The actual rules for Christians and Bible-based folks

Originally published on Dreamwidth, OCT. 29TH, 2005 01:11 PM.

Okay, I confess. I was raised a Methodist, and got more fundamentalist yet before I pitched the entire thing. But I’ve always been a great believer in measuring people by their own standards rather than by mine.

Here we have many many people in the American government and influencing it that call themselves Christians, and that look to the Old Testament for what they consider to be important.

Myself, I do not think they are doing it right.

In the New Internation Version of the Bible I found 178 entries for the word POOR; following are a few.

Exodus 23:2-7 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

2 “Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, 3 and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.

4 “If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. 5 If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it.

6 “Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. 7 Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

Exodus 23:10-12 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

Sabbath Laws
10 “For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.
12 “Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed.

Leviticus 19:9-10 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

9 ” ‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 19:14-16 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

14 ” ‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD.

15 ” ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

16 ” ‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people.
” ‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD.

Leviticus 23:22 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

22 ” ‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.’ “

Leviticus 25:35-36 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

35 ” ‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind [a] from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you.

Deuteronomy 15:7-8 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

7 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs.

Deuteronomy 15:10-11 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

10 Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

Deuteronomy 24:10-13 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

10 When you make a loan of any kind to your neighbor, do not go into his house to get what he is offering as a pledge. 11 Stay outside and let the man to whom you are making the loan bring the pledge out to you. 12 If the man is poor, do not go to sleep with his pledge in your possession. 13 Return his cloak to him by sunset so that he may sleep in it. Then he will thank you, and it will be regarded as a righteous act in the sight of the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 24:14-15 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

14 Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns. 15 Pay him his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it. Otherwise he may cry to the LORD against you, and you will be guilty of sin.

Now, check out the things I found among the 109 citations for “alien.”

Exodus 12:49 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

49 The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you.”

Leviticus 19:33 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

33 ” ‘When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him.

Leviticus 19:34 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

The rest of the entries are similar: Aliens (strangers, outlanders) are subject to the same laws, with the one exception of the holiness laws to which only Israel is subject. Anyone who mistreats them dishonors God.

Adulter* got 79 results; Sexual* immoral* got 27 results; prostitut* or harlot* got 108 (of course, that included the symbolic references); divorce got 33 (also including symbology). Homosexual got one reference, and sodomite got none, although it’s referred to in the topical index.

AND note what Ezekial says:

Ezekiel 16:49 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society49 ” ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Finally, check this part out:

Genesis 41 (New International Version)
17 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “In my dream I was standing on the bank of the Nile, 18 when out of the river there came up seven cows, fat and sleek, and they grazed among the reeds. 19 After them, seven other cows came up—scrawny and very ugly and lean. I had never seen such ugly cows in all the land of Egypt. 20 The lean, ugly cows ate up the seven fat cows that came up first. 21 But even after they ate them, no one could tell that they had done so; they looked just as ugly as before. Then I woke up.

22 “In my dreams I also saw seven heads of grain, full and good, growing on a single stalk. 23 After them, seven other heads sprouted—withered and thin and scorched by the east wind. 24 The thin heads of grain swallowed up the seven good heads. I told this to the magicians, but none could explain it to me.”

25 Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, “The dreams of Pharaoh are one and the same. God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do. 26 The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good heads of grain are seven years; it is one and the same dream. 27 The seven lean, ugly cows that came up afterward are seven years, and so are the seven worthless heads of grain scorched by the east wind: They are seven years of famine.

28 “It is just as I said to Pharaoh: God has shown Pharaoh what he is about to do. 29 Seven years of great abundance are coming throughout the land of Egypt, 30 but seven years of famine will follow them. Then all the abundance in Egypt will be forgotten, and the famine will ravage the land. 31 The abundance in the land will not be remembered, because the famine that follows it will be so severe. 32 The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon.

33 “And now let Pharaoh look for a discerning and wise man and put him in charge of the land of Egypt. 34 Let Pharaoh appoint commissioners over the land to take a fifth of the harvest of Egypt during the seven years of abundance. 35 They should collect all the food of these good years that are coming and store up the grain under the authority of Pharaoh, to be kept in the cities for food. 36 This food should be held in reserve for the country, to be used during the seven years of famine that will come upon Egypt, so that the country may not be ruined by the famine.”

Have you ever in your life seen a more clear commandment to tax the people when times are good so that you can help the people when times are bad?


It’s not the gay-pride festivals that brought down retribution on New Orleans and Florida, according to this reading. It’s the tax-cutrs for the wealthy and the benefit-cuts for the poor that did it.


Originally published on Dreamwidth MAR. 10TH, 2006 09:58 AM.

I’m gonna have to send that man fudge. An open letter to Donna Reddick reads, in part:

They’re so panicked at the thought that somebody accidentally might treat gay people like people. They run around Chicken Little-like, screaming, ‘Th’ homosex’shals is comin’! Th’ homosex’shals is comin’!” Meantime, people are ignorant in Appalachia, strung out in Miami, starving in Niger, sex slaves in India, mass-murdered in Darfur. Where is the Christian outrage about that?

Well worth reading in its entirety.

I’m embarrassed about my own response to the man, however.

Dear sir,

I was intrigued by your response to Professor Pitts, and, as always, delighted by your prose. But I’d like you to update your response to her invocation of Sodom and Gomorrah. In my experience, people always get that one wrong.

Ezekiel 16:49 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

49 ” ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

As you can see, Ezekiel was wholly unconcerned about the sexual sins (which, from my personal reading, involved rape and assault rather than loving nonstandard consensual adult intimacy), and far more concerned about their welfare philosophy.

Which, so far as I can make out, matches fairly strongly to that of the current and the past several Republican administrations.

I’ve been calling President Bush a Sodomite for some time, on this basis.


*bangs head* Reddick! Her name is Reddick! His name is Pitts!


Originally published on Dreamwidth MAR. 17TH, 2006 03:38 PM

Part of the argument that we continue to hear is that:

(pro)Homosexuality is genetic, and therefore it is gratuitously violent to legislate against a …hm, situation? that is not within the individual’s control.
(con)Homosexuality is a choice, not genetic, and therefore a different choice can and should be made.

While I am all for the scientific exploration of the function of our physical natures upon our societies, I have to say: Back the Truck Up. *beepbeepbeep*

Whether there is a genetic or biological component to a specific behavior is wholly irrelevant to whether or not a behavior should be illegal, deemed immoral, tolerated, legal, or recognized.

There are biological components, do not forget, to child molestation, serial rape, murderous cannibalism, and torture. They have all been found in many animal societies outside of our own. The fact that homosexual attraction and bonding have also been found in many animal societies outside of our own does not, therefore, in itself dictate that it should have protected status.

Contrariwise, the lack of a biological component is also wholly irrelevant to social legality. There has never, for example, been offered one shred of evidence that either religious or political affiliation has any biological, genetic, or indeed (much to the dismay of parents everywhere) even environmental components – though all do, of course, play a part in the interpretation of such affiliations.

And yet, both the religious and political freedom of the individual, the most choice-ridden situations available, are enshrined within our Constitution as inviolate.

The choice of which behaviors to protect legally and which to punish legally have historically rested on one and only one basis: danger to the social body. I will leave the proof of that to your own devices, but if you pare away the outer hulls, that is what you will find. The thing that changes over time, leading to changes in the law, is the understanding of what damages the social body and what does not.

I propose that homosexual behavior, identification, and affection be legalized to precisely the same degrees that heterosexual behavior, identification, and affection are legalized, and to the same end: the protection of the young, the unwilling, and the defenseless; the provision for stable relationships; and the promotion of the general mental health that is possible only when people can be honest about who they are in the gaze of the larger society. And that would be mental health for all concerned.

Who you are cannot be dictated by society and your parents: not political beliefs, not religion (Judaism and Catholicism notwithstanding: people do both come in and go out), and not affectional orientation. Regardless of, and wholly separate from, genetics.

CHURCH CONDEMNS LESBIAN IVF USE (and gets condemned right back)

Originally published on Dreamwidth NOV. 19TH, 2007 02:30 PM.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor wrote: “The bill proposes to remove the need for IVF providers to take into account the child’s need for a father when considering an IVF application and to confer legal parenthood on people who have no biological relationship to a child born as a result of IVF.

-um, ya mean, kinda like folks calling someone “Father” who not only has no relation to them genetically or legally, but whom the folks answering to that appellation still see as necessarily overriding the folks of the first parts’ own judgment in all kinds of personal and political situations?

Of course, they did say that “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many, […]It must always be opposed.” I wish they had been holding to that standard there in the 1960s-1990s, when they were asked to defend innocent human life. – Oh, right, they only care about protecting innocent life when there’s a chance of controlling a woman along with it. Because otherwise, as Garry Wills says in his LA Times opinion piece, “The supreme irony is that, properly understood, abortion is not even a religious issue.”

I have said before, verbally if not in this forum, that

the damage goes beyond disillusionment with a father figure because the exploiter-abuser was a priest, a “godlike” person, who occupied a position of sacred trust to the youth and his or her family. Furthermore, the victim had not only been violated but his or her source of spiritual support in a time of trouble—the church and its representative—had been rudely swept away.

The authors of this article and writers of the above words obviously (and unknowingly!) agree with me and bring back to the fore the fact that, media skew aside, we are really, really not talking about priests being homosexual predators. On page 56 of this document, they examine the various sources and interpretations of the statistics. But even if only half as many girls as boys get victimized – a statistic questionable on a number of grounds – that still means that a full third of the victims are young females, and their predators thus heterosexual priests. AW Richard Sipe is quoted in that same Boston Globe article as finding that “the numbers change dramatically among late adolescents and adults, with woman victims outnumbering males 4 to 1.”

John Paul II said in his Evangelium vitae of 1995 that

It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment “You shall not kill”.

I submit that the full truth of the sexual act is a proper expression of affection between consenting adults, and that the total rejection of any sexual permission outside that of a conjugal attempt for reproduction in itself breaks down the attempt by morally desperate but fragile people to understand the rules – which are psychiatric and neither physical nor legal in nature – by which we may sustain a society.

The sexual act between friends – male and female, or female and female, or male and male – does not in itself cause mental agony. The sexual act of a solitary person, like the sexual act between more than two friends, does not cause mental agony.

But a sexual act between an authority figure and a dependent person, whether a child, a legally or religiously submissive person, or a mentally or emotionally fragile or non-competent person, does cause mental agony. It destroys the dependent person’s full capacity for societal participation; it injures and may destroy the dependent person’s full capacity for sexual expression; and it destroys the dependent person’s trust in unconditional love, which has been shown to be profoundly necessary to full moral development.

And a sexual act between people who are not friends, or between people at least one of whom has promised sexual fidelity to one not present, does cause mental agony, to the participants who find their sexual experience to be mechanical or even despairing, and to the person or people not present, who find that their trust in their beloved is unfounded.

There are sexual crimes, oh yes. But I have no ability to hear the words of the authorities of the Catholic church on this matter: their actions are screaming too loudly.


Originally published in Dreamwidth OCT. 21ST, 2004 10:23 AM.

When a few progressive women asked for the right to vote, the society rose up in a body and answered, “That would devastate the family and change society as we know it.”

When more progressive women asked for the right to be treated equally under the law, the society rose up in a body and answered, “That would devastate the family and change society as we know it.”

When even more progressive women asked for the right to legal, safe abortions, the society rose up in a body and answered, “That would devastate the family and change society as we know it.”

Now that various and sundry people (including some gays) are demanding that laws be changed to permit the marriage of gay people to the ones they love, the society is rising up in a body and answering, “That would devastate the family and change society as we know it.”

It is important for us to acknowledge that they were absolutely correct, according to their definitions of marriage, the family, and society as they know it.

Marriage as they know it requires that, and I quote, “The wife submit to the husband as the church submits to Christ; and the husband love the wife as Christ loves the church.” There is a profound sense of unidirectional ownership in this marriage – the wife belongs to the husband, but the husband does not necessarily belong to the wife – and there is also the assumption that wrong behavior shall be chastised.

The family as they know it is the cauldron in which the above and below situations are trained and maintained. Within the family, everyone has a place and a set of duties, responsibilities, and rights that are the same in each and every family in society. Training to a position that will not be held by that family member is rightly suspected to lead to discontent by the one trained when that training is not used. (E.g.: a boy taught to cook will be disappointed when his future wife drives him out of the kitchen, as is her right.)

Society as they know it is predicated on the idea that those in charge tell the rest what to do, and are obeyed. That there are ranges of appropriate behavior for every person, and that those ranges can be understood by looking at the person in question. That the attempt to move outside those ranges of appropriate behavior indicates a desire to belong to the group for whom that behavior is appropriate. That such a desire is both sinful and criminal, and is possibly pathological, and is a pointer to further desires to break societal rules.

Our foremothers and their male allies and family members have absolutely accomplished all of the changes ascribed to them. It is up to us to continue the battle.


Yes, you are seeing this correctly. The Trumpian “conservative” political movement is, in fact, attempting to recreate “the family and society” as they knew it. Or thought they did.


(Originally written on Dreamwidth MAY. 16TH, 2012 11:19 PM)

Understand this very clearly: they do not respect women. They do not actually like for us to have any control over ourselves or our environment at all. They know how they would act in our shoes and they are terrified we will.

If they are Catholic or if they are Jewish or if they are Baptist or if they are Muslim or if they are Shinto it doesn’t matter. The masters of the faith require us to bow our heads to them. They need for us not to “play God” with our own bodies because we might reverse a decision they made. Like whether or not to have sex without their consent. Like whether or not to grant life to a bit of their genetic makeup. Make no mistake: the entire Catholic institutional uproar about whether they shall cover birth control or abortions is directly about whether women will have sex without permission from God (them). This is clearly seen in Limbaugh’s screed over how much sex he imagines Ms Fluke to be having. It is clearly seen in the bishops’ demand to control the pregnancy options of their employees, Catholic or not. It is clearly seen in the unofficial “honor” killings performed by WASP men in these United States.

They love us. They fear us. They fear losing us and our services to them, and like any abusive family member, they try to make it impossible for us to enjoy ourselves, to control ourselves, or to escape.

I have for decades now been alarmed by the number of hospitals that are owned by the Catholic church. I have been alarmed for decades by the repeated claim that medical personnel might control the options of their patients by their own principles rather than by the principles of their patients. I am gasping with terror over those ugly, scaly, noxious gorilla buttocks being shaken in public in each and every state and national governmental body in the land.

We discovered, back when my eldest daughter first acquired her pet rat and wanted to share it with me, that I am terrified of rats. (Really, who knew?? Not me!)

We also discovered what my actual visceral response to terror is.

The urge to violence.

(Kind of like that of abusive family members, actually. It is really a good thing that nothing my family members can possibly do is anything that terrifies me. I’d have to pre-emptively check myself into jail. Ugh.)

I’m older than I was when I decided it wasn’t safe for me to own firearms. My hormones are under control again, my therapist is really happy with me, and I am very unlikely to go all “Get off my lawn!” on anyone.

So I’m thinking – maybe it’s time I took advantage of the power that we have actually accumulated over the last 60 years. Before we lose it.

Maybe it is time we all take advantage of the power our foremothers and forefathers bled to acquire for us.

I have always voted. I am now also writing to my reps, and calling them. I am volunteering now. I went to Madison. (Did you Go To Madison?) I hereby begin to write again, and I write now to urge you, my sisters and those of my brother who see this, to Go To Madison. To vote, and to speak with your neighbors. To demand response, in front of all the scaly arses wagging in our faces. To be willing to stand for an appropriate office, just like my brother in First Unitarian did, the one who Led The 14 Out Of Madison. In spite of all the things the media and the opposition can possibly pull up and wave in my face.

Make no mistake, those things are there. I have to – you have to – be willing to say, Publish And Be Damned To You!

We have the franchise. No matter what kind of ID nonsense they are now trying to inflict on all of us, we do have the franchise. Vote, and persuade your family and your neighbors and your congregation members and your pool buddies and your fellow students (or teachers or TAs or crew members or shipmates or whoever the blessed fuck you communicate with) to go out and do likewise. Persuade them that they actually can affect their own – our own – country.

But more: as you find appropriate for your own place (block, town, state) and your own circumstances (fears, abilities, people immediately around you), arm yourself. Be Darcy. Be Natasha. Be Sif.

Holy fuck, be Tony and get yourself a Nuke of your very own, if you want and you can and you should.

And when the scaly gasfarters say “Fear me, little gurl, and scream and run and bleed and cry and submit,” you say:

“Oh, yes, I fear you.” TAZE “You need to scream and run and bleed and cry and submit, now.”

Arm yourself according to your circumstances, both personal and environmental.

(And believe me, if I was Destiny’s mom, I’d carry my own tazer or pepper spray to school, and just shadow him all day, looking threateningly at every kid there, and not saying a word.)

Political Stuff Herein.

Oct. 3rd, 2006
Okay, anyone who has actually been reading my journal knows where I have to stand on gay rights. But it might not be so obvious, my recent self-introduction notwithstanding, where I stand otherwise.
Let me put this in the negative, then.
I do not believe that any adult anywhere has the right to touch children in a sexual manner. I define “children” here as “human or otherwise sapient minors as defined legally or not less than seven years after physical maturity, whichever comes last.” Yeah, I said “last.” If “maturity” is legally “12” and a kid hits menarche or wet dreams at 9, leave them be until they’re 16, please. Even if local law says you don’t have to do so. If the kid hits menarche or wet dreams at 16, there’s no harm in leaving her or him be until 23. Give them time to get used to the body!
I do not believe that anyone has the right to touch nonsapients, even human ones, in a sexual manner. (Artificial insemination of livestock is a problem for me, which I’m studying on.) Whether there is a local law against it or not.
Cross-generational incest is psychologically damaging to both parties, and particularly to the weaker (the younger, or the frailly elder) party. It should not be permitted; if legal recourse is inadvisable, I would firmly recommend mandatory counseling.
That all being established, and other coercion being excluded, I see no reason not to legally recognize any union of any number of sapient adults for the emotional and financial support of each other and of affiliated dependents.
I do not believe men deserve fewer, or more, protections against sexual misconduct than do women. If it would be sexual harassment for a woman, it is sexual harassment for a man. (Thinking here of job “requirements”.) If would be sexual harassment for a man, it is sexual harassment for a woman. (Thinking here of “solicitation” of a stranger for sex – whether money is or is not mentioned should not vary by the gender of the one approached, legally speaking.)
I do not believe in the forgiving of sexually-motivated violence, regardless of the context. And by “forgiving,” I mean “responding only outside of the legal system.”
I believe that most ethnic violence, especially that which appears to be religious, is actually sexual at its root: one group attempting to control the sexuality and genetic rights of another. (“Civil,” i.e., racial civil rights: see accusations of the rape of white (or otherwise dominant group) women, and accusations of promiscuity and prostitution.)
I believe that gender-related violence is sexual at its root: men, sometimes abetted by women, attempting to control the sexuality and genetic rights of others. (“Women’s” civil rights; and “Gay” civil rights: see accusations of promiscuity, prostitution, and solicitation; see also the rage concerning birth control, abortion, and adoption.)
I believe that the dismissal of the existence of nonstandard physicality and mentality is genetic at its root: attempting to remove such folk from the genome by a form of “exposure,” causing their deaths by neglect and thereby proving their lack of survivability. (“Handicapped” civil rights: see building standards, mental health departments in hospitals, and Reagan’s “community-based care.”)
Countering all this, I believe firmly in the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Most of the country, for most of its history, has firmly ignored this right.
But by Athene, Apollo, Odin, and Freya: it shall not be so forever.

The sexuality summary

May. 12th, 2006

So, if I’m reading the previous correctly, it goes like this:

1. The highest expression of physical love is the creation of new life within a context where those responsible for creating that life will nurture and raise it.

2. Any physical pleasure which does not meet the above standards dehumanizes the participants, turning at least one of them into a “prostitute” or utility for the convenience of the other.

3. When the possibility of the creation of new life within a context where those responsible for creating that life will nurture and raise it is gone, then those people ought to cease engaging in physical pleasure, whether they are married to each other or not.

This leads to the following conclusions on my part of the logical outcomes of this set of statements:

A. A menopausal woman ought not to have sex with her husband. (Or anyone else.)
B. A man whose wife is menopausal ought not to have sex with her (or anyone else).
C. A woman who is currently pregnant ought not to have sex with her husband (or anyone else).
D. Any infertile person ought never to have sex, and probably ought not to be married.
E. Any unmarried person ought not to have sex at all.
F. No parent should die ever until the youngest offspring is at least 18.
G. Therefore, fertile or not, no one over the age of 50 should have sex, lest they inadvertently die before their offspring are completely raised.


The female participants are being devalued and dehumanized and turned into sex utilities.

I think that’s it.

What they mean when they say Gays threaten Marriage.

May. 12th, 2006

Finally I have read a detailed, comprehensible, in-their-own-words explanation of why the Christian Right is reacting to sexuality the way it is. The following is culled from a nine-page article, which you should definitely read in its entirety. It may still be freely available; otherwise, the registration with the New York Times is free and worthwhile.

Published: May 7, 2006
The New York Times Magazine
Continue reading