Just a straight answer please

[The Revolting Man]

Maybe I am mistaken but it seems like this thread is leaving room for woman to woman sexual intimacy between sister wives. Romans 1 is clear that any type of homosexuality male or female is considered sin.

Romans 1:26-27
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Verse 26 is warning against female homosexuality. If v.26 does not stand out in your mind as being female homosexuality, the first words of v.27, "and likewise" tied to male homosexuality should help with context. The Word of God is warning against homosexuality for both male and females.

Read it more carefully. It’s a legal opinion. Every word is important and only things that conform to the exact text run afoul of the statute. There are several things you’re missing; one is “burning with desire” and the other is “abandon”. Reread like a lawyer and then we can go to your incorrect base assumption that is letting a host of women who are violating this passage go Scott free.

 

[cnystrom]

I want to know if there is any information maybe in Judaism (if im making the right statement) that applies to my original question

Sorry I am not Jewish, so I can not help you here. I think there are others here that might.

 

[Mojo]

Yeah, but also don't automatically take at face value the denials of grandchildren. To begin with, as I wrote in that other thread, not one of us really has any direct knowledge of what our grandparents' sex lives were like, and their denial may be more of a reflection of their own personal level of discomfort with what their grandparents did or of their desire in the present to receive societal approval. After all, they live in the same prejudiced society the rest of us live in.

I'll have to find the article where the grandchildren were referenced. This is from memory. Essentially, the representative of the grandchildren admitted that their grandparents were not prudes and were very socially progressive. Heck, the second wife was the niece of Margaret Sanger! The rep said that their grandparents were not afraid to talk openly of things, but lesbianism between the two wives never came up. Does that mean it didn't happen? No. It just didn't seem to be something the women talked about much.

But, what does it matter? Would a lesbian director from Hollywood know better what was going on? There is no research available, nor any first person history of the nature of their sexual relationships...none. All is speculation (tne director and the grandchildren). But, it wasn't just this aspect that the grandchildren found erroneous. Among other things, the movie portrays the first wife as being dismissive of the idea that a female super hero would be popular. Research and the grandchildren give credit to the wife, not Dr. Marsten. Two or three other things made them dismissive of the movie as well.

In the end, the sexual nature of the two women doesn't really matter to me. Rather, those watching that movie and trying to envision it as some sort of blueprint for the poly life...consider the source.