Same sex marriage

Sorry, but the destruction of Sodom is about something much more than homosexuality. Yes it doesn't help matters that they are lusting after men, but the main point is the poor treatment of strangers.This same theme was repeated in another biblical passage... Judges 19:22-29... but without the complete anti-homosexual overtones. In that case the mob did the "right" thing and raped the woman they were offered. But still it was understood [in that passage] that they were bad for having come to rape strangers.But don't worry, some of your other citations support the anti-gay bigotry you say the Xtian church has, as I will elaborate in my own response to Rrhain.------------------
holmes

Okely-dokely, I want to start by making something very clear. I have nothing against homosexuality. I support the legal institution of gay marriages (or civil-unions if it'll make Xtians cringe less). I am even for gays adopting children.But let's get serious, in order to make Xtianity look gay-friendly one has to really twist and turn biblical passages to one's own agenda.Since I do not read Hebrew or Greek, I admittedly cannot speak firsthand about the actual meaning of words used in the original versions of the Bible, and must rely upon English translations and comparative (translation) research done by others. Yet I do not feel I am left at some major disadvantage (given the amount of research out there). The first sentence is absolutely correct. The ancient world had no conception of a "homosexual lifestyle", or of a person confined to a strict life of homosexuality.The second sentence is way off. Just because the Bible does not talk about homosexuality itself, does not mean the Bible was incapable of blasting into specific sexual practices which define homosexuality as we know it today.Leviticus 18:22--- "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it [is] an abomination."Now before someone from version control rips my head off, I am well aware that the original (ie non-English) passage is said to read: "Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed: it is ritually unclean."Even so, is that some sort of acceptance of male on male sex? There is a reason it is unclean and that is because male on male sex is so unclean it defiles the "marriage" bed.We can further put this into context, a little bit further on.Leviticus 20:13--- "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."This is not simply an admonition against ritual sex, or at least not a simple admonition. If the original version says something different I have not seen any mention of it in articles meant to defend homosexuality from Xtian teachings.Anyway, I think it is somewhat deceptive to label all anti-gay-sex-act commentary as relating to temple prostitution and ritualistic sex, when Corinthians sets things out in a pretty straightforward manner and does not put its labels "in context".1 Corinthians 6:9--- "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornication,... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,... [will get into heaven]"One can desconstruct the reasons for this any which way, but when all is said and done, it is obvious that--- like all the other evils on that long list (for example: theft)--- homosexual sex acts are not supposed to be engaged in.And for those that think none of this is supported more than once in the New Testament, Paul practically restates Corinthians in 1 Timothy 1:8-10. This hardly cuts down the argument that homosexual sex acts are bad according to the Bible. If anything it should indicate how bad homosexual sex acts are. There may be 300 admonitions that whittle down what heterosexual sex acts are allowed, but you only need one admonition if you are wiping out a whole class of sex acts altogether.Your argument would be much more persuasive if those 300 admonitions pertained to both, so that we could see the Bible setting up under what conditions both are allowed. Exactly right. And I think this is where both camps get their arguments all bunched up.The anti-gay Xtian side misses the point that none of these passages state that people who engage in sex acts are ultimately more or less bad or irredeemable than other sinners.Corinthians and Paul's restatement of this passage makes this quite clear, especially given the punchline to both...1 Corinthians 6:11---"And such were some of you, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."So yes, God can forgive and love people who commit homosexual sex acts, just as much as others on that nice long list of bad people (again, let's use thieves as an example).On the other hand, pro-gay Xtians are majorly missing the point in believing this forgiveness or love somehow legitimates the practice of homosexual sex. I mean come on, to think so is the DIRECT equivalent of a thief feeling his actions are somehow okay, because God will forgive him. Does ANYONE really believe a thief should come away from Xtianity feeling that?And this is easily carried over to the topics at hand.Should the Xtian church sanctify the union of two men as blessed before God? Well... should it bless--- or otherwise recognize as legitimate business--- a carjacking operation?Should the Xtian church support gay adoptions? Uhhhh... should the Xtian church accept babies being adopted by known thieves, who continue to openly ply their trade? If there were no other options, then maybe. But in reality, not likely.Should the Xtian church allow gay clergy? Sure. They certainly have accepted all sorts of sinners into the ranks of clergy. But should the Xtian church allow ACTIVELY gay clergy? Ahem... should it allow active thieves into the clergy? Wouldn't that make most of the teachings ring just a little hollow?Remember, I'm not saying I'm for any of this bigotry. I'm simply saying once moral lines are adopted (and in the Bible it is clear that homosexual acts are at least the equivalent of acts of theft), certain decisions or judgements are clearcut. It is just a matter of following moral proscriptions to their logical conclusions.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 08-09-2003]

This is MY line schraf, not yours.Or are you finally admitting my arguments for legalized prostitution were correct?Given my respect for many of your arguments I was extremely hurt to see you mysteriously drop out of that thread without stating one way or the other whether my arguments had any effect or merit. Yet here you are restating them for your own position.If my arguments truly meant nothing, as you blankly asserted then disappeared, then your argument here is as cogent and convincing as the pot arguing the kettle is black.------------------
holmes

It is.1) You argued natural occurences of homosexuality in the animal kingdom supports the naturalness of its occurence in human beings.2) You argued that just because group A may get abused by group B--- due to hatred or whatever because of what group A is or does--- does not mean that group A should be punished or prevented from doing what it wants to do. This sounds sensible. However, would it not be wise to assess the accuracy of your arguments, if you find yourself losing emotional control on a subject?For example, what would you suggest a creationist do if his/her emotions toward the discussion of evolution kept getting in the way? I don't think it would be to drop out entirely, but to step back and calmly review the strict logic and evidence presented. This is where I am going to ask you to review your own arguments. Your post--- linking the naturalness of homosexuality in humans to the sexuality of animals--- involved cattle mounting each other when they get "horny."This hardly suggests that the level of "intimacy" you say sex is all about, finds its source in nature.Rather it would appear to be as I suggested. Sex in its pure state is about simple physical pleasure, which one can have regardless of emotional commitment.It is prudishness and moralizing which has driven the natural urge for basic sexual pleasure into a tight box where its connection with personal intimacy becomes a NECESSITY, or it gets slapped with some form of moral censure.There are people who--- whether from lack of indoctrination or through freeing their own minds--- do not feel the need to connect deep emotional attachments (ie relationships) with sexuality. For them sex has no deep emotional overtones. It is simply fun. If sex has nothing to do with intimacy and personal connection and the deepest levels of emotions humans can feel, then there is no problem with its commodification. It is no more odd than commodifying a backrub.Remember I am not saying prostitution is for everyone, especially those who feel as you do about the intimate nature of sex. I am simply arguing for the ability of those who do not feel like you, to do as they will.If you look at what you just said above, it is eerily similar to the arguments made by those who do not want to sully the supposed "purity" of sexuality and/or relationships with "base" things like miscegenation or homosexuality. No joke, but I've heard evangelicals say the same thing about homosexuality.And I don't see how you can deny their position. You just slammed all men... or are homosexuals somehow above straight men in their emotional involvement towards sex?In the end there are men as you describe. Whether it is all men, or a section thereof, prostitution did not begin what you described and its abolition will not end such confused behavior.Just as allowing gays to adopt children will not make children gay, nor will abolishing gay adoption (or making homosexual sex illegal) end people from being homosexuals.You asked me to provide evidence for my position on this and I did. I would like to see some evidence... any evidence... to support the stereotype you just presented of men, or that abolishing prostitution would end that phenomenon.Toward that end I would point out something interesting. Your slam was on US men. Are you saying European men are more sensitive and less scattered about their emotional relationships? If so that tends to support my argument since most European cultures do not link sex and relationships as the US culture does, and often allows for prostitution.It should start becoming evident if you look at the evidence, even that within your own arguments, that perhaps the more mature and healthy attitude is to separate deep emotions from the simple and natural act of sex. This is a restatement of your strawman, and ignores the European counterexample of cultures which allow prostitution to exist.It is also a near mirror image to arguments against homsexuality advanced by some fundamentalists, only their argument states that gays get "free sex" without having to make commitments, which is necessary to a "healthy relationship" (which they define as straight relationships).Does any of this suggest a reanalysis of your position?------------------
holmes

This argument is so fallacious I am almost overwhelmed where to begin. Let's see, how about we start with the REALITY that animals will never have anything close to the complex economic/social institutions humans have created. Thus comparisons between animal and human behavior do not have to be direct.If they had to be direct then YOU would have to show that things like taking one's potential mate out to a restaurant and buying presents on anniversaries was normal in the animal kingdom, in order to prove that sexual relationships in animals had something to do with pairbonding. This is not what happens in Bonobo communities. If you had read even one of the articles on Bonobos you would understand this. They exchange sex for food, and other menial services. It has nothing to do with longterm, or shortterm pairbonding.This is why the results of Bonobo research were so startling. They challenged the XTIAN SEX-GUILT MYTH that sex was all about pairbonding. You should have capitalized IF in the above statement. Yes, just like any other business, IF they take and keep your money then they must provide the service they promised. This does not suggest that prostitutes must accept money for any service, or cannot refuse service if they do not like the customer's attitude. No, that was part of what you argued. You also argued about how women would be viewed/treated by society (ie devalued), and by men in specific. My defense to that was similar to the one you just gave for interracial and homosexual relationships.I will now respond to the above argument. I presented several well documented research articles which refute your "historic" claims. It appears you still have not read any of them.The history of prostitution has been one of gradual enslavement and endangerment of women by INCREASING legal controls of prostitution. Only the loosening of legal controls has HISTORICALLY resulted in greater freedom and safety for women.It has a direct mirror in women's fights for abortion rights.Fundamentalists can--- and have--- used your argument above to argue against abortion rights. It was just as fallacious for them. Would reviewing all of your own opinions and checking them against all of your own opinions REALLY count as assessing the validity of your arguments?It is abundantly clear that you have yet to crossreference your opinions with the Bonobo research provided, as well as research on prostitution (and not simply the history of prostitution in places where it is ILLEGAL).You have criticized creationists and fundamentalists for less. Hmmm. And apparently you, rather than anyone else in this country is the one qualified to make the determination of which should be made illegal?I mean if your statement above is real, then why shouldn't fundies be able to condemn homosexuality or miscegenation? I see no logic that precludes them from being just as right as you. It is your bigoted feminist mythology (ironically founded on xtian-sex-guilt mythology) which seems to be getting in the way here.Sex acts are necessary for sexual reproduction, but that is not the end all of what sex is about. To claim that its only other purpose, much less legitimate purpose, is pair bonding is absurd.Didn't you just give cattle as your example of the naturalness of homosexual behavior. Was that pairbonding?No matter if you've just shifted your argument by limiting sexual pairbonding to primates. Again... BONOBO RESEARCH undercuts what you just said.In fact I think you can look at great apes to find similar undercuttings of your pairbonding idea.That is if you don't simply want to look at the history of human behavior. Before Judeo-Xtian-Islamic monotheistic doctrines took hold, and in cultures where it is not strong, sex has not been intrinsically linked to relationships.It is obvious that sex is important in pairbonding. I am not denying that. But it is not exclusive to pairbonding.And even within such JXI cultures I think it is safe to say, people often pursue sex for its pleasure alone. A casual glance at rates of prostitution and divorce should spell this put.But that is even if you have to go to reference materials. Are you telling me as a human being, you never engaged in a sexual act purely for its pleasure?I should also point out that if what you say is true--- that sexual reproduction and pairbonding are the only natural uses of sexual activity--- then you have clearly provided reasons to criminalize homosexuality as well as fornication and masturbation.Oh yes, masturbation. I guess that's just a result of the sexual revolution right? Or a myth? And if I jerk off to a porn video, am I attempting to bond with my tv set, the video tape itself, or my hand? Actually I am not sure about this. Short term bonding seems to be important for the reproductive cycle (which includes protection and nurture of the newborn), though it is not quite clear if this involves monogamy or longterm commitment at all.CURRENT sexual research suggests that women are adapted for taking on many suitors for greater chances of successfully reproducing.And males are adapted for an environment where their "partner" has multiple male partners, not to mention a proclivity to try and mate with as many females as possible to increase the chance of his sexually reproducing.Are you up on the latest sexual research? Because this is the latest.I have not read anything which suggests that the evolutionary direction is, or ought to be, longterm monogamy. Bonobo research, which seems to be vital reading if you are going to make claims about our evolutionary directions, also stands in stark contrast to everything you just said.However I have heard that pairbonding through sex is important for doves and seahorses. You would not accept this from a creationist or fundamentalist.Or are you now saying funkmaster's simply not agreeing with you on homosexuality somehow legitimates his position? I want to use this chance to push you toward more orderly thinking. Just look at what you said and really think about it.ANY human contact, sexual or otherwise, has lead to people falling in love with each other. How many people have fallen in love with their teachers, waitresses, librarians, coworkers...???If you can show me a study which suggests that prostitution results in more "pairbonding" situations (or feelings of pairbondings) than any other social interaction, I may start believing you.FROM EXPERIENCE, it is only those who share moralities like yours who tend to get confused when going to a prostitute and think they have to treat it like a relationship (otherwise they feel guilty). They are usually disappointed and don't go again, OR the prostitute gets weirded out and doesn't see them again. Oh yes,and let them have fun in a safe, responsible, procreative (or non-nonprocreative), monogamous manner.I have nothing against that. I'm only arguing for severe restrictions on impure crossbreeding of races or nonprocreative monogamous practices.There is no logical difference between these positions except the beginning moral proscription. You define as immoral; sex outside of strictly emotional pairbonding rituals. They define as immoral; sex outside of strictly emotional pairbonding rituals with the natural end of procreation (and for some... procreation in a way that ensures racial integrity).Yours is arbitrarily "better" I guess? I didn't say "all", I made a "generalization", just like saying "on the average"? This is clearly the adhoc reasoning of a bigot.Do you not see that to make such hate-filled and stereotyped "generalizations" about any group of people, is the essence of bigotry? This is to deny the obvious. You simply disagree with those bigots on what constitutes a fake and a real relationship.Evangelicals can argue just as accurately that a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is fake, as it cannot lead to the "natural" product of what relationships are supposed to produce... children from each of the parents. Personal and procreative make it real.Your position is that it must lead to the "natural" product of a personal relationship. Personal makes it real.Hedonists, arguing as you would argue against the fundie, will argue that a PURELY SEXUAL relationship is just as real as one with the goal of "pairbonding". All relationships are real, as long as participants are honest and understand what they are seeking in that relationship.Prostitution is the offshoot of hedonistic, or purely sexual, relationships.And for my part, I have tried to explain to you that in addition to being about purely physical pleasure, prostitution is a BUSINESS relationship. It is just as real as any other business relationship.If a person goes to one seeking a fake PERSONAL relationship, that's as deluded as the guy who goes to restaurants trying to create fake relationships with the waitresses there. And by the way, that happens. I'm sorry, but what the hell articles did you read?Bonobo research has shown that sex within their community, is EXCHANGED FOR GOODS AND SERVICES AND SOMETIMES JUST TO PASS THE TIME, and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PAIRBONDING!!!!!!You could not have read any article on Bonobo research, and come away with the conclusions you just stated.And that dismissive crack about Bonobos not driving into town? What the f?????I mean this is just plain insulting, and I'll accept this crap as much as you would accept a creationist quoting the bible and saying it came from the latest biology textbook on evolution.You can do much much better, and as a scientist you should. Shame on you.And by the way, Dolphins swim miles and miles (granted not to any particular city) and have sex with just about anything they encounter, including humans! For them... if it's not clear enough with Bonobos... sex is not just about pairbonding. And yet you feel qualified to talk about the effects of prostitution on men and society as a whole?Why then can't racial bigots talk about how bad blacks are and admittedly limit their knowledge to blacks who are underprivileged and grew up in an environment of violence?Why can't anti-abortion fanatics talk about how bad abortions are, and limit their knowledge base to areas where abortions are illegal and inside cultures that hate women who have them?Why can't anti-gay bigots lambaste homosexual relationships, and limit their knowledge to gays attending bathhouses and adult theatres, and the negative affects they suffer (at the hands of a society that condemns homosexuality).Why can't anti-gay-adoption bigots, sit on the scope of their knowledge by refusing to look at data which refutes their claims?There is no excuse you can give at this point, for not knowing how nature, culture, and legality affect the reality of prostitution among humans. You have been given plenty of references, and have obviously read NONE.This means you are simply unwilling to have your stereotyped "generalizations" about men, and the nature of prostitution, challenged by FACTS.As long as you stay this entrenched against the honest evaluation of objective research, you will remain a bigot.I don't mean to drive you insane by riding this topic with you. Quite the opposite, it is clear your thinking is already disordered and needs to be regrouped. You cannot hope to escape this problem by dropping out of threads and avoiding the evidence.The result is your popping up in other threads, just like many fundies do, and reiterating arguments which have already refuted. Or even worse, using the same arguments you casually dismissed as erroneous when they seem to suit your ends.I once had an immense respect for you and so I guess that's why I feel the need for this mental "intervention." You need to confront whatever demon it is that fosters these "generalizations" about men. They are not only outdated, they are erroneous and unhealthy.In doing this you should eventually confront the evidence which has been provided to you. It stands against your position. The entire weight of current sexual research stands against your position (except perhaps studies funded by evangelicals). It is about as conclusive as research supporting evolution ever could be.------------------
holmes

This betrays all of your prejudices.Women, just like men, OFTEN seek pure sexual stimulation and orgasm.Your limitation that women and men should not engage in sex for purely physical gratification, and--- worse for you--- a monetary arrangement, is the equivalent of saying people should not eat ice cream except the ice cream they made themselves.Or better yet, if you just want a backrub, why not get your wife to do it, or a vibrating chair?Your breakdown of what the primary functions of sex compared to eating are was a complete fabrication on your part.And I'm glad you mentioned masturbation. That blows your sex is for bonding theory right out of the water.Or is that some "misadaptive" trait, like homosexuality?------------------
holmes

Your are exactly right. Schraf's nice scientific-looking "breakdown" of sex versus eating was nothing but made up trash.That is unless the research she got those conclusions from only studied modern western US civilization, and perhaps even subcultures of that.Whoever came up with those conclusions seems to have forgotten about the Inuits, the Polynesian islanders (and I believe traditional Hawaiian culture), ancient Greek, Roman, and to some extent Egyption cultures. Whew. Then again, those people are a bunch of uncivilized savages anyway, right? Not evolved enough?In addition to food and sex there is also grooming. What is the role that plays among primates. I think it is without question that grooming plays an important role in social-bond building.I guess by extension of her logic, this means paying someone to give you a haircut is immoral. It certainly can lead to unhealthy things happening (especially if you have read the Kama Sutra and its teachings about what goes on at the barber's). Your wife or other family members should cut your hair... Or go grab some clippers and do it yourself!------------------
holmes

Thank you zhimbo, this is the type of debate I was expecting from schraf when I first posted my reference, but have yet to receive. You are correct, there is no "prostitution"--- exactly as humans practice it--- among the Bonobos. I have never said this. In fact, I have admitted this at least twice in exchanges with schraf.As you have stated, and I agree, drawing moral lessons and talking about what is natural in one species, by looking at another should be suspect, and one should be careful.However, what was being addressed is schraf's assertion that sex is only used for reproduction and pair-bonding in primates, and that there are no examples of sex for pleasure or for "exchanges" (whether for power or valuables)in the animal kingdom.Not only does this research (including the very passage you quoted) refute schraf's claims, exchanges for power or valuables (like food or grooming services) ARE the animal equivalent of prostitution.After all, the trade of goods and services via barter or monetary systems is the way humans "make food sharing (among other things) possible" and work out competition for positions of power and access to goods and services. Thus while humans have a more complicated system, trading sex for money is extremely similar to a Bonobo having sex with another monkey which has a fruit, in order to get a piece of that fruit. Or equal access to a cardboard box.Using sex to "divert attention" and especially to "diffuse tension" clearly show Bonobos use sex for manipulation and perhaps personal gain, and not for monogamous pair-bonding or procreation.So, as you have rightly pointed out, there are no Bonobos who "make a living" by having sex with other Bonobos. Their "culture" is not so complex that any Bonobo has to specialize in any behavior, much less do so to "make a living." That is a human construct.But there are close similarities in the exchanges of sex for gains in power, access to goods, and services.You should check out some of the filmed documentaries on Bonobo behavior. Their use of sex as a manipulative tool, both as protracted "gold-digging" or immediate gain is bizarre when one is used to watching chimps and apes fight it out.Either way, I assume you found nothing to suggest that pleasure has nothing to do with why they do what they do, and that sex is only used for procreation and pair-bonding.Hope this response makes sense.------------------
holmes

While I admit my posts have been emotional, it was not due to the topic. It was how I have been treated by you on this topic. That said, I'm willing to ignore the pain, to go for the gain.Here is the analysis of the argument so far, devoid of all emotion. Please respond.You have argued that:a) the main purpose, or function, of human sexuality is for procreation (PC) and pair-bonding (PB).b) Since the selling of sex abuses or eliminates the pair-bonding aspect of sex, it is not a healthy or "right" use of sex.c) Whether for this reason alone, or with the additional reason that the practice of prostitution has resulted in harm to prostitutes, you think it should be illegal.To these points I have countered:a) While reproduction is (without question) the reason sex exists in any sexually reproducing organism, and it is a key component of pair-bonding in many animals, I have given specific references to mammals, primates, and humans (ie different cultures) which clearly refute the idea that either are the ONLY or the ONLY VALID uses for sex.My rebuttal comes down very hard on your pair-bonding assertion. Yes I am well aware of pair-bonding research, including the chemical connections which are brokered along these lines through sexual activity. This is similar to other phenomena such as pheromones exuded from the skin (for bonding during close proximity), and chemicals released by one's own brain which regulate bonding behavior throughout the course of a relationship.Unfortunately the key importance of sexual activity to pair-bonding, does not translate to pair-bonding being important to sexual activity. Sexual attraction and performance may be purely physical and relate to short term pleasure, or the pursuit of other ends (such as competition for resources).This is clear in the references and examples I have provided. Zhimbo has already addressed my Bonobo reference in this thread, and in the very excerpt he included with his post was evidence that procreation and pair-bonding are not the sole uses of sex for Bonobos.The most compelling though, may be research on what social environments human sexual organs and hormonal systems are adapted for. Human testes, and rates of sperm production, (as just one example) suggest they were adapted for a species where the females have multiple male partners.b) First of all, without (a) being true, (b) does not follow. But in addition to providing references specific to (a), I also provided references and examples which argued against both points together. Contrary to your assertions, most men do not seek out prostitutes for the purpose of purchasing a "fake personal relationship". Neither do many prostitutes provide such services.Your statement that some men fall in love with prostitutes was easily refuted by pointing out that men fall in love with all sorts of service workers, including coworkers. You would need to provide some evidence that men who visit prostitutes either end up in more relationships or at least exhibit more tendencies to fall in love, than men seeing women in other service professions. Your derisive comments about the history of prostitution in general is wholly inconsistent with a claim that men tend to have more feelings for prostitutes due to their sexual interaction.But for the sake of argument, let's say (a) is true and that PC and PB are the most important reasons for, and normally occur with, sexual activity. This does not logically mean that using them in other ways is somehow negative or unhealthy. You have not provided anything more than "generalizations" about men to support this extension of your argument.Along these lines, you have not addressed--- if (b) is true--- why fundamentalists are incorrect for saying homosexual sex is unhealthy given the obvious fact that PC is not a possible outcome of such a union. According to your own definition of health and nature (which hinges on PC and PB) homosexuality would not be classified "natural" or "healthy" sexual behavior.It is inconsistent for you to criticize hedonists for using sex in a way that is not "natural" (PC and PB), and fundamentalists cannot criticize homosexuals for the same thing. And appeals to the fact that homosexuals have at least one "natural purpose" under their belt (PB), would be arbitrary at best. This is underscored by your use of cattle as the example that homosexuality occurs in nature. Clearly, while natural, the cattle's behavior was neither for PC or PB.Sometimes you seem willing to accept nonPC and nonPB sexual relationships, as long as money has not been exchanged. For example, you seem amenable to one night stands and gave a glib comment suggesting men should masturbate when confronted with PC and PB urges. Without further explanation, supported by evidence that money changes the nature of casual sex for the worse, you would hold what seems to be an arbitrary position.c) Your argument of the historical harm caused by the business of prostitution to its practitioners (especially the prostitutes themselves) is erroneous. I have presented clear, objective references which evaluate its history and practice across cultures. They show that, much like abortion, it has historically been the ILLEGALITY of the business which brought harm to prostitutes and their clients alike.You have not acknowledged any of these studies, and ignored the FACT that countries do exist where prostitution is LEGAL and relationships (pair-bonding) as a whole have not suffered.....In addition to the above, there is the reductio that if we say points (a) thru (c) are correct, then you have given much support to fundamentalist arguments against: fornication, homosexuality, miscegenation, masturbation, and abortion (not a sexual practice but a practice related to sexual freedom).All of these (with the arguable exception of miscegenation) are counter to PC and PB. All of them may be considered unhealthy and unnatural according to your currently arbitrary way of defining those terms (especially homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion).All of them have involved harm to its participants, specifically within cultures intolerant of such behavior. If harm was not inflicted by members of society as punishment, then by criminal elements that prey on disempowered minorities seeking out their particular sexual practice (or freedom).
....This is all very straightforward, please respond.------------------
holmes

I'm certainly willing to take my lumps where I deserve it, and maybe I am on a couple of these biblical issues.I kind of wish you didn't go on at length to ME about the whole, Bible says nothing about homosexuality thingy. I totally understand that and I thought I made that clear.If not, let me repeat, I totally understand the ancient world (where the Bible was conceived) had no understanding of homosexuality. Interestingly enough, I was going to raise Sparta as an example to schraf in my next post.That said, I don't believe one is able to hate the sin, without the byproduct of hating the "sinner" (ie the person that practices the act). Thus--- let's say "assuming"--- the bible is criticizing homosexual acts, as a consequence it becomes a critic of homosexuality. That is the ONLY way in which I mean to say that the Bible is bigoted against homosexuals, as an outcome of its chastisement of homosexual sex acts.The REAL problem then is that "assumption." Does the Bible criticize homosexual acts.Clearly I get that the lesson of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality, BUT it was news to me it had nothing to do with sexuality at all! I totally fell for the "know" mistake. Thanks for the edification on that, your explanation makes sense.Your inability to find what M was talking about in Judges is because he missed his reference. I'm sure he meant Judges 19:22-29. Unfortunately for him it is is also about inhospitality to strangers. I feel pretty confident though that sex is the goal of these townspeople (which may explain why they raped the offered woman, while the people of Sodom did not).Now here is where the differences between you and I begin...It has been argued quite well that the first part is about ritual uncleanliness. I have not seen anything that suggests the latter part is only about ritual sex.What I have seen are deconstructions of WHY the Bible says what it says. Similar to the arguments you have given, these state that the proscriptions (especially given original terminology) were meant to separate Jews from the surrounding religions which utilized male prostitutes. There were like one or two religions which were specific thorns in the side of Judaism, and specifically involved male prostitutes.Thus the proscriptions were made against such acts, to distinguish Jew from nonJew and prevent possible intermingling of faiths (ie backsliding on Jehovah).While I can totally buy this from a deconstruction standpoint, I'm not sure how this carries over into an argument that those traditional proscriptions should be dropped now.If anything, couldn't someone from this faith, I'm looking at evangelicals here, say this kind of traditional restriction is more needed now than ever? That is, in order to keep them from intermingling with other faiths (or lack of faiths) and distinguish their own faith from others?I mean if we continue on the deconstruction route, we could discuss why the Hebraic people constructed a God who was unlike other Gods in that his name was unknowable, and unlike other gods shared power with no one else. This invention was necessary for the same reasons as those other proscriptions. So maybe the church today doesn't need to say there is only one god, and should accept other religions as equally correct?But this is not the only problem.I have not seen anything which puts the quotes from Corinthians or Timothy, into this same category (simply talking about male prostitution). If you have something on this... where the original terminology used to derive "abusing yourself with mankind" is suggesting only prostitution, I am interested in seeing it (or hearing about it).If anything it seems to me that by the time of Paul, perhaps the proscription had already lost its purpose in defending Judaism from a few of its immediate religious rivals, and was now a means of distinguishing the religion through moral practices.I am furthered in this opinion in that the Romans passage, pretty clearly has God using homosexual sex as part of his curse on those who stray. Granted he isn't saying those who do such things are straying, but it isn't quite a positive thing to say if you stray you'll end up having homosexual sex (along with other bad things).Again, I am open to new evidence on this. Simply right now, it still looks like homosexual sex (no matter the original reason) is still as sinful as thievery.Actually I am very interested in the Catholic church performing homosexual marriages. You've mentioned this and if it is true I think it sets a pretty huge precedent for Xtians that perhaps some proscriptions can be cast away.After all, Jesus was involved with casting away unnecessary rituals, which is why he was a pain to Jews at the time.------------------
holmes

I'm sorry but I am not wholly convinced that the passages you are talking about necessarily suggest David was a homosexual. And it is for the same reason I agree with you that much of what the Bible talks about in regards to homosexual acts is in reference to male ritual prostitutes.Given that time and place... especially that place and the people who lived there... love of one man for another is often seen as more than the love of a woman for the very fact that NO SEX is involved. It is PURE.This belief is still true in the cultures of those regions today and led to one awkward media mistake when they thought the "american Taliban" had a homosexual lover.His teacher, who in descriptions mr AT followed around just as David is described as doing, described their great love for each other... which led to the media fiasco.It is also not unknown to discard clothing to show one's servitude to another, and even embraces and kisses are exchanged between men.The passage reads to me like a passage that can be interepreted either way with great conviction.------------------
holmes

I'm certainly willing to take my lumps where I deserve it, and maybe I am on a couple of these biblical issues.I kind of wish you didn't go on at length to ME about the whole, Bible says nothing about homosexuality thingy. I totally understand that and I thought I made that clear.If not, let me repeat, I totally understand the ancient world (where the Bible was conceived) had no understanding of homosexuality. Interestingly enough, I was going to raise Sparta as an example to schraf in my next post.That said, I don't believe one is able to hate the sin, without the byproduct of hating the "sinner" (ie the person that practices the act). Thus--- let's say "assuming"--- the bible is criticizing homosexual acts, as a consequence it becomes a critic of homosexuality. That is the ONLY way in which I mean to say that the Bible is bigoted against homosexuals, as an outcome of its chastisement of homosexual sex acts.The REAL problem then is that "assumption." Does the Bible criticize homosexual acts.Clearly I get that the lesson of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality, BUT it was news to me it had nothing to do with sexuality at all! I totally fell for the "know" mistake. Thanks for the edification on that, your explanation makes sense.Your inability to find what M was talking about in Judges is because he missed his reference. I'm sure he meant Judges 19:22-29. Unfortunately for him it is is also about inhospitality to strangers. I feel pretty confident though that sex is the goal of these townspeople (which may explain why they raped the offered woman, while the people of Sodom did not).Now here is where the differences between you and I begin...It has been argued quite well that the first part is about ritual uncleanliness. I have not seen anything that suggests the latter part is only about ritual sex.What I have seen are deconstructions of WHY the Bible says what it says. Similar to the arguments you have given, these state that the proscriptions (especially given original terminology) were meant to separate Jews from the surrounding religions which utilized male prostitutes. There were like one or two religions which were specific thorns in the side of Judaism, and specifically involved male prostitutes.Thus the proscriptions were made against such acts, to distinguish Jew from nonJew and prevent possible intermingling of faiths (ie backsliding on Jehovah).While I can totally buy this from a deconstruction standpoint, I'm not sure how this carries over into an argument that those traditional proscriptions should be dropped now.If anything, couldn't someone from this faith, I'm looking at evangelicals here, say this kind of traditional restriction is more needed now than ever? That is, in order to keep them from intermingling with other faiths (or lack of faiths) and distinguish their own faith from others?I mean if we continue on the deconstruction route, we could discuss why the Hebraic people constructed a God who was unlike other Gods in that his name was unknowable, and unlike other gods shared power with no one else. This invention was necessary for the same reasons as those other proscriptions. So maybe the church today doesn't need to say there is only one god, and should accept other religions as equally correct?But this is not the only problem.I have not seen anything which puts the quotes from Corinthians or Timothy, into this same category (simply talking about male prostitution). If you have something on this... where the original terminology used to derive "abusing yourself with mankind" is suggesting only prostitution, I am interested in seeing it (or hearing about it).If anything it seems to me that by the time of Paul, perhaps the proscription had already lost its purpose in defending Judaism from a few of its immediate religious rivals, and was now a means of distinguishing the religion through moral practices.I am furthered in this opinion in that the Romans passage, pretty clearly has God using homosexual sex as part of his curse on those who stray. Granted he isn't saying those who do such things are straying, but it isn't quite a positive thing to say if you stray you'll end up having homosexual sex (along with other bad things).Again, I am open to new evidence on this. Simply right now, it still looks like homosexual sex (no matter the original reason) is still as sinful as thievery.Actually I am very interested in the Catholic church performing homosexual marriages. You've mentioned this and if it is true I think it sets a pretty huge precedent for Xtians that perhaps some proscriptions can be cast away.After all, Jesus was involved with casting away unnecessary rituals, which is why he was a pain to Jews at the time.------------------
holmes

message 95: "The "deep biological directives" of sex are..."
She lists ONLY procreation (PC) and pairbonding (PB). Sex for pleasure is reduced to a recent cultural myth, and other uses apparently just cultural baggage.message 96: "... confirms MY ARGUMENT that they [human males] are paying for fake intimacy and fake relationships..."
I added the emphasis for your benefit. Here she is clearly stating that it is her argument that men go to prostitutes for reasons of intimacy and NOT pleasure. This derives from her other theory as stated in 95, that only PC and PB drive human sexuality.She began this reasoning earlier, but not quite so well laid out. You can see I was already laying out my rejection of her theory in message 93. In that message I used the "freed their mind" wording--- and if you reread it I think you'll see this is true--- to suggest that PB, to the depth of emotion/importance she describes, is basically a form of "cultural baggage" (to use her words).My Bonobo reference was used originally to mirror her argument of the "naturalness" of something, based on its appearance in animals. It changed its purpose during the course of debate to more fully reject her "deep biological directive of sex" theory.I admittedly overheated when she offhandedly described the behavior of Bonobos as discussed in my reference as...message 94: "...giving a POTENTIAL MATE gifts to curry favor..."
Again, my emphasis for your benefit.Despite your rejecting the interpretation that I--- and it appears Rrhain--- have taken away from Bonobo research, you have to admit the sexual behavior described in that article had NOTHING to so with giving a POTENTIAL MATE gifts.If anything, to use her language, it appears that Bonobos may be exhibiting another "deep biological directive"... conflict resolution and means to regulate competition.At the very least, using sex for "distraction" (from the article) has nothing to do with an intent to bond (gain intimacy). If you are saying that "exchange" is not a viable term to describe the activity, I don't know what to say. This is purely an exercise in semantics.Clearly the article states that sexual activity is often prompted by inequalities in material goods, or social squabbles.HOW do the Bonobos "reduce conflict" and "facilitate relationships" in the face of these inequalities? They have sex with others (let's say potential rivals).This is similar to the "gift giving" schraf was alluding to, only it has nothing to do with POTENTIAL MATES. They curry favor and begin setting up relationships in their favor with potential rivals, by providing sexual pleasure.I define that as an exchange of power, your pleasure now for your favor later.This is similar to grooming as seen in other monkeys. Almost literally I scratch your back, if you'll scratch mine.Power exchange is about the closest animals get to the abstract world of economic exchange humans have set up to "reduce conflict" and "facilitate relationships" in the face of tension and competition. This is perhaps the largest difference between humans and Bonobos, when comparing their "power exchange" with our "prostitution."It is not the "owner" of material goods seeking out sexual pleasure, and "exchanging" it for sex. Bonobos who are without, or when they see a potential inequality, seek out rivals first and deliver an "exchange of power."This is not so disimilar to a human woman choosing to go into prostitution to make money, or to go into practice as (as you put it) a "gold digger". The difference is the sex giver has no one automatically seeking them out.Then again, in an environment where sex is going on alot, and is habitually given to rivals, why would any animal seek out sex and intentionally reduce their power? The former is what schraf's argument was. The latter I would agree with, unless by facilitating social ties you mean there is some uber-moral or intimate group emotional "feeling."Very simply Bonobos use sex, rather than shows of aggression and outright violence, as their primary mechanism for conflict resolution. That facilitates and maintains their group's cohesion. No, she says homosexuality is fine, so I know making babies is not all she thinks sex is about.However she does say that humans do not pursue sexual activity solely for pleasure. And apparently there is not only something repugnant about doing such a thing, it is unhealthy and harmful to our basic wiring if we do so and exchange money in the process.You can forget Bonobos if you want, I have also mentioned dolphins (which Rrhain has mentioned as well) for animals similar to humans that are known to have sex simply for pleasure.But why do we even have to go there? Have you not had ANY sexual encounter with a person (or your hand) where there was no intention of "bonding" with them?That is her assertion. Even when you think you are doing something sexual just for the pleasure, it is really for PC or PB reasons, and if at least one isn't involved with what you're doing there is the potential it will confuse you when you later try to PB. You have stitched together two different statements to create a position that I did not take. I agree it looks silly... but insulting?Again, it is the derisive tone against sex being performed for purely pleasurable reasons (whether sometimes or always) which betrays some form of prudishness. What's lesser if humans had sex just for pleasure?Anyhow, part of the error is mine. I looked back and that "in its pure state" is easily mistaken for meaning something else. Perhaps a bit of equivocation or at least sloppiness on my end.I have already stated sex is all about reproduction. Thus sex is about reproduction in its "purest sense."To me, all else is cultural baggage. It is true that there are bonding issues which are facilitated by sex. It doesn't seem odd that part of reproduction is chemical cues which allow beings to enjoy living around each other. But whether it is in "pairs" or in "groups", short term or long term, are wholly cultural.Studying HUMANS, shows us a myriad of bonding possibilities. Included in this mix are humans living basically solitary lives, having sex with those they do not bond with in any intimate sense, though bonding through other mechanisms for social cohesion.It also shows us that our bodies have been adapted for multiple partners, and the possibility our "official partners" may have mutiple sexual partners. Thus, we are not monogamous "by nature." Sure you can be, your body may even let you. But that is not our "set" status, according to "nature".Furthermore--- as a human being--- I have never felt the urge to have sex based on feelings of needing to reproduce, nor to get to know someone on a deep intimate level.Now perhaps I am not human--- and tell me if you experience something different--- but I have always felt like having sex with someone because doing so (the pursuit and success) gave me great pleasure.Sure I may have wanted to have a child, or may have known going into some situations that I would like to be with a person longer than that night. But the pleasure of having sex is why I pursued all sexual encounters.Schraf can cite as many resources on the utility of sex to bonding, the likelihood of bonding by having sex, the utility of bonding to successful reproductive cycles, and all the chemicals which are involved with the sexual process that keep someone stuck on someone else. It is cold, it is analytical, and it may even be accurate.Unfortunately that's like listing chemical contents of bread, and the benefits they give me, and saying that's why I want to eat it.No, the reason why I like to eat bread is that those chemicals make me feel pleasure, or when super hungry a loss of pain.Evolution (or Gods?) have naturally linked pleasure with necessary biological functions. A by-product? Give me a break. It is pleasure that ensures animals (or at least humans) pursue the things they must, just as pain helps us avoid most harms.This is what I meant by saying that in its "purist sense" sex is about the pursuit of pleasure. To the human experience that is EXACTLY what it's about.Especially given the free will that humans experience. While deep biological drives of procreation may get me horny, and let's say visual and chemical cues drive my horniness towards a specific girl, that is not how all sexual experiences go down.Sometimes I just want to feel better and knowing how good sex feels I jerk off (no PC or PB), or have a random sexual encounter (no PC or PB). And there is simply no confusion afterward. Even with prostitutes. Humans have the ability and do sometimes pursue sex purely for the physical gratification that stimulation of nerve endings leading to orgasm involves.To ask "What causes pleasure to humans?" is science. To ask "Why did that pleasure come to exist in humans?" is science.Acting on pleasure, regardless of its reason, is human life.To turn the scientific/analytical assessment of how or why humans do certain things, and extrapolate that into "oughts" which will dictate how pleasures may be pursued, is to replace God with Nature. It is a moralizing faith.Isn't this the same thing as shraf announcing that harm will come to men (of the US) by going against their inherent wiring to bond "intimately" with anyone they have sex with? Like men are trying to have something they think they can have but aren't allowed by the Laws of Nature.As she has said, it is her argument that men are seeking intimacy and not pleasure when they go to prostitutes (despite whatever they believe they feel).While some confused guys may make that mistake, on the whole men can figure out whether they want to see a woman once because they want to see her again, or to help get the sperms out then and there.As dating and one night stands tend to show up there are many more mistakes made thinking a sexual partner will be something more (with a change of heart after one cums), than the other way around.As mastrubation shows, some people skip the whole PB and PC thing altogether (too much bother) and take their own pleasure by the hand.Personally, I have no experience of the world schraf describes. Do you? For you is pleasure really the by-product of your seeking what nature wants, or the reason you choose to seek it? I completely agree. It was her contention that prostitution should be illegal. Schraf gave arguments based on its 1) not being natural (against PB and PC), and 2) not being healthy (given human nature driven by PB and PC alone), and 3) being dangerous (given the nature of prostitution as a commercial enterprise).I refuted her arguments 1 and 2 using the same arguments she has used against those who say that homosexuality is 1 or 2. This included examples of animals, which practice sexuality for reasons other than PC and PB. Whether the Bonobo practices are close to human prostitution is not essential, although I do believe it is similar. Dolphins are known to practice sex just for pleasure.I refuted 3 using references to studies of prostitution. That includes its history and cross-cultural references.I do not know why schraf has not bothered looking at these references or acknowledging them with at least a coherent rebuttal.I have become upset that shraf repeated claims which have already been challenged, used negative "generalizations" about males, and--- what started the whole mess in this thread--- used arguments to defend homosexuality which were very similar to the ones she blew off from me to defend prostitution.Obviously, this has been going on a while, but this gives you a good overview.If you are interested in Bonobo research, I'll try and dig up some more references, or at least places you can go to get articles and documentaries. Maybe Rrhain knows of some links to the subject. I saw at least two documentaries while I was in Europe (either the discovery channel or national geographic).I still find it odd that people who seem so up on mammal and primate behavior (especially with evolutionary connotations) act like I am making this up or something.------------------
holmes

I hate to mention this, because the rest of your post was interesting, but in Sodom the daughter was NOT raped.This is one of the chilling aspects the Bible holds for me. It was the "good guy" that offered his daughters to be raped, the "bad guys" refused. If they had raped the daughters the passage seems to suggest that Sodom may very well have been spared.Brrrrrr.I found Rrhain's interpretation highly interesting. It was the fact that the "men of Sodom" used the word "know", and that the father then offered his daughters for sex which made me feel they had come for sex with the strangers.The idea that they came for a nonsexual "interrogation" (as you and Rrhain have suggested), and that the father's instinct was to offer his daughters up for rape as a bribe (instead of something lesser), makes that whole section even more seedy.In Judges 19:22-29 the same scenario is essentially reenacted, only the "bad guys" rape the woman offered to them.The similarity between these two passages also helped reinforce the idea in my mind that the men of Sodom came to rape. They certainly meant it in Judges.I am wondering if you or Rrhain have seen any affect on translations, or ongoing disputes about translations, based on what has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?------------------
holmes

Actually I understood that the overall backstory differed between Genesis and Judges. I simply meant that the telling and basic "plot points" were the same.Haha... I guess you could say that I was analyzing the Greatest Story Ever Told, from work I've done as a script analyst/consultant.If anything--- if I undertand correctly how you've just interpreted Judges--- you have returned them to being a similar telling.Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you are saying that in Judges, as in Genesis, a group of townsmen come to "meet/judge/interrogate" a male stranger, and then the father's natural reaction is to bribe them with the rape of his duaghter or wife?Brrrrrrrrr. I'm puzzled why women ever want to be Xtians.That said, I feel we are arguing past each other on some points.You keep telling me that the Bible doesn't label anyone a homosexual, or criticize homosexuality because they didn't have that concept (and certainly not such terminology). I wish you wouldn't do this, because I am well aware of that fact.I tried to explain that I only use the word "homosexual" as a convenient placeholder for those that practice specific same sex acts (whether in ritual or not). And IF the Bible condemns those acts as a whole (to prevent people from attending male prostitutes) then by consequence it would affect homosexuals as we understand that word today, whether there are temple prostitutes or not.Now this is the crucial point, and this is all that really needs to be made clear. From what I have read (of people debating original editions of the Bible) not all of these passages, particularly Romans and Corinthians and Timothy and perhaps the second Leviticus reference do not use the term for male prostitute.It is true that they describe actions that would be involved with such ritual sex, but it was a broad proscription such that no member of the tribe would mistakenly participate in such practices (ie removing excuses) and distinguish themselves by this proscription (like many of the other countless proscriptions Jews must live by).If it is one of these ordinary daily proscriptions of behavior which make them distinct(like touching a woman that is menstruating is unclean), then there is no logical reason to argue for its removal (or people excepting ts removal).I want to make this clear. I am not saying this. I am saying this is what has been discussed. And it sounds like a reasonable interpretation and conclusion.As you do seem very knowledgable, are you telling me that these guys saying those passages describe acts and don't always use the specific term for male prostitute are lying, or somehow mistaken?I suppose you have the advantage as I happen to trust what you say. But boy if you tell me that's true and then I get burned repeating what you say... I'll pinch you so hard!Just kidding.Anyhow, I think you also sold me short on my interpretation of David. Or should I say MY interpretation? My point was that I thought your analysis and analyses I've heard based on the culture of the time and place (which made it not a "homosexual as we define it today" relationship), sounded equally plausible.It was a little disingenuous to say because John Walker and his teacher didn't do exactly the same thing as David and co that my point wasn't valid.If Walker's father had died, I would guess that they might hold each other and cry. Why not? Haven't you seen clips of men holding each other and crying in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine after a family member is lost?Naked? Well I haven't seen totally naked. But stripping down and handing over arms was not as unusual back then (to show obedience) as it would be thought of today.What seems to be happening here, is that both sides are coming at the story with an imposition of a different culture. If I assume a predominately Greek culture was the environment that held sway there, your interpretation is the most convincing. But if it was what today is considered an "arabic" culture, then I think the other interpretation is valid. Just as if this was set in Feudal Japan, or the jungles of Africa it would have yet other valid interpretations.Do you have insight as to which culture more likely held sway in that region and at that time? If it was Greek, then I think your interpretation holds a lot more water.I also should say that I have no particular desire to see the Bible saying one thing or the other. I have obviously been hobbled by the bias of English translations (and my lack of knowledge of the original languages) which have been taught as "homo-phobic". But to get to the meat of what was meant, by reading from people who study original versions as you do, I am totally openminded about the conclusion.So fire away at those questions I've asked above. Those are what separate your interpretation of the original document, from other people's interpretations that I have read (and yes they say they are using the original language).But please don't kill the messenger (or the devil's advocate)? I admit their interpretation still sounds the most convincing, but I can go either way. No pun intended.The same-sex marriage (or union) ceremonies were fascinating. Thank you very much.While they certainly prove that Xtianity has been traditionally flexible on same sex relationships, it raise the spectre of culture again.Noticing the dates and the language (specifically references to Bacchus), it made me wonder how much of this incorporation into Xtianity was a shifting from midEast culture, to Greek culture?The wording sounded downright pagan and against something that would have grown directly from the Jewish traditions. Much like the Catholic church's adoption/translation of local Gods as saints as well as allowing new "holidays" for ease of converting the populace.Actually, didn't early temples and rites to Bacchus include male prostitution?When and Why did these same sex unions by the church not make it to the present time? Was there a specific church ruling--- and reasoning--- behind it?Look forward to your answers.------------------
holmes