew what my feelings were, despite a ton of trying to rewire my brain in the other direction. It certainly didn't hit me all of a sudden when out of the blue I started fantasising about women for no apparent reason. That's really not what happened.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
So you know, Leo, I knew that I was going to be romantically attracted to women before I was sexually attracted to *anybody*. Many years before. I had hopeless crushes on female popstars and friends' mums. I would hear stories about the knight and the princess and could never understand why the princess would be interested in the knight rather than another princess. This bothered me from a young age. I didn't know that lesbians existed but I knew what my feelings were, despite a ton of trying to rewire my brain in the other direction. It certainly didn't hit me all of a sudden when out of the blue I started fantasising about women for no apparent reason. That's really not what happened.
I'm sure that sexual attraction is a gradual thing for all of us. A slow dawning, which begins - like you say - in identifying with the characters in stories.
It happened in exactly the same way for me, Liopleurodon - except that I am straight.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
"Christian singer resumes career, relieved of secret"
Apparently, the singing he used to do before he admitted to his gayness wasn't good enough to keep his fans.
But quote:
He was gay, and he had been trying not to be gay since his teens, and he had inhabited and indeed thrived in a fundamentalist Christian culture that instructed him he could pray to be delivered from his affliction, his sin. By now, in his early 50s, he had stopped believing that godly intervention could change who and what he was.
And now he sings about being Christian and gay, while his wife maintains his website (and deals with the negative e-mails)
quote:
Still, the Christian-music closet remains a crowded place, the cost of emerging from it so punitive.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
From the same link -
"Mr. Boltz, though, can attest to what is gained. Amid all the hateful e-mail messages that he receives, there also come ones calling him a “role model of honesty” and thanking him for being “instrumental in me finding the Lord.” One correspondent, who described himself as a conservative Christian age 52, recounted nearly committing suicide before coming out. “I don’t believe God hates me anymore,” Mr. Boltz said during the interview. “I always thought if people knew the true me, they’d be disgusted, and that included God. But for all the doubts, there’s this new belief that God accepts me and created me, and there’s peace.”
Amen
...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bump
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It took a bit of searching, but this is meticulously researched and referenced.
From the same source is a list of all the uses of the word arsenokoit here. Reading the rubric indicates three different translations of the word, each defensible.
I am not a Classical scholar, but at the very least, there seems to be sufficient contemporary sources to argue that Goddess cults did encourage temple prostitution including same-sex sex acts.
Louise er, "indicated" that this post regarding primary sources for the belief that Greco-Roman cultic practices included same-sex sex, should be shifted from the Anyone know any 'cured' gay folk? thread.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It took a bit of searching, but this is meticulously researched and referenced.
From the same source is a list of all the uses of the word arsenokoit here. Reading the rubric indicates three different translations of the word, each defensible.
I am not a Classical scholar, but at the very least, there seems to be sufficient contemporary sources to argue that Goddess cults did encourage temple prostitution including same-sex sex acts.
Louise er, "indicated" that this post regarding primary sources for the belief that Greco-Roman cultic practices included same-sex sex, should be shifted from the Anyone know any 'cured' gay folk? thread.
I've read it and I can't see the primary source that shows ritual homosexual prostitution in the Cybele / Rhea cult. Perhaps you can point it out explicitly.
--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net
Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
I've read it and I can't see the primary source that shows ritual homosexual prostitution in the Cybele / Rhea cult. Perhaps you can point it out explicitly.
I'm going to refer you to my previous comment "I am not a Classical scholar", but draw your attention to footnote 95 that might satisfy your very exacting criteria.
There are both primary and secondary sources referenced in the footnotes, because that's the way academia works: no point in reinventing the wheel. I think you're stonewalling: there appears to be plenty of evidence that the priests of the Mother God cults, whether they were galli or not, were used sexually.
What I don't understand is why you are so firmly opposed to the notion that homosexual acts as well as heterosexual acts were part of this cult worship. It seems a reasonably uncontroversial reading of history. You can still argue that even if Paul had this idolatry in mind when he wrote Romans 1, he still meant to extend the OT ban on same-sex sex into Christian era.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
I've read it and I can't see the primary source that shows ritual homosexual prostitution in the Cybele / Rhea cult. Perhaps you can point it out explicitly.
I'm going to refer you to my previous comment "I am not a Classical scholar", but draw your attention to footnote 95 that might satisfy your very exacting criteria.
There are both primary and secondary sources referenced in the footnotes, because that's the way academia works: no point in reinventing the wheel. I think you're stonewalling: there appears to be plenty of evidence that the priests of the Mother God cults, whether they were galli or not, were used sexually.
What I don't understand is why you are so firmly opposed to the notion that homosexual acts as well as heterosexual acts were part of this cult worship. It seems a reasonably uncontroversial reading of history. You can still argue that even if Paul had this idolatry in mind when he wrote Romans 1, he still meant to extend the OT ban on same-sex sex into Christian era.
Which of these three texts cited in that footnote ( Clement of Alexandria, Protreptikos, 2.14; Firmicus, The Error of Pagan Religions, 4.2; Martial, Epigrams, 3.81) is the one that shows that the Cybele / Rhea cult included homosexual prostitution? I ask this because having written a lengthy piece on this a few years ago and examining all the greek texts that were suggested as evidence, none actually made explicit reference to homosexual temple prostitution.
For example, here's a good english text of Clement of Alexandria's Protreptikos - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.toc.html (scroll down, you're looking for Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation (Protreptikos) to the Heathen). Have a read of the whole chapter and tell me where the clear demonstration of homosexual prostitution as part of the Cybele / Rhea cult actually is. I can find reference to a one off necrophilic homosexual act, but no sense that there is a homosexual prostitution cult.
This kind of stuff is rampant in revisionist argumentation. For example, when discussing the meaning of arsenokoites reference is often made to Philo, but when you examine the text cited you discover that the word arsenokoites doesn't appear. The words arrenes and koites appear, but they are three paragraphs apart!
That's why I insist that those who forward this line of argument take me to the actual greek text and not just a secondary source.
[ 30. April 2012, 09:27: Message edited by: Peter Ould ]
--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net
Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
That's why I insist that those who forward this line of argument take me to the actual greek text and not just a secondary source.
I am not a Classical scholar.
It seems to be that majority of those who are, take the view that homosexual acts did occur in relation to Mother God worship. The first time I head of this cultic prostitution was from a conservative evangelical, so while 'revisionists' might hold this view, so do plenty of their opponents. As I said, it seems to be the broad consensus view and therefore uncontroversial.
Have you published your work, and what do other scholars say about it?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
That's why I insist that those who forward this line of argument take me to the actual greek text and not just a secondary source.
I am not a Classical scholar.
It seems to be that majority of those who are, take the view that homosexual acts did occur in relation to Mother God worship. The first time I head of this cultic prostitution was from a conservative evangelical, so while 'revisionists' might hold this view, so do plenty of their opponents. As I said, it seems to be the broad consensus view and therefore uncontroversial.
Have you published your work, and what do other scholars say about it?
Let's paraphrase what you said here:
"I can't actually point you to any contemporaneous Greek texts that support my contention that there were homosexual prostitution cults of worship at the Cybele / Rhea shrines. However, despite the fact that I can't provide one single piece of primary source evidence, I still hold to this view".
I can point you to several articles that challenge this position, but what I originally asked you for was primary sources. If you want to argue this position you need to be able to provide some actual evidence for it.
--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net
Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
I can point you to several articles that challenge this position
By your own reasoning, articles aren't sufficient. Only primary sources.
It's a bit much to tell mere lay people that they're not entitled to rely on anything other than primary sources. Neither DocTor nor myself just randomly made this idea up. The idea clearly exists outside the Ship that there were cults with homosexual sexual practice. If you demand a primary source that says this was the case, I feel perfectly entitled to say that you conversely need primary sources that make it clear that it WASN'T the case.
Otherwise, we merely have competing articles at dawn.
Besides which, my own personal understanding relates to the link between Romans and Leviticus, not simply what was happening at the time of Romans.
[ 30. April 2012, 14:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS Also, your paraphrase of DocTor is completely unfair, as you seem to have (quite wilfully I suspect) left out the reliance on the scholarship of others.
If you want to have a primary source debate, I suggest you go and have it with the scholars. And when you can show that you've noticeably shifted the perspective of the scholastic community (which is what DocTor asked you about), then us poor gullible lay people might feel you're onto something.
As it is, we're getting a flavour of "ignore what anyone else told you, you're required to do the scholarship yourself". Sorry, but that's not how life works. I know my areas of expertise, as opposed to interest, and ancient history isn't one of them.
You also seem unaware that if we ignore "anyone else", by dint of sheer logic that includes ignoring you.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm sure that sexual attraction is a gradual thing for all of us. A slow dawning, which begins - like you say - in identifying with the characters in stories.
Not for everybody. There are at least some of us men who experienced no sexual feelings at all till puberty then - not quite overnight but certainly over weeks - it changes and after that every time an attractive woman walks by you get stirrings in the loins (as it were).
Stories were nothing to do with it. I used to read a lot of stories in childhood, mostly but not all fantasy and sf, just as I do now. And I ermember some that I read at primary school age that I re-read later, and that I found had sex scenes in them that I simply hadn't noticed. Stuff that at the age of 8 or 10 would have been not so much boring as trivial, rather naff, becomes really quite emotionally charged a few years later.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Let's paraphrase what you said here:
"I can't actually point you to any contemporaneous Greek texts that support my contention that there were homosexual prostitution cults of worship at the Cybele / Rhea shrines. However, despite the fact that I can't provide one single piece of primary source evidence, I still hold to this view".
I can point you to several articles that challenge this position, but what I originally asked you for was primary sources. If you want to argue this position you need to be able to provide some actual evidence for it.
I could paraphrase what you said as:
"I don't want there to be any link between homosexual acts and the Mother God cult because that's inconvenient to my previously established position. Despite it being widely understood that there was a link, I'm going to demand primary Greek and Latin sources from a geophysicist (who's repeatedly stated that he's not a Classical scholar) in attempt to silence him."
Which is always going to go down well. I could continue:
"I'm going to say that I've studied this in depth and report that I can't find any link, going against years of orthodoxy, but when asked whether I've had my article published, peer-reviewed or criticised by other Classicists I'll instead attack the intelligence and integrity of the questioner."
I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but I'm now even less inclined to believe you than when we started. Well done.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I'm copying my post as well, not because it has primary sources, but because it supports my argument that Paul was objecting to straight people - male and female - indulging in gender-bending sex:
quote:
quote:
The Galli not only castrated themselves but emphasized their artificial femininity through feminine dress and manners, so their high-pitched voices, long wild hair, and garish costume made them instantly recognizable. Moreover, the implicit degradation of such female appearance reinforced popular assumptions about their licentious behavior. Their castrated status made it impossible for them to reproduce, but this did not appear to inhibit their sexual appetites or keep them from erotic liaisons with both men and women. Numerous anecdotes and references portray the Galli as the purveyors of offbeat sexual activities, clearly exciting to respectable people. ... We receive the impression that the ambiguous sexual status of the Galli was precisely the thing that made them covertly attractive.
In Search of God the Mother -
The Cult of Anatolian Cybele
If Paul were around today, he would probably object to Kathoey and Hijra.
I'm flashing back to when I was a kid and my dad would state that there were no experimental studies in humans proving smoking caused cancer. Smoking beagles with cancer weren't proof because they were beagles, not humans. The ethical and practical difficulty of similar experiments on humans didn't matter either. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I can take a liberal line on homosexuality because I take a liberal view of Scriptural authority generally.
However like Peter Ould I would be interested in seeing primary sources. It seems to me that a decent secondary source should be able to provide primary sources that can't be taken to pieces by non-specialists.
Having said that, it does seem to me that there are two basic arguments:
1. When Paul said "arsenokoitai", he referred specifically to male sacred prostitutes.
I am afraid my non-specialist impression is the same as Peter Ould's: I have never seen a primary source cited that shows either that male cultic prostitutes were widespread, or that they were referred to as arsenokoitai.
The article "Paul, the goddess religions and queer priests" cites four sources. Peter Ould has disposed of Clement of Alexandria. I'm not totally confident of my Latin, but I don't think Martial's epigram proves anything. The sense is, I think, that Baeticus might have cut his testicles off for the sake of the goddess, but he's cheating, because he mostly prefers oral sex, so he should really have cut his head off. Most of Martial's epigrams are vituperative insults of this kind.
Apuleius is a satirist in the style of Chaucer or Boccaccio or Juan Ruiz. Of course his priests are licentious, just as priests in The Decameron will screw anything that moves.
That leaves Firmicus. I can't find an edition of Firmicus anywhere, but I note he was writing about 300 years after Paul.
However, the other form of the argument can be sustained I think:
2. Paul was writing at a time when pagan religions engaged in weird gender-bending practices.
The longer form of the argument being:
a. Pagan religions did seriously weird things with gender. Devotees of the goddess castrated themselves and were then considered as something neither male nor female, but halfway between the two.
b. This proves that people's concepts of sexuality and gender were different.
c. Paul was writing in the context of a different concept of sexuality and gender. We live in a different context. Therefore his writings don't apply, any more than the Italian Highway Code applies in Luton.
Now (c) would still seem like trying to slope out of it, if it weren't for the fact that conservatives are perfectly happy to ignore large chunks of what the Bible says about the expression of sexuality known as marriage on the grounds that it was written against a different cultural context (e.g. polygamy, levirate marriage).
[ 30. April 2012, 21:54: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Would it be a commandments violation to wonder what really motivates either a heterosexual or a "post-gay" person to appear here and engage in endless debate over the Christian legitimacy of homosexuality?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Going back to the point of the whole thread: Why is it necessary for certain Christians to worry about whether are having sexual relations with a specific kind of person?
The Bible is full of proscriptions about having sexual relations outside of marriage, period. But we don't see the actors of Coronation Street or Cheers or whatever being harrassed and picketed. We don't see Fred-Phelps-equivalents standing outside bars and nightclubs that are known meatracks for persons of either gender. We don't see prostitutes (of either gender) being harrassed by churchy people or threatened with physical assault in bars. We don't see known brothels (particularly the very visible ones in Nevada) under siege.
So where do Christians get the permission to make this Earth Hell for only one kind of person, the male gay. Even lesbians are rarely assailed.
Is there a special Christian gene that makes all other sexual adventuring out of bounds for comment and attack? Come on, Peter Ould, you're here right now. Have you ever dealt with any sexual issue that doesn't involve two men who want to be married but aren't allowed to by your so-called reasoning?
And I haven't even started on gossip or gluttony or all the other sins that Christians are allowed to commit because,...well, the way "I" do them isn't really sinful...
What makes the actions of some arguable, but very small, group of people so needful of Christian attention?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Would it be a commandments violation to wonder what really motivates either a heterosexual or a "post-gay" person to appear here and engage in endless debate over the Christian legitimacy of homosexuality?
hosting
If you were to wonder over a specific person, then as you very well know, that wondering would need to be done on the Hell board. Don't go any further with that on this board, unless you want the admins to get involved.
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Horseman Bree, my answer would be that repression is a frail defence in many persons and has to be bolstered with reaction formation and sometimes with projection. Male psychosexual adjustment is often achieved on fragile foundations and in a heterocentric society, the consciously heterosexually identified males with underlying homosexual attractions is often has to twist himself into a psychological pretzel in an attempt to fend off these "unacceptable" impulses. These defences include proclaiming and behaving in a way that appears opposite to the warded-off impulse (reaction formation) and more pathologically, projection: "I want to have sex with him" gets transformed into "He wants to have sex with me" (putting it in polite language), with the usual persecutory and hostile response which itself is reaction formative but undergirded by a more or less serious distortion of reality testing and an absence of insight.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Lietuvos, it is important to note that there is a deliberate distinction between post-gay and ex-gay.
Personally I have ample respect for a "post-gay" person engaged in this kind of debate (of which I've encountered several, mostly off-Ship) because then it is about an open and conscious choice not to engage in sexual behaviour while acknowledging the existence of a sexual attraction. It is then about morality, rather than trying to simply deny biology. And it is a debate about morality from a person that actually has a stake in the matter, rather than from heterosexuals for whom the debate is impersonal and academic.
I haven't been on it much, but I'm aware of a gay Christian message board where people simply identify with "Position A" and "Position B" depending on whether they think that the Bible permits gay Christians to engage in sex, within the same rules as apply to straight Christians, or think that gay sex is forbidden entirely. I can't even recall off the top of my head which is 'A' and which is 'B', but the point is to respect that gay Christians come to different conclusions on the point, without denying either their homosexuality or their faith.
[ 01. May 2012, 02:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Personally I have ample respect for a "post-gay" person engaged in this kind of debate (of which I've encountered several, mostly off-Ship) because then it is about an open and conscious choice not to engage in sexual behaviour while acknowledging the existence of a sexual attraction.
Wait, doesn't that make all homosexuals "post-gay" unless they're actively having sex right at that moment? If, for example, a lesbian is doing yardwork is she "post-gay" because she's made an open and conscious choice to do something that's not sex?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Personally I have ample respect for a "post-gay" person engaged in this kind of debate (of which I've encountered several, mostly off-Ship) because then it is about an open and conscious choice not to engage in sexual behaviour while acknowledging the existence of a sexual attraction.
Wait, doesn't that make all homosexuals "post-gay" unless they're actively having sex right at that moment? If, for example, a lesbian is doing yardwork is she "post-gay" because she's made an open and conscious choice to do something that's not sex?
You're giving me flashbacks to a case I once worked on, where we had to explain that "continuing pain" didn't mean "continuous pain".
Also to the Monty Python scene where the Protestant man declares the he and his wife can have sex any time they want, despite only having had sex twice.
Fine. If you want to be a pedant, better language would be that a post-gay chooses to exclude the option of engaging in homosexual sex, regardless of whether or not circumstances will present a possible opportunity for so engaging.
Happy now?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Personally I have ample respect for a "post-gay" person engaged in this kind of debate (of which I've encountered several, mostly off-Ship) because then it is about an open and conscious choice not to engage in sexual behaviour while acknowledging the existence of a sexual attraction. It is then about morality, rather than trying to simply deny biology. And it is a debate about morality from a person that actually has a stake in the matter, rather than from heterosexuals for whom the debate is impersonal and academic.
I agree with your main point that the discussion should be about morality and not biology but aren't you contradicting yourself when you get on to the opinions of heterosexuals?
If it is really a question of the morality of our society then any member of society has a stake in the matter and it is not academic to anyone.
Am I not allowed to say that I think Mugabe is morally wicked because I'm not Zimbabwean? Or perhaps that single people should have no input into child care incentives or schools because "they don't really understand"?
If there was a group lobbying to raise the speed limit in Australia I don't think they would get very far if they declared that the opinion of people who didn't drive or had no demerit points didn't count because they didn't want to drive faster.
If it is a question of morality then isn't it, by definition, a question for the whole of society to talk about?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Personally I have ample respect for a "post-gay" person engaged in this kind of debate (of which I've encountered several, mostly off-Ship) because then it is about an open and conscious choice not to engage in sexual behaviour while acknowledging the existence of a sexual attraction. It is then about morality, rather than trying to simply deny biology. And it is a debate about morality from a person that actually has a stake in the matter, rather than from heterosexuals for whom the debate is impersonal and academic.
I agree with your main point that the discussion should be about morality and not biology but aren't you contradicting yourself when you get on to the opinions of heterosexuals?
If it is really a question of the morality of our society then any member of society has a stake in the matter and it is not academic to anyone.
Am I not allowed to say that I think Mugabe is morally wicked because I'm not Zimbabwean? Or perhaps that single people should have no input into child care incentives or schools because "they don't really understand"?
If there was a group lobbying to raise the speed limit in Australia I don't think they would get very far if they declared that the opinion of people who didn't drive or had no demerit points didn't count because they didn't want to drive faster.
If it is a question of morality then isn't it, by definition, a question for the whole of society to talk about?
Yes, but when it comes to something as personal and sensitive as sexual relations (to which secular law has no application - your driving example is rather odd here), I rather think its incumbent for 'outsiders' to respect the fact that, while they might contribute opinions, the choice isn't theirs to make.
(Your Zimbabwe example is pretty poor/unclear also. Are you talking about what Mugabe ought to do, or about what the Zimbabwean people ought to do about Mugabe? There's a huge difference.)
Also, I said morality. Turning it into "morality of our society" is your phrase, not mine. Why society? Are you denying the concept of personal morality?
I tend to think the impact of homosexual sex on 'society' as a whole is vastly overrated. The constant cries that gay marriage will 'destroy the fabric of society' or something along those lines are complete nonsense in my view.
[ 01. May 2012, 04:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
