Female Vs Male Homosexuality

[Keith Martin]

L

Lev. 18:22-23; 20:13.

Those two passages are not specifically referring to a specific sex act, but rather sex in general. The text makes that obvious. It says, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman”. If Leviticus is referring specifically to anal sex then it would be saying that anal sex is how a man lies with a woman. That’s not what it’s saying, it’s just a reference to sexual relations in general.

Ah, Lev. 20:13. I have long been tempted to share the research I did on this verse a couple years ago. Unfortunately, I lost my notes so would have to go back and do it all over again. Repeating myself would certainly take less time this time around, because I have a much better idea now of how to go about both (a) dissecting the direct Hebrew-to-English translation and (b) seeking out recent-history and modern rabbinical discourse on the topic.

Let me just tease you with this:

1. First, @Asforme&myhouse, I believe that most Christians make the assumption that those verses are referring to anal sex because most denominations rely on translations that render the phrase something along the lines of, "A man shall not have sex with a man as a man would with a woman," conjuring up (without Scriptural support, I might add), the image of a man between the legs of a woman penetrating her, and the only way for a man to do that with another man would be anally.
2. I specifically focused on 20:13, but as most versions use the same languaging in each verse, my suspicion is that the mistranslations are parallel in those verses.
3. This research is what led me to conclude that Bible Hub is a very flawed translation device, which led me to seek out even more alternative translation venues, because I discovered that Lev. 20:13 is not the only place in which Bible Hub's translations are not only not direct, literal translations from the Hebrew but are simply word-for-word copy-and-paste from the King James Version, which amounts to circular translation. If translation should ever legitimately proceed from one version to another, the logical direction would be from older to newer, not newer to older.
4. The preliminary conclusion I drew from discovering ways to translate directly from Hebrew to English led me to believe that what 20:13 is saying is not anything about anal sex (my presupposition going into it), because there is no way to come up with "as with a woman" from the original Hebrew. Most sources I came across attributed this translation progression to the Septuagint crew, noting that, following their work, many of their changes based on their collective antisexual bias were then translated from the Greek backwards into newer Hebrew versions. Homosexuality had not been a major problem in the Hebrew culture, but it was certainly widespread and culturally-acceptable for the Greeks, escalatingly so in the wake of the creation of the monogamy-only imperative; the Greeks started regulating male-female partnerships but at best looked the other way when it came to men having sex with boys. Those involved with the translation of Torah into Greek very likely didn't want things Hebrew to head in that direction and, according to some modern rabbinical scholars I encountered online, very well may have padded Scripture with what they considered to be an omission on Moses's (God's?) part.
5. Furthermore, I'm rather certain the verse in its original Hebrew was not addressing male/male sexuality. Instead, it is an emphasis explanation following up on what was begun in Lev. 18 with all the near-kin prohibitions. It is almost as if Moses either was addressing a question he received upon initially sharing the Lev. 18 wisdom or was his way of anticipating a question he (or God) expected to come up, much as it would today. The question would have been, 'You've only mentioned what combinations of wives men can have, so what combinations of husbands can women have?'
6. Lev. 20:13 is the answer: A man sharing his wife with another man is absolutely prohibited and will bring blood evil down on not only the individuals involved but their descendants as well. In other words, it's a prohibition in the law against polyandry. And it would make complete sense, because it would have wreaked havoc on God's intention that family structures and inheritances remain stable. Not knowing who was impregnating fertile females would have greatly increased familial chaos.

Can you say can of worms?

I must warn anyone who might want to spar with me about this, though, that I am only in very spare moments visiting this site these days, because I'm furiously preparing for a hoped-for move to Texas this summer, and I already have far, far less time than I need to prepare my business for that move. So . . . if I'm going to engage in spirited debate about my research and its conclusions, I will first have to repeat my research to re-create my notes. And, if I'm ever going to repeat my research, that's going to have to be sometime after I've moved and also sometime after I've settled in in my new home.

Where I let all this live within me, myself and I, though, is to just consider it another example of how organized religion has so thoroughly and consistently foisted major 'scriptural' untruths on its congregants over such a long period of time that most everyone now simply assumes that those untruths are not only unquestionable but of such major significance within religious teachings that some denominations even based major dogma on them. Does that type of bias and stigma ring a bell to anyone around here?

 

[Pacman]

Ah, Lev. 20:13. I have long been tempted to share the research I did on this verse a couple years ago. Unfortunately, I lost my notes so would have to go back and do it all over again. Repeating myself would certainly take less time this time around, because I have a much better idea now of how to go about both (a) dissecting the direct Hebrew-to-English translation and (b) seeking out recent-history and modern rabbinical discourse on the topic.

Let me just tease you with this:

1. First, @Asforme&myhouse, I believe that most Christians make the assumption that those verses are referring to anal sex because most denominations rely on translations that render the phrase something along the lines of, "A man shall not have sex with a man as a man would with a woman," conjuring up (without Scriptural support, I might add), the image of a man between the legs of a woman penetrating her, and the only way for a man to do that with another man would be anally.
2. I specifically focused on 20:13, but as most versions use the same languaging in each verse, my suspicion is that the mistranslations are parallel in those verses.
3. This research is what led me to conclude that Bible Hub is a very flawed translation device, which led me to seek out even more alternative translation venues, because I discovered that Lev. 20:13 is not the only place in which Bible Hub's translations are not only not direct, literal translations from the Hebrew but are simply word-for-word copy-and-paste from the King James Version, which amounts to circular translation. If translation should ever legitimately proceed from one version to another, the logical direction would be from older to newer, not newer to older.
4. The preliminary conclusion I drew from discovering ways to translate directly from Hebrew to English led me to believe that what 20:13 is saying is not anything about anal sex (my presupposition going into it), because there is no way to come up with "as with a woman" from the original Hebrew. Most sources I came across attributed this translation progression to the Septuagint crew, noting that, following their work, many of their changes based on their collective antisexual bias were then translated from the Greek backwards into newer Hebrew versions. Homosexuality had not been a major problem in the Hebrew culture, but it was certainly widespread and culturally-acceptable for the Greeks, escalatingly so in the wake of the creation of the monogamy-only imperative; the Greeks started regulating male-female partnerships but at best looked the other way when it came to men having sex with boys. Those involved with the translation of Torah into Greek very likely didn't want things Hebrew to head in that direction and, according to some modern rabbinical scholars I encountered online, very well may have padded Scripture with what they considered to be an omission on Moses's (God's?) part.
5. Furthermore, I'm rather certain the verse in its original Hebrew was not addressing male/male sexuality. Instead, it is an emphasis explanation following up on what was begun in Lev. 18 with all the near-kin prohibitions. It is almost as if Moses either was addressing a question he received upon initially sharing the Lev. 18 wisdom or was his way of anticipating a question he (or God) expected to come up, much as it would today. The question would have been, 'You've only mentioned what combinations of wives men can have, so what combinations of husbands can women have?'
6. Lev. 20:13 is the answer: A man sharing his wife with another man is absolutely prohibited and will bring blood evil down on not only the individuals involved but their descendants as well. In other words, it's a prohibition in the law against polyandry. And it would make complete sense, because it would have wreaked havoc on God's intention that family structures and inheritances remain stable. Not knowing who was impregnating fertile females would have greatly increased familial chaos.

Can you say can of worms?

I must warn anyone who might want to spar with me about this, though, that I am only in very spare moments visiting this site these days, because I'm furiously preparing for a hoped-for move to Texas this summer, and I already have far, far less time than I need to prepare my business for that move. So . . . if I'm going to engage in spirited debate about my research and its conclusions, I will first have to repeat my research to re-create my notes. And, if I'm ever going to repeat my research, that's going to have to be sometime after I've moved and also sometime after I've settled in in my new home.

Where I let all this live within me, myself and I, though, is to just consider it another example of how organized religion has so thoroughly and consistently foisted major 'scriptural' untruths on its congregants over such a long period of time that most everyone now simply assumes that those untruths are not only unquestionable but of such major significance within religious teachings that some denominations even based major dogma on them. Does that type of bias and stigma ring a bell to anyone around here?

I'm going to have to see a lot of proof for that one @Keith Martin consider me one who is not only skeptical but I think you are flat wrong. As far as the original Hebrew text I'm curious if @IshChayil can add some clarity?

 

[The Revolting Man]

What corruption would they be taking in to their body? It seems at least one choice is obvious.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I'd say look at every sexual sin for what they all have in common. As I see it, that is the pleasure of sex in a way or with a partner that is forbidden.

1. Incest. Unlawful partner.
2.Adultery. Unlawful partner.
3. Beastiality. Unlawful species even!
4. Relations during menstruation. Clearly prohibited, and draw your own conclusions about why.
I believe that sex is jolly good fun, and the best fun is to be had by lawful relations that bring blessings, as in children.

Many people don't see children as blessings.

Now look at the two possibilities there in leviticus.

1. If it is as @Keith Martin has suggested, and talking about polyandry, this sin was already prohibited in the commandment about adultery where a man having sex with his neighbor's wife is expressly forbidden. This is not conditional with exceptions being ok if her husband doesn't mind.
2. It is talking about enjoying sexual pleasure with a man like you do a woman.
Now I'm sure no one here thinks those verses in leviticus are prohibiting men from sharing tents, or sleeping next to other men. The difference in anatomy that allows a procreative option on the woman is why Paul was floored by the women exchanging the natural use.

The man who chooses to use his body in a way contrary to it's obvious functional design is doing a vile thing. Have you heard the term "douche bag"? Well, in my opinion men that do anal sex deserve to be called "enema bags!" That "tool" has a function far better then collecting fecal samples!

In the prince and the pauper, the pauper has to help the prince remember what he did with the great seal of England. The pauper didn't know what it was for, so used it to crack nuts.....something everyone found amusing.

The sobering reality about the four sexual sins listed is many if not all carry the death penalty. I believe this is because sexual pleasure associated with sin makes stopping the sin nearly impossible. There is a book "Coming out straight" about a homosexual who overcame his past. It is an extreme example of choosing to repent. It took determination.....lots.
I'm inclined to think most lack the will to change and overcome sexual sin. There is still hope, because with YHWH all things are possible, but I'm certain two wives in bed is less likely to end up in sinful sex.
Two positively lawful outlets (or is that inlets? Lol ) for sexual expression instead of one....or in the case of another man .....NONE!

My 2 cents for whatever it's worth.

 

[sambowers]

The Law of Moses was given by God to the Israelites. The New Testament bases it's teachings on the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses continues for Christians, even though the way some of them r observed has changed. SO ANYTHING THAT IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW OF MOSES, IS NOT SINFUL. THE ONLY THING PAUL WAS CONDEMNING IN THE ROMANS WAS ANAL SEX. Lesbianism and female bisexuality r not sinful.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Me thinks I could make a scriptural case against lesbianism. Lesbians choose to partner with other women and reject men. The scripture says woman was made for man. Apart from man woman is outside of her created purpose PERIOD.

This is why the seven women in Isaiah 4 want to be called by the man's name. The reproach is not a lack of children, but a lack of position in relationship to man. They were not asking for provision or marital relations.....or children....just his name. I see lots of women nowadays living with a man and NOT taking his name. It's a rather prevalent and telling modern "rattitude."

 

[Mojo]

At the risk of being too graphic, I think the issue in Romans has to do with anal. Male homosexuality goes that direction and women, to avoid procreation, exchanged the natural for the unnatural (with men).

I do not think the Romans passage forbids f-f on the same grounds @FollowingHim states.

Sex between a man and a woman is, by definition, dominant in penetration. But, it is also designed to be procreative. When two men are together, by definition, it defiles the authority structure while not being procreative, therefore a twisting of man's purpose and calling.

Two women together cannot by definition defile the authority structure w/o penetration/dominance. If they artificially cross that line, then they have violated the created order by one taking the place of a man to assert dominance.. simple f-f intimacy is natural in how women tend to interact and not a violation of authority structure as long as tbeir common head allows and they are willing. As with the parallel agricultural laws, a woman is a field into which seed is planted. Just as seed is not to be mixed, a womanmay only have one owner/planter, but the owner/planter may own more than one field. Field can lay next to each other and be tended simultaneously or separately by the owner. Within certain restrictions, they could not be sold and had to stay in the family... I.e., redeemed by a near relative if a man died...

The major points of significance common to both illustrations are 1) not mixing seed and 2) protection/ownership of the field by the owner.

Darn it, I came to this too late. This is my primary interpretation of this verse, with the others being secondary. When Paul talks about the male homosexuals, he then transitions to..."likewise, the women..." I think he's making a parallelism. It's both unnatural and non procreative....like the men on men.

 

[Mojo]

It is speculative to extend these verses to all forms of anal sex. Although I find the idea disgusting myself, I interpret "the marriage bed is undefiled" to mean that anything a husband and wife choose to get up to is acceptable (other than sex during menstruation, which is specifically and repeatedly said to be sinful).
Once again, it is prudent to not have anal sex in case it is sinful, but as this is not clearly stated there is insufficient evidence to prove this is a blanket rule.

I'll go further and say that I believe anal penetration in a marriage bed is not sinful (not mentioned in Torah). It is unnatural in that that part of the body is designed for exits, not entries, but not specifically outlawed in scripture for heterosexuals. That being said, I do believe the reference in Romans is about anal penetration, but an indictment of it as a non creative and purely sensuality driven lifestyle...which is what defines male homosexuality. Bodies weren't designed for that ( unnatural).

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'll go further and say that I believe anal penetration in a marriage bed is not sinful (not mentioned in Torah). It is unnatural in that that part of the body is designed for exits, not entries, but not specifically outlawed in scripture for heterosexuals. That being said, I do believe the reference in Romans is about anal penetration, but an indictment of it as a non creative and purely sensuality driven lifestyle...which is what defines male homosexuality. Bodies weren't designed for that ( unnatural).

It is qualified with burning desire and abandoning the natural use. With out those qualifiers there would be no prohibition.

 

[Mojo]

It is qualified with burning desire and abandoning the natural use. With out those qualifiers there would be no prohibition.

I...think we're saying the same thing....????

Either my reply was confusing (writing way too late for myself) or your reply is confusing me.

 

[Patrick Lauser]

On the topic of principles: it's just a logical principle that if God doesn't say something is right it doesn't mean that it's wrong, and if God doesn't say something is wrong it doesn't mean that it's right.
Unless he said something like, "There is no sin that the law does not name." and there would still be the question of specificity: God forbids categories of sin, obviously, and so there are of course things that are not named specifically that would still be forbidden by the law. It has been pointed out before that the term "fornication" is a broader term in Scripture, more to the scope of perhaps "lewdness".

On the original topic, I think the biblical stance is understandable enough. Physically speaking the act of intercourse is an act done to the woman: she is penetrated and inseminated; so it would be impossible for a woman to do it to another woman. I think you could also say that anal or not doesn't matter, as the person doing the act is basically doing the same thing, penetrating and inseminating. I would say that anal sex in general would fall in the same category as eating excrement: not a sin, but...
I would say that f on f "sex" would fall under the same category of a man stimulating another man. I think these acts are not intercourse, but are confusion and perversion for the same reason, like homosexual pornography. Bestiality is forbidden because it is "confusion", which is also brought up in connection with incest, and I would say that this is also the basis of condemning sodomy (in fact "sodomy" used to include both bestiality and "buggery", m on m), and so would apply to any act involving sexual attraction between the same sex, just as sexual attraction to a beast would be condemned (in fact it specifically says that a woman is not to "stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion."). I think this is further stated in Romans, where it says "even their women", as if it was an even more extreme thing, probably because sexual desire is usually initiated by the man; it then says, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;" what it likens to the women leaving their natural use is the homosexual lust, and then goes on to speak of the resulting actions.

However, can a woman stimulating another woman, or a man stimulating another man, be done without sexual attraction between the two specifically? I think so; in fact (I seem to say "in fact" a lot, don't I?) there are farmers who manually stimulate their female animals to help with breeding, and I doubt this is generally connected with bestial lust at all.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

On the topic of principles: it's just a logical principle that if God doesn't say something is right it doesn't mean that it's wrong, and if God doesn't say something is wrong it doesn't mean that it's right.
Unless he said something like, "There is no sin that the law does not name." and there would still be the question of specificity: God forbids categories of sin, obviously, and so there are of course things that are not named specifically that would still be forbidden by the law. It has been pointed out before that the term "fornication" is a broader term in Scripture, more to the scope of perhaps "lewdness".

On the original topic, I think the biblical stance is understandable enough. Physically speaking the act of intercourse is an act done to the woman: she is penetrated and inseminated; so it would be impossible for a woman to do it to another woman. I think you could also say that anal or not doesn't matter, as the person doing the act is basically doing the same thing, penetrating and inseminating. I would say that anal sex in general would fall in the same category as eating excrement: not a sin, but...
I would say that f on f "sex" would fall under the same category of a man stimulating another man. I think these acts are not intercourse, but are confusion and perversion for the same reason, like homosexual pornography. Bestiality is forbidden because it is "confusion", which is also brought up in connection with incest, and I would say that this is also the basis of condemning sodomy (in fact "sodomy" used to include both bestiality and "buggery", m on m), and so would apply to any act involving sexual attraction between the same sex, just as sexual attraction to a beast would be condemned (in fact it specifically says that a woman is not to "stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion."). I think this is further stated in Romans, where it says "even their women", as if it was an even more extreme thing, probably because sexual desire is usually initiated by the man; it then says, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;" what it likens to the women leaving their natural use is the homosexual lust, and then goes on to speak of the resulting actions.

However, can a woman stimulating another woman, or a man stimulating another man, be done without sexual attraction between the two specifically? I think so; in fact (I seem to say "in fact" a lot, don't I?) there are farmers who manually stimulate their female animals to help with breeding, and I doubt this is generally connected with bestial lust at all.

That can be a dangerous road to go down though. I had this discussion with a friend of mine from my church, and he was trying to convince me that even though the Bible doesn't say that polygamy is sin, it is still a sin. His tactic was to try to get me to speculate on why God says that certain things are sinful. I told him that the Bible does tell us why some of those things are wrong, and in other places, Scripture is silent. His definition of sin, is one I have heard a lot in church; "missing the mark". In fact, that turns out to be an Etymylogical Fallacy, as in fact the Greek and Hebrew words for sin, are dervied from a word meaning, "to miss the mark", but words do change their meaning over time. That is a sidebar to this discussion, which I just want to warn people about trying to declare knowledge regarding God's (original) intent, which is a phrase I'm sure we are all familiar with, when such information, is merely speculation.

 

[Joleneakamama]

That can be a dangerous road to go down though. I had this discussion with a friend of mine from my church, and he was trying to convince me that even though the Bible doesn't say that polygamy is sin, it is still a sin. His tactic was to try to get me to speculate on why God says that certain things are sinful. I told him that the Bible does tell us why some of those things are wrong, and in other places, Scripture is silent. His definition of sin, is one I have heard a lot in church; "missing the mark". In fact, that turns out to be an Etymylogical Fallacy, as in fact the Greek and Hebrew words for sin, are dervied from a word meaning, "to miss the mark", but words do change their meaning over time. That is a sidebar to this discussion, which I just want to warn people about trying to declare knowledge regarding God's (original) intent, which is a phrase I'm sure we are all familiar with, when such information, is merely speculation.

There is a huge difference in the amount of scripture validating polygyny in contrast to the weak and speculative stuff being used to assert that unnatural sex is discretionary in marriage, or even condemn women touching women.
If someone asserted that the gender of the unclean meat made any difference, or that your relationship to the animal (whether or not you prayed over it before consuming it) made it ok I think there would be serious open argument from the Torah observant here.
We don't celebrate christmas because of the heathen traditions, but where in the scripture does anyone get the impression anal is ok?? There is no way that a patriarch like Jacob/Israel with four wives wanting his attention and hiring him with mandrakes would have fathered 12 sons by sowing his seed in the manure.
To my way of thinking a sincere believer would need to be 100% certain that YHWH was only bothered by the participants both being male to consider experimenting that way. Paul after all was commenting on the law, not giving any new doctrine.

Since the law was not silent where beastiality involving women was concerned, the lack of regulation about how close wives could be has meaning. Polygyny was never condemned, AND it was regulated, and blessed.

Honestly though, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind" will cause the same "mental image" without the "as with womankind" and eliminates the argument that since you don't do "that" with your wife it must be about polyandry.

YHWH told man to bury it if you poop in the woods, but your marriage bed will stay "undefiled" as long as anal is just foreplay??? and doesn't take the place of "natural" relations?

Well, my hubby over 20 years ago worked with guys that tried to tell him he was missing out if he never tried that. He would ask them "What's the difference between a woman's and a man's." They never had an answer.
I sure appreciate my hubby.....always have. I have to wonder now if anyone here might think that other things not specifically described and defined as "sins" would be ok and not defile a marriage bed too. Some people after all defecate and urinate on their partners. Some eat feces.
Hmm.... I think I'll rest my case. This is kind of a $#!tty subject. I'd really rather participate in other threads. It's just been a bit slow and I like stirring the s#!t....... in a strictly metaphorical sense.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

There is a huge difference in the amount of scripture validating polygyny in contrast to the weak and speculative stuff being used to assert that unnatural sex is discretionary in marriage, or even condemn women touching women.
If someone asserted that the gender of the unclean meat made any difference, or that your relationship to the animal (whether or not you prayed over it before consuming it) made it ok I think there would be serious open argument from the Torah observant here.
We don't celebrate christmas because of the heathen traditions, but where in the scripture does anyone get the impression anal is ok?? There is no way that a patriarch like Jacob/Israel with four wives wanting his attention and hiring him with mandrakes would have fathered 12 sons by sowing his seed in the manure.
To my way of thinking a sincere believer would need to be 100% certain that YHWH was only bothered by the participants both being male to consider experimenting that way. Paul after all was commenting on the law, not giving any new doctrine.

Since the law was not silent where beastiality involving women was concerned, the lack of regulation about how close wives could be has meaning. Polygyny was never condemned, AND it was regulated, and blessed.

Honestly though, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind" will cause the same "mental image" without the "as with womankind" and eliminates the argument that since you don't do "that" with your wife it must be about polyandry.

YHWH told man to bury it if you poop in the woods, but your marriage bed will stay "undefiled" as long as anal is just foreplay??? and doesn't take the place of "natural" relations?

Well, my hubby over 20 years ago worked with guys that tried to tell him he was missing out if he never tried that. He would ask them "What's the difference between a woman's and a man's." They never had an answer.
I sure appreciate my hubby.....always have. I have to wonder now if anyone here might think that other things not specifically described and defined as "sins" would be ok and not defile a marriage bed too. Some people after all defecate and urinate on their partners. Some eat feces.
Hmm.... I think I'll rest my case. This is kind of a $#!tty subject. I'd really rather participate in other threads. It's just been a bit slow and I like stirring the s#!t....... in a strictly metaphorical sense.

I have followed your logic to the point, where by it, I cannot justify any marital relations outside of some form of missionary position in an actual marital bed. Was that your intent? Or am I missing something?

Scripture says the “marriage bed is undefiled”. That would rule out any other locations.

The seed cannot go anywhere besides “the field” as that would be outside of its’ intended purpose, and therefore, unnatural.

Doggy style is how animals do it, and bestiality is forbidden so why would you want to mimic them?

Is there anything outside the parameters of, missionary in marriage bed, that is allowed?

 

[Joleneakamama]

I have followed your logic to the point, where by it, I cannot justify any marital relations outside of some form of missionary position in an actual marital bed. Was that your intent? Or am I missing something?

That's your straw man, not my logic.
We do have room ....I'd say a lot of room for "creative experimentation" as we "practice" procreative skills.

Is scripture something that can be interpreted however you want or did YHWH have a particular meaning in mind? (Private interpretation vs accepted understanding)

What happens between a man and his wife or wives is between them and their maker. If there is an "injured party" it can only be YHWH or each other.

Romans 1:26 uses two relative words. The first translated natural means instinctive. The second word translated nature is related to a seed swelling or germinating. I'm not trying to start a new denomination here, or even teach men...just using what gray matter I've got and sharing the results. Romans 1:26 seems to relate that even their women decided "kink" that could not get them pregnant was a good idea. Anal tends to go with sex outside of marriage, or be used to avoid conception. Abortion herbs have been around for ages, but cramping and bleeding are probably less fun then letting men have fun usin' the back door.....er compost pile (Back door analogy actually fails...it doesn't go the same place) instead of sowin' in the prepared seed bed. Menstruation after all ensures that the "Top soil" is ready.

I just don't see how to raise a girl and teach her to wipe from front to back for hygienic reasons, but then have her "think" that anal is ok as foreplay. Again, this doesn't hurt me, but I wonder... where do people get the idea? One of my grandpas is rumored to have stuck his lil member into an electrified light socket. Can't call that a sin, wouldn't even TRY, .... but to use ole Foxworthy's phrase "Here's your sign." Lol

I know there are books out there putting ideas in minds. Written by people promoting bdsm and swinging. I know there is a verse in Revelation that talks about "them" practicing the doctrine of Baalam on our people too.

 

[Patrick Lauser]

That can be a dangerous road to go down though.

It is dangerous, because discussing morality and reason at all is dangerous; once you say something like, "God didn't say it is wrong, therefore it is right", it isn't really dangerous anymore, because you've already lost - that's what's dangerous about discussion. With polygyny there isn't much danger though, since God made it clear that polygyny is not only not a sin but a blessing. It would be more a problem with something like masturbation (I even dislike the word because of the negative connotations and origin), or "the beat" in music. But though theoretically it would be more a problem, I have never seen anyone make anything more than a silly attempt to justify condemning these things. It would probably be more dangerous in the past in the days of elite sophists who could write books and form denominations and found schools, smooth talkers like the early "church fathers" ("woe unto you when men speak well of you"). But even falsehoods I've read from them were so stupid that I'm not sure.

On the other hand, stupid arguments are used on both sides of issues. You can skim or skip this next bit if you want, as it is an example of what I'm saying, but I want to include the whole story, as it’s about an important issue, and because it's an embarrassing story for me, and I wouldn't want to be accused of "toning down" any past mistakes.
At one time I was convinced that if a woman wore trousers, even if they were made for a woman to wear, she would go to hell because she was wearing a man's garment. The main problem was that so many foolish arguments were made against the idea that I never had to challenge my own doubts, until someone simply asked me plainly, "Do you believe that if a woman wears trousers she will go to hell". It took me two hours of solid prayer, and praying throughout the rest of the day, before I finally saw the flaw in my reasoning: as obvious as it was, I had only been looking at the foolish counter arguments. I had thought that because trousers are more "revealing", they were more appropriate for a man, therefore they were a "man's garment". The thought that finally occurred to me was that it would only be a man's garment as much as it was more revealing, which wasn't much of course, and thus there was hardly any transvestism in it, if any. Once I wasn't relying on this small difference to defend a whole stance, I could see that trousers though more revealing, did not expose anything, just as a knee length skirt is more revealing but doesn't (necessarily) expose anything; really by the same logic knee length skirts (more revealing than trousers even) and even more (as a difference of actual exposure) any low necked garment would be a "man's garment". But then I also saw that it was non-sequitur to say that if something is less revealing for a man to wear, therefore any garment of that design, even if made for and owned by a woman, is actually a man's garment.
Once I was free of these things, I could see the whole picture: differentiating male and female clothing by basic design was a relatively recent (as in millennia) and European development; around the WWII period it became normalised (by "necessity") for women to wear their male relations' clothes, which was exactly what God forbade (though I never did, some who are fixed on trying to defend the idea of "male and female clothing designs" reject this, the most basic and obvious meaning of a "man's garment" and "woman's garment"), and afterwards people made women's clothes to imitate men's clothes because of this evil practice, and in support of and imitation of it; also because of the European contrast of men's and women's design of clothes (trousers and skirts) it was considered by those who made and sold women's trousers to be the same as wearing men's clothes, giving rise to the opposing idea that men and women must wear clothes that are different in design the way European designs were different at the time (skirt and trousers). In the end, God, who was the one who said a man shall not wear a woman's garment, and a woman shall not wear a man's garment, when he made the first garments to clothe a man and a woman, made them both of the same design.

Back to the topic of the danger of discussion. One thing to remember is that many things condemned by Scripture were not condemned only for those who came after the particular condemnation was written, or only for those who had read it, but for all who did it. For example, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all who do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." - Deuteronomy 22:5. It's clear (but apparently a point that sometimes needs to be made) that by saying "all who do so are abomination" means that he already, before this was written, held all mankind responsible for keeping this law, on pain of his utter detestation. People claim that you can't know right from wrong without the Bible, thinking they do the Bible honour, but this flatly contradicts the Bible.

The more you prove all things and hold fast what is good, the less dangerous it is to confront questions of morality.
"But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." - Hebrews 5
"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" - Ephesians 4
"Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not." - Malachi 3
"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;" - Romans 2

The Scripture is given in undeserved mercy beyond our need, to those who are already responsible for doing what is right, making them far more responsible; to do right because we know, and for those who have the Scripture because God urges them directly.

He would ask them "What's the difference between a woman's and a man's." They never had an answer.

If the question is what’s the difference between buggery and anal sex with one’s wife, the difference is that one is with a man (and worthy of death), the other is with a woman, no homosexuality involved. But of course I completely agree that anal sex is sickening and unnatural all by itself, just like anything which involves delighting in excrement.

I think these things come up in questions of sex (where they really have no place) partly because of the shared disgust for sex on both sides of the (often disgusting) European culture: on the one side you have the prudes disdaining sex and nakedness as disgusting and vile, on the other you have people exalting all that is disgusting and vile, and therefore sex (because they actually agree with the prudes that it is naughty and wicked and bad and dirty, etc.).

I think it is also partly because of a misunderstanding about anatomical philosophy (excuse me) - the proximity and even shared space of sexual and eliminatory functions can, if misunderstood, lead to an unnatural association of the two.
I was really upset about this, it seemed to me so wrong that God had made the two so close and involved in the human body, and I asked him to show me why he did it, because I couldn’t understand it. It just happened that on the same day in one of our Bible readings was 1 Corinthians 12, which says,
“And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.
That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.”

Paul probably wasn’t talking about the privates in particular, but about in general when there is a lack in some part of the body our natural desire is to care more for it and go to lengths for it, but the principle so obviously applied to my question. I realised that sexual and eliminatory functions are placed so close because they are opposites: that if part of the body was left entirely to elimination, it would be lowered below the rest of the body, and so instead it was raised by the most precious and clean and sweet task of the body (the functions are opposites also in that the one is a function of rejection, and the other is of becoming one flesh).
So that was an answered prayer, and is I think God’s answer to my question; and so I would agree it is utterly unnatural to draw any connection at all between elimination and sexuality; it is perfectly natural to be as disgusted by anal sex as by eating excrement.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

That's your straw man, not my logic.
We do have room ....I'd say a lot of room for "creative experimentation" as we "practice" procreative skills.

Is scripture something that can be interpreted however you want or did YHWH have a particular meaning in mind? (Private interpretation vs accepted understanding)

What happens between a man and his wife or wives is between them and their maker. If there is an "injured party" it can only be YHWH or each other.

Romans 1:26 uses two relative words. The first translated natural means instinctive. The second word translated nature is related to a seed swelling or germinating. I'm not trying to start a new denomination here, or even teach men...just using what gray matter I've got and sharing the results. Romans 1:26 seems to relate that even their women decided "kink" that could not get them pregnant was a good idea. Anal tends to go with sex outside of marriage, or be used to avoid conception. Abortion herbs have been around for ages, but cramping and bleeding are probably less fun then letting men have fun usin' the back door.....er compost pile (Back door analogy actually fails...it doesn't go the same place) instead of sowin' in the prepared seed bed. Menstruation after all ensures that the "Top soil" is ready.

I just don't see how to raise a girl and teach her to wipe from front to back for hygienic reasons, but then have her "think" that anal is ok as foreplay. Again, this doesn't hurt me, but I wonder... where do people get the idea? One of my grandpas is rumored to have stuck his lil member into an electrified light socket. Can't call that a sin, wouldn't even TRY, .... but to use ole Foxworthy's phrase "Here's your sign." Lol

I know there are books out there putting ideas in minds. Written by people promoting bdsm and swinging. I know there is a verse in Revelation that talks about "them" practicing the doctrine of Baalam on our people too.

I guess my question is, are you calling it a sin or just gross? If you’re just saying it’s gross, I won’t argue with you there, but I have a hard time with people calling things sin that scripture doesn’t label as such. There are many things that are gross that aren’t sin necessarily.

I think it’s a stretch to say that physis means “seed germination”. You’re taking the definition of a root word and saying physis means exactly the same thing, but that isn’t how Paul uses that word there or elsewhere.

I would agree that the unnatural thing the women are doing in that verse is probably them not bearing children, in whatever fashion they are avoiding it. However, to try to narrow it down to that specific insertion is bit too narrow. I think it’s broader than that. I think it covers women who are avoiding getting pregnant and homosexual men who “don’t do that act” but are intimate in other ways.

 

[Jeff Ray]

Doggy style is how animals do it

If memory serves, historically its also how most humans do it; "missionary position" would be better labeled as "catholic style" or the "unnatural position". "Doggy style" is merely derogatory.

and bestiality is forbidden

Man in red shoes robs store. Robbing stores is bad. Therefore wearing red shoes is bad.

so why would you want to mimic them?

I'm not mimicking them. I'm using the position that works best for my wife and I. Missionary is very unsatisfactory.

Is there anything outside the parameters of, missionary in marriage bed, that is allowed?

I don't need permission to use it. I need a clear prohibition not to.

 

[cnystrom]

This is kind of a $#!tty subject. I'd really rather participate in other threads. It's just been a bit slow and I like stirring the s#!t....... in a strictly metaphorical sense.

LOL!

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

If memory serves, historically its also how most humans do it; "missionary position" would be better labeled as "catholic style" or the "unnatural position". "Doggy style" is merely derogatory.

Man in red shoes robs store. Robbing stores is bad. Therefore wearing red shoes is bad.

I'm not mimicking them. I'm using the position that works best for my wife and I. Missionary is very unsatisfactory.

I don't need permission to use it. I need a clear prohibition not to.

If you think i was actually trying to make those points you misunderstood my post.