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.
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.
By RUSSELL SHORTO
Published: May 7, 2006
The New York Times Magazine
Feb. 1st, 2007
I was just reading an article in The Advocate, a gay-issues national newspaper, entitled Gay marriage re-emerges as legislative issue, written by Brian Lockhart. In it, he quotes State Rep. David Aldarondo, D-Waterbury, as saying: “I am a Christian. I believe in the family, a married man with a woman.”
This got me to thinking: I, a former Christian, indeed a former Fundamentalist Christian, had always thought that Christians believed that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ paid the penalty for their sins, allowing them, on acceptance of the sacrifice, into Heaven without additional sacrifice or time in Hell.
Apr. 12th, 2007
for denying any recognition of formalized couple status for us homosektchuls.
And I was thinking of it in the context of the rage about women having the God-damned audacity to choose to have a child without the benefit of a present, wedded-to-her father.
And I know I’m preaching to the choir, here, but allow me to get my thoughts in order.
The thing that keeps coming back to me is that there are these limits being put on child-rearing that are mutually incompatible, and also incompatible with the reality of the world.
Nov. 21st, 2007
I am an American feminist information literacy librarian warrior.
The feminist warrior has a button, more than 20 years old, saying “Eve Chose to Know.”
The information specialist has the Library Bill of Rights inscribed on her heart. The Freedom to Read Statement seems almost tautological.
October 11th, 2011, 02:38 pm
Every once in a while, it’s necessary to revisit this discussion. As a former christian I have a unique view of the question, my own efforts to gain a pure and therefore muscular and supportive version of the religion having been met with a series of increasingly narrow definitions that, eventually, defined me right out.
Yeah, really: I was a teenaged conservative fundamentalist evangelical Christian, halleluiah! God-fearing and Bible-studying, Amen!
May 19th, 2008, 01:50 pm
Let us begin with this section from Ephesians:
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
From a discussion on ISCA.
Sep 19, 1995 09:43 from FtC
I need some advice!
I have a really good friend (we’ve been friends for almost 20 years!) and he is gay, or at least he thinks he may be. The reason he thinks he may be is that he has fantasized about relationships with men, but he has never acted on these fantasies. He asked me a couple of perplexing questions, and I was hoping you may have an answer. First of all, he doesn’t want to be gay, but he says he “just can’t shake these feelings,” and second, he has had sex with a woman, but “it was empty sex – there were no real feelings there.” His questions I couldn’t answer were this:
- Why would God make me homosexual or allow the devil to have this power over me?
- Since I don’t know if I am homosexual for sure [he’s never had sex with a man], should I try it to destroy these fantasies I’m having?
This conversation between Mama Rose and Mike Nichols, of The Witches’ Sabbats fame, ranged over a great many topics in 1996.
Rose: Now: I understand to begin with that he actually changed the book with each edition, although he didn’t bother saying so. The one which got into my hands was the 1948 edition (funny what turns up in a science and engineering library!).
Mike: And I’ll have to check when I get home to see which version mine is. I wasn’t aware that the book had revisions with the different editions… verrry interesting.
I’ve been asked several times why it is that I am Wiccan, Pagan, and a Witch as opposed, to, say, Evangelical Baptist Christian. Here’s the story.
Context is everything.
At the time I originally wrote this essay, for Muslims, Christian arguments were irrelevant. Today, they are less irrelevant and more a cause for wariness and rage on the part of some, or a cause for scholarship, or … irrelevant.
For Jews, Christian arguments are things to keep a wary eye on, watching for signs of renewed pogroms — signs which unfortunately do come up from time to time.
For members of other religions, even less attention is paid.
But NeoPagans are, for the most part, former Christians: not people who are in ignorance of the message of Christianity, nor people who are sublimely or warily unconcerned with it, but people who have been steeped in it and have rejected it. (Note the use of the phrase “for the most part;” we certainly have people who have come out of — or who have not left — other traditions as well. But, for the most part, these people have little hostility toward their milk religions.)