Replies

astounded at the level of specificity regarding sex in the Bible

It is specific. And "catamite" refers to the effeminite, or receiving, partner in a homosexual relationship, usually younger (i.e. today's NAMBLA). It is not used in reference to heterosexuality.

I certainly do not question your aversion to oral sex, or criticize you for it, but don't stretch the Bible and make it say something it doesn't. There are plenty of people of who find "plain/regular/normal" sex disgusting, probably due to a poor introduction of it in their life, and I would not judge them for that using the Bible as a hammer. It should not be used in the opposite fashion either.

I was only describing the revulsion of an innocent kid, not my own sexual proclivities. The Bible plainly says that "likewise, women gave up what was natural for unnatural intercourse." That's not a stretch. What was Paul referring to if not the same sexual acts that the homosexual men he was discussing previously?

But I am not judging you or anyone -- I'm just saying that I have heard this teaching and I tend to agree with it -- even Clintoon's argument that it is "not sex" means that it is something other than normal sexuality, no? And, the classic definition of anything outside normal sexuality is, unfortunately, "perversion".