Posted on 01/25/2008 1:09:10 PM PST by tpanther
ANN ARBOR, MI – In oral arguments last week, the Thomas More Law Center asked Maryland state circuit court judge William Rowan III to overturn a Maryland Board of Education ruling that approves of public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, teaching 8th and 10th graders that homosexuality is innate—meaning they are born that way. The schools also show how to use condoms in anal and oral sex.
Montgomery educators were forced to defend their new sex curriculum that promotes anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality and transvestitism despite strong opposition from several pro-family groups. The controversial new curriculum was adopted as a result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.
>> And do you have verses from the Song of Solomon mentioning oral or anal sex?
I don’t recall anal ... but I think oral is implied. Don’t have a copy on me — but supposedly several of the verses regarding kissing the “navel” of the female may not have been referring to the navel. I think its may be a translation issue.
H
It's a big problem. There's so much sexual information and entertainment and activity out there that's not between a married man and woman that people seem hooked on novelty. (Again, I'm speaking in general, not responding to a particular comment.)
I read an article the other day on a British news website about a book a married woman has written saying that married people can't expect to have an ongoing sexual relationship over many years. Since what makes sex exciting is new partners or new stimulation, married people just can't do it after a year or two. She said she'd found in *all* her relationships (red flag!) that she got bored with sex in a short time.
I was thinking, what a sad person, and how sad for anyone who's taken in by her reasoning. I know you've been married just a few weeks longer than I have (Happy Anniversary a little late!), and we both know it's simply not true that married people can't be happy in their sexual relationship, without any weirdness.
Thanks. One can interpret things in various ways, of course. (Although that’s not the activity that was mentioned in the article, anyway.)
>> Although that’s not the activity that was mentioned in the article, anyway.
True enough — though the presence of one would certainly indicate the permissibility of certain others.
H
I disagree. The Jews considered the emission of semen a very important matter. The fact that one might kiss one’s wife ... anywhere ... is a different issue entirely.
Here’s the article about the book I mentioned:
It took me a while to track down which gossip articles on FR I’d read in the past few days :-).
>> And anything heteros do is by definition normal, natural and healthy?
Within the confines of marriage — to each his own. “Healthy” can be a loaded word when used in the psychological context ... but certain activities are simply not forbidden between loving married hetrosexual couples.
>> Doesn’t this rather undercut the message that we don’t have anything against what homosexuals are, but simply what they do?
I have always taken this as a disagreement with the unnatural act of homosexuality (that of undertaking particular activities with a person of the same gender that one should undertake only within the confines of marriage with a person of the opposite gender) — not a disagreement with the particular sexual activities themselves.
It is the homosexuality which is forbidden ... not oral sex (for instance).
>> What we’re against isn’t gender-conflicted Johnny. Bless him, he’s a precious creature of God who is in some ways disordered (aren’t we all.)
True.
>> What we’re against is sodomy.
We’re against the removal of certain sacred acts from the confines of marriage. Homosexuality, in this case, is no different from fornication — the fact that all sexual contact (oral, anal, manual and otherwise) is banned between unmarried couples does not mean that such activity is banned between married couples. And, the fact that the same activities are off-limits for unmarried homosexual couples does not mean that the same activities are not sanctioned within the confines of marriage.
I’ve not seen Biblical texts which forbid oral, anal or manual sexual gratification between married couples ... and certain verses in the Song of Solomon certainly seem to encourage the full enjoyment of sexual activities between married couples.
H
And how about two lovely Christian men?
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.
“Those who refuse will be failed and their puppies killed.”
You mean, I won’t graduate from the S.S. Officer’s Academy???
>> And how about two lovely Christian men?
Any sexual contact between ANY men — Christian, lovely, or otherwise — is clearly forbidden throughout the Bible.
Such “non-main event” activities between married couples are not clearly forbidden.
H
>> 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.
H
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.
H
It does rather contradict the Maker's design, though. The muscles of the anus clearly classify it as a pushing-out organ, not a receptive organ. That's why there's so much abrasion (especially of the very fragile squamous epithelium of the rectum) with the gay gays, which in turn is one (of several) reasons why there is so much disease transmission.
In other words, the anus is anatomically designed as an exit, not an entrance. Male and female anuses are, as you will have guessed, identical in this regard.
You may remember that last year, President Bush nominated James W. Holsinger M.D. as Surgeon General. This generated shrill cries of outrage from the gays because Holsinger had previously written a study for the Methodist Church on the pathophysiology of gay sex practices. You can find a copy of Holsinger's study here.
From a medical point of view, gay sex practices are intrinsically pathological. Not only gay people, but all people, need to stop avoiding the truth about this.
...and people wonder why homeschooling is growing...
...this is tyranny...we are paying for this with tax dollars...the government is forcing me to pay for this!!
>> This is certainly unique. I’d never before heard anal sodomy defined as a sacred act which should not be separated from the Sacrament of Marriage.
I wasn’t discussing anal sex specifically — but extra-curricular sexual practices generally. Generally speaking, all sexual activity (within some reason here) — no matter how revoltingly it can be described — is sacred and should not be separated from the Sacrament of Marriage.
Generally — here’s an overview of the way I’ve seen Christian sexuality. There are certain mandates to Christian sexuality — it should occur in a married (i.e. God-sanctioned) relationship, with an adult of the opposite gender, and be a general expression of the love between such a couple. Additonal players (extra-marital), animals, those of the same gender, and activities not meant as an expression of marital love are not sanctioned.
However, to the extent one may object to activities which meet the above requirements — those activities which you find objectionable (as I do the particular act you described) — all are free to decline to participate in.
But, to pretend that your preferences regarding specifics (i.e. those activities which you and I may find revolting) are a mandated so is simply not true. In Christian sexuality, married heterosexual couples are allowed leeway in the determination of the sexual specifics in which they will engage.
It is possible to engage in the particular activity you described in a Godly way, as can be oral sex, light bondage, or whatever else.
H
If that's so, you might consider that God twined together two purposes with sex: the delight and attachment of the spouses, and the the continuation of the human race. Both are sacred purposes, and the first thing anybody notices about sex is that the two purposes are srongly linked. Physically conjoined. This is not accidental. This is designed, and providential.
Marital intercourse was given a form by God that does not deliberately separate sexual union from natural fertility. Love-play, fine, oh my. Contact, costumes, positions, and pleasures, fine, oh my. But sexual intercourse that is deliberately made non-fertile --- we're not talking about people who are naturally infertile, or naturally infertile times --- but intentionally made nonfertile, frustrates either the procreative or unitive meaning of intercourse, and usually both.
>> I don’t know where you are denominationally, but you seem to be a person who believes, as I do, that God designed and created sexual love and called it good. (You do believe that, don’t you?)
Right on.
>> If that’s so, you might consider that God twined together two purposes with sex: the delight and attachment of the spouses, and the the continuation of the human race.
Absolutely true.
>> Both are sacred purposes, and the first thing anybody notices about sex is that the two purposes are srongly linked. Physically conjoined. This is not accidental. This is designed, and providential.
Also true.
>> Marital intercourse was given a form by God that does not deliberately separate sexual union from natural fertility.
I believe God intended several possible forms of marital contact — some of which can be separated from fertility. My disagreement only comes with your assertion that each sacred purpose (closeness and procreation) cannot stand on its own ... spousal closeness can be a reason for contact beyond procreation alone.
The idea that traditional intercourse is the only appropriate form of sexual interaction (or at least the only interaction leading to a finale) tends to limit the purpose of marital sex to procreation alone. Marital sexual contact is intended to continue long after procreation has ceased, not to mention when couples have physcal disabilities which might hinder traditional contact (paralysis, or whatever).
Other forms of contact can contribute significantly to spousal closeness — one of the two sacred purposes. That such activities were made pleasurable is as divinely inspired as the pleasurable status of traditional intercourse.
>> Love-play, fine, oh my. Contact, costumes, positions, and pleasures, fine, oh my.
Agreed.
>> But sexual intercourse that is deliberately made non-fertile [...] frustrates either the procreative or unitive meaning of intercourse, and usually both.
Extracurricular forms of marital contact certainly don’t frustrate the unitive meaning of intercourse ... they can enhance it. Such contact simply focuses solely on the unitive meaning of intercourse outside of its procreative meaning — both were divinely intended, and both can stand alone as reasons for marital contact.
In fact — marital unity was specifically INTENDED to qualify, by itself, as a reason for sexual contact (traditional or extracurricular) in cases where procreation and/or traditional intercourse is not possible (for instance — in the 6-weeks after cesarian surgery).
H
If you mean "contact" in the broadest sense of the word, of course. You don't have to have intercourse every time you have "contact." (My, wouldn't you be busy!)
But intercourse itself is a different matter. The very words "sexual union" indicate a union of sexual organs. This would mean something other than sodomy, which is not (accurately speaking) a sexual union at all.
"My disagreement only comes with your assertion that each sacred purpose (closeness and procreation) cannot stand on its own ... spousal closeness can be a reason for contact beyond procreation alone."
Of course. No disagreement here. There are many times when spouses can have intercourse when getting a baby started is not what you have in mind, but spousal closeness is. During pregnancy, for one! After menopause. Or during the frequently-recurring naturally infertile times. Goodness, nothing wrong with that.
"The idea that traditional intercourse is the only appropriate form of sexual interaction (or at least the only interaction leading to a finale) tends to limit the purpose of marital sex to procreation alone."
I assume that by "traditional intercourse" you mean "with the sexual organs," i.e. normal intercourse. As I mentioned before, you can have intercourse when you're fertile, and then a new baby is a real possibility; or you can have intercourse when you're not fertile, and then a new baby is not a possibility. Fine either way.
But in neither case are you deliberately choosing an abnormal form of intercourse (like Onanism, or Sodomy) in which the act is turned away from its normal form so that there isn't even a connection with procreation. (That's what per - verted means: per= thoroughly, vert = turned.)
Both these things (Onanism and Sodomy) are condemned by God in the Bible, and both of them involve choosing some perversion of intercourse, and not the real, straight, honest thing.
" Marital sexual contact is intended to continue long after procreation has ceased, not to mention when couples have physcal disabilities which might hinder traditional contact (paralysis, or whatever).
Agreed.
"Other forms of contact can contribute significantly to spousal closeness — one of the two sacred purposes. That such activities were made pleasurable is as divinely inspired as the pleasurable status of traditional intercourse."
It's always a little ambiguous what you mean when you say "contact." Like, lots of people like cuddling, which doesn't necessarily result in intercourse when intercourse is not appropriate. There are all kinds of "interaction," and without expressing myself too salaciously, I want to say --- hey, feel free. (I've said that repeatedly in prior posts, and I don't know how I can say it in a more seemly way without jumping though the screen and waving my arms.)
But intercourse itself (not "contact," but intercourse) is a sacred thing, and I'm trying to find an analogy which would make sense to you. This is difficult because unfortunately we live in a coarsened and dulled culture where we don't share a recognition of sacredness on any level.
One way to express it, is that ejaculating semen into someone's mouth or rectum is something that is intrinsically shameful, so much so that I hesitated a long time before I wrote that sentence. It is something one could do with a whore, or even with a boy, because there is nothing specifically marital about it. The people may be married, but the act itself is not a marital act.
In fact it strongly suggests contexts where it is all about one person being serviced and the other person doing the servicing. That is, an instrumental act. A servile act. A matter of using another person: and use is use, even if it is mutual.
And one doesn't get a sense of love from the realization that they've used someone, or been used.
"Extracurricular forms of marital contact certainly don’t frustrate the unitive meaning of intercourse ..."
Once gain, an ambiguity of lanaguge. Merriam-Webster notes the second meaning of "extracurricular" as extramarital. But I don't think you're speaking of adultery, are you?
"...in cases where procreation and/or traditional intercourse is not possible (for instance — in the 6-weeks after cesarian surgery)."
Jewish law requires abstinence from intercourse for 6 weeks after childbirth. I think there are mulitple good reasons for that --- certainly, from the postpartum woman's point of view! Physically, she needs time to recover. Hormonally, she is flooded with prolactin and oxytocin: she needs to establish her nursing relationship with the baby--- intensive mother-baby attachment time. Loving husbands have understood that for millennia. I hope.
And now, from the People’s Commune of MoCo...
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
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.