Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tax-chick

>> 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


61 posted on 01/28/2008 8:58:41 AM PST by SnakeDoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: Hemorrhage

Thanks. One can interpret things in various ways, of course. (Although that’s not the activity that was mentioned in the article, anyway.)


63 posted on 01/28/2008 9:00:00 AM PST by Tax-chick ("Gently alluding to the indisputably obvious is not gloating." ~Richard John Neuhaus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: Hemorrhage
Kissing a navel, or anyplace else, is just hunky-dory. Kissing is kissing: anything that comes to mind that you want to kiss, as long as your spouse is OK with it, fine and dandy. What's objectionable is semen down the throat or up the rectum.

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.

69 posted on 01/28/2008 10:10:46 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (My contribution to reality-based argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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