Republicans admit same sex marriage is constitutional

29 House Republicans propose constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage

Representative Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) and 28 other House Republicans have introduced a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage nationwide.

Full story at http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/01/29-house-republicans-propose-constitutiona...

If we need an amendment to ban it, that means it's currently constitutional.

I like the notion R but 29 House Republicans is like three cane toads, brainwise.

I bet these are the same kind of vermin who refuse to consider a ban on handguns because of the sacredness of the constitution.

Despite my personal opposition (as a theologian) to the concept of gay marriage, I find this move illogical and absurd -- just as I found similar moves illogical and absurd almost a decade ago.

Thank you, Mr Harsch. I needed that laugh. Cane toads!

What does a theologian have against gay marriage and why?

>6 RickHarsch:: Basically, there are significant theological obstacles to redefining marriage to include homosexuals, as a basic component of the theological conception of marriage is the compatibility of man and woman for the purpose of procreation.

But that has to do with how churches define the marriages they perform, not with how the state determines civil partner benefits. I have a personal objection to the state using the term "marriage" for gay unions, but it seems unlikely that my objections will prevail.

Is there any biblical definition of marriage that is concrete and not contradicted elsewhere in the Bilble?

>8 RickHarsch:: The theology of marriage, as with most Christian theology, may have its roots in the Bible, but as a system, it is built by tradition past the pages of the sacred book. It is a modern, mainly evangelical Protestant fallacy that the only book of theology is the Bible itself.

The basic roots of the theology of marriage are its etiological expression in the Adam-and-Eve story ("Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" -- Gen. 2:24) and Christ's model of marriage with the Church, as developed by Paul (esp. Ephesians 5, though most modern denominations, including the Roman Catholics, have moderated the dynamic of superior/inferior in that model to emphasize equality-in-complementarity -- on this, see Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body).

Though it now strikes some as a little quaint, the preface to the Order for the Solemnization for Matrimony from the old Book of Common Prayer does a nice job of summing this up:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church: which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of Saint Paul to be honour-able among all men: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, dis-creetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God. Into this holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.

But even this preface, quaint as it is, leaves out a lot of the systematic theology that constitutes the Christian view of marriage, particularly in terms of male-female complementarity and the intertwined purposes of procreation and familial companionship. As I said, the biblical roots have been developed into a systematic theology that takes a lot of other factors--philosophical, sociological, and theological--into account

ETA: There's a good online resource that introduces the material in John Paul II's Theology of the Body: http://www.theologyofthebody.net/

Elsewhere Nathan has called procreation one of the "pillars" of marriage, but theologically significant or not, I think undue attention to procreation is not inline with current cultural concepts of marriage--which, instead of "procreation" tend to be more focused on marriage as the foundation for family life. And healthy families come in many varieties and colors.

It's been said many times that if it really were all about making babies, then sterile people shouldn't get married. Elderly people past child bearing age shouldn't get married. People who love each other but don't want children shouldn't get married. None of which Christian approaches to marriage support.

Theological interpretations of marriage also tend to understate the equally long history of the institution as a social contract founded in the exchange of property or the forging of tribal alliances. In fact, one popular and long standing marital tradition, hand fasting, could be said to be completely secular. And wiki tells me that "The term is originally from Old Norse hand-festa "to strike a bargain by joining hands""

And then there is Ken Kesey's 'Where men are men and women a knot-hole in a slippery elm.'

But Nathaniel, much as I respect that, I still cannot understand the theological drive to affect the secular, especially as all theologians know that they are in a minority. If you must accept, say, the existence of Hindus, and you really must, why not accept marriages that do not conform to those of your theological persuasion?

>10 southernbooklady:: "It's been said many times that if it really were all about making babies, then sterile people shouldn't get married. Elderly people past child bearing age shouldn't get married. People who love each other but don't want children shouldn't get married. None of which Christian approaches to marriage support."

It's because the argument is structural and systemic, rather than individuated. The design of the institution of marriage is based on the fact that the new family is the combination of a father and a mother, who will then have children. That basic model obtains for most couples -- those who are infertile or marry after the age of fertility are exceptional (and the latter were actually rather rare until recent times, due to (1) shorter life spans and (2) a cultural bias against marrying post-menopausal women). Furthermore, infertility is an abnormality in terms of human reproduction; while presumably, if the older couple had married before menopause, they would have had the opportunity for procreation.

"instead of "procreation" tend to be more focused on marriage as the foundation for family life."

Procreation is a sine qua non for family life -- without it, there is no family.

>11 RickHarsch:: "If you must accept, say, the existence of Hindus, and you really must, why not accept marriages that do not conform to those of your theological persuasion?"

But I'm not opposed to the civil government offering gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

I do take issue with calling it "marriage", as one must fundamentally redefine the word in order for it to include homosexual couples; I would be far more comfortable if ALL civil unions were called such, leaving "marriage" free to carry religious meanings that the government does not have the power to restrict. But this is a minor point.

>12 nathanielcampbell: - those who are infertile or marry after the age of fertility are exceptional (and the latter were actually rather rare until recent times, due to (1) shorter life spans and (2) a cultural bias against marrying post-menopausal women).

But it is recent times that we are in.

>13 nathanielcampbell: I do take issue with calling it "marriage"

But once again, you are attempting to coopt a term for an exclusively religious rite, when it has a strong and well established secular existence.

>14 southernbooklady:: "But once again, you are attempting to coopt a term for an exclusively religious rite, when it has a strong and well established secular existence."

As I said, it's a minor point, and I'm not really interested in pushing it.

ETA: Sorry if that sounds trite ... it's the end of the day and fatigue is setting in.

How about we call the secular institution "marriage" and the religious ceremony "holy matrimony". Would that be acceptable?

Also, would polygamy be accepted, as it has quite the biblical foundation, more than the "one man, one woman" construct?

I'll wildly speculate the marriage existed before theology.

4: well, i suppose one of the benefits of being a theologian is that it gives you a great excuse for your bigotry and stupidity.

#17: I don't know. Marriage certainly has deep roots in animal behavior, but the advent of the ritualistic behavior behind marriage certainly came hand in hand with the ritualistic behavior behind religion (or proto-religion, depending on how you cut it.)

>16 RidgewayGirl: How about we call the secular institution "marriage" and the religious ceremony "holy matrimony"

Heh. Now there's a thought.

Some people don’t feel a need to have an excuse for bigotry, stupidity, and chronic contempt. Life must be difficult for them.

I’ve never understood why governments get involved in what is basically a civil agreement between consenting adults. A business partnership, even when it’s domestic, is not a moral concern of mine. Many people I’ve known during my life have had very diverse definitions of marriage, and some of the most devoted have been of the same sex....and some of the most religious, self-righteous, and judgmental have demonstrated complete disregard for their vows. Marriage is a contract defined by the participants.

#21: I’ve never understood why governments get involved in what is basically a civil agreement between consenting adults.

For one, history. For another, governments and society have a vested interest in supporting a type of monogamous stable relationship that forms a building block of our society. Thirdly, marriage is a huge sprawling right, and many parts of it would be hard to support in the form of a civil agreement; i.e. the government is hardly going to appreciate a civil agreement to avoid estate taxes.

I heard one of the dumber arguments against same sex marriage recently; that it will hurt the government financially. Apparently a 5% increase in marriage is going to crack the back of the government when they get to file the taxes as married people. And apparently letting that 5% disproportionately carry the financial health of the nation is just in some way. I'm pretty sure the speaker was anti-homosexual, which is odd, because those 5% turning straight (or at least marrying straight) would hurt the government in exactly the same way.

#22 "the government is hardly going to appreciate a civil agreement to avoid estate taxes."

Then do away with estate taxes. Why should a government have the right to steal what someone hasn't squandered while alive? The tax laws in the U.S. encourage people to avoid thrift, but I suppose that's a topic for another thread.

When one of my good friends was dying, her 30-year partner was excluded from decisions regarding her terminal care or final wishes. There's no way to justify that kind of disregard. Her "legal" relatives had little claim to make decisions on her behalf. Fortunately, those relatives deferred to her life mate. The state did not.

>24 TrippB: And there's the practical reason that we have to have some protection under the law for same-sex couples. Even if you set aside all issues of fairness or of love and devotion, there remains the many obstacles put in front of people when they are life partners but denied spousal status.

#24: Why should a government have the right to steal what someone hasn't squandered while alive?

Squandering keeps the economy going. Class immobility and dynasties hurt society.

When one of my good friends was dying, her 30-year partner was excluded from decisions regarding her terminal care or final wishes. There's no way to justify that kind of disregard.

And if we get rid of marriage, that will happen much more often. It will happen to everyone who hasn't dotted their i's and crossed their t's and it will happen to people who have dotted their i's and crossed their t's and can't pull out the paperwork fast enough for the hospital. I read of one member of a lesbian couple who went to the hospital; her partner requested to see her, but the hospital refused unless she could present the paperwork they had written up and carefully stored in a safe-deposit box. She died before the bank opened on Monday.

Then do away with estate taxes. Why should a government have the right to steal what someone hasn't squandered while alive? The tax laws in the U.S. encourage people to avoid thrift, but I suppose that's a topic for another thread.

Hi, Btripp. Haven't seen your font in here for a while.

'Procreation is a sine qua non for family life -- without it, there is no family.'

Sorry, Nathaniel, but that is plain ugly and very very wrong. I guess I will skip the details, but trust me that I have been quite welcome and warm in the 'bosom' of a family of lesbians who never procreated with each other. And others...

The state has no right to steal...

Why don't people understand taxation?

28> Lesbians procreate too.

Beside my point. They can form a family even if they don't. Another case I thought of: a lesbian friend here became lovers with a lesbian with a child, now they are a family of three, considering a fourth by one of various means. But even if the first had no child, the way they are together is very familial as I see it.

Re: #2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/cane-toads-crocodiles-victims

the book of common prayer also tells us that,

"Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."

something that sets Anglicans apart from most of the Apostolic churches.

The Pauline view of marriage was that it was for sex, Since early Christians anticipated the return of Christ in their lifetime. Marriage become a way of assuaging lust. The marriage practices of the old testament were varied and not really models that modern society can draw upon, but procreation was important, sex being limited to the times when women were most fertile.

>28 RickHarsch:: "a family of lesbians"

Were the biological parents of the lesbians heterosexual or homosexual? Did they procreate?

>18 QuentinTom:: "well, i suppose one of the benefits of being a theologian is that it gives you a great excuse for your bigotry and stupidity."

Are we back to this old chestnut? "Bigotry" loses any useful meaning if it is extended to include anyone with whom you might disagree.

Did you miss my repeated, indeed incessant reminders that I SUPPORT extending to homosexual couples all of the legal rights and benefits currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples married under the law?

How am I supposed to defend myself against these scurrilous charges of bigotry? Agree with you? Is that the only way?

I'm a bit confused as to what bearing this tangent (and RickHarsch, you're thinking on this is a bit muddled) has on the larger question.

Might I say also, Nathaniel, for someone who believes that the LGBT community should be able to enjoy marriage equality, you spend quite a bit of time posting con.

>16 RidgewayGirl:: "Also, would polygamy be accepted, as it has quite the biblical foundation, more than the "one man, one woman" construct?"

Once again, if you'd bothered to read my previous posts, you would have noticed that idea that all theology is contained in systematic form in the Bible is risible. The simple fact is that Christian churches have from the beginning rejected polygamy as an acceptable institution in the time of grace.

Of course, that doesn't keep non-Christians from insisting that their interpretation of the Bible, in which they insist that Christians must accept polygamy, is the correct one.

But go ahead -- continue to construct these strawman arguments about what Christians are supposed to believe because "it's in the Bible!", despite repeated and continuous repudiations of those beliefs.

Though that does seem to be something of a repeating pattern with your posts.

Kind of like a "I'm not saying xxxxxxxx, but have considered....?"

Or "I'm all for xxxxxx, but........"

>36 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: "Might I say also, Nathaniel, for someone who believes that the LGBT community should be able to enjoy marriage equality, you spend quite a bit of time posting con."

And it's because I sympathize with both sides of the issue. I can see both sides, I understand both sides, and I find myself in the unenviable position of wanting to find a compromise that deals with the legitimate problems identified by both sides. Balancing a commitment to loving your neighbor with a commitment to preserving traditional morality is a complex and difficult action in a world in which so many consider the two to be irreconcilable.

>23 prosfilaes:: "Apparently a 5% increase in marriage is going to crack the back of the government when they get to file the taxes as married people."

I know this only counts as anecdotal, but the gay couple I know best (my undergraduate advisor and his partner in Massachusetts) have sufficient income that they will actually come under the marriage penalty in their yearly taxes. Though it's true that they will get a big break on the estate tax (though I pray that's not for many, many years!).

38> It is reminiscent of the some of the American abolitionists, who opposed slavery but also looked forward to the removal of former slaves from the United States.

Balancing a commitment to loving your neighbor with a commitment to preserving traditional morality is a complex and difficult action in a world in which so many consider the two to be irreconcilable.

Leaving aside the "traditional," the only person I see have much trouble balancing the two consistently seems to be you.

#1,

If we need an amendment to ban it, that means it's currently constitutional.

That depends on what you mean by "constitutional." Do you mean that states are permitted by the Constitution to allow same-sex marriages, or do you mean that the Constitution mandates that states allow same-sex marriages? If the former, then that was never at issue in the anti camp except for a fringe element. If you mean the latter, then that would have been hotly contested. Though neither the Windsor case nor the Supreme Court's refusal to rule on the Proposition 8 case in anyway stated that same-sex marriage was constitutionally protected in the same way that interracial marriage is; that is, that states cannot prohibit it.

This proposed amendment is a bit of an overreaction to the Windsor case, to say the least. Though I suppose that if you're going to go the constitutional amendment route, you might as well go big.

It's probably less a matter of going big than it is of playing to the constituency with a move that's predestined to fail and costs little.

>42 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: "Leaving aside the "traditional," the only person I see have much trouble balancing the two consistently seems to be you."

No, rather, the problem is the assumption by many today that "loving your neighbor" in incompatible with telling your neighbor when they've done something bad. You're just supposed to smile and nod while they fritter their lives away in sin, because it's "intolerant" and even "bigoted" to presume that there are, in fact, standards of morality that individuals should not transgress.

ETA: The following quote from Peter Kreeft (which a friend recently shared on Facebook) sums this up nicely:

"Love fights. Love cares. Love discriminates. And therefore there is in Scripture, very clearly, a thing called the ‘wrath of God’. God hates all enemies of love as the doctor hates the cancer that’s killing his beloved patient. If you really love a human being you will hate all the dehumanizing forces that are harmful to that human being.

If on the other hand you don’t really love a human being but just tolerate a human being, then you will hate nothing. So, love and hate go together. Love of a human being, no matter who he is, and hate of a human being, no matter who he is, are exact opposites, they are black and white. But love of all humans and hate of all sins – that goes together."

The point here is that sin is directly inimical and repugnant to the well-being of the human person. To tolerate sin, therefore, is in fact to hate the person; love looks out for the well-being of the person, and therefore does not tolerate sin.

No, rather, the problem is the assumption by many today that "loving your neighbor" in incompatible with telling your neighbor when they've done something bad

And yet, you call the same behavior from others directed at you intolerance.

>37 nathanielcampbell:. Got it. When opponents of marriage equality speak of "biblical marriage" they are speaking metaphorically and should not be taken to be speaking of the actual Bible, which has not and will not be used to cherry-pick verses calling gay people "abominations", among other things. I'm glad that won't happen at all. And since that hasn't and will not happen, I retract my argument that many forms of "marriage" can be found in the bible and so the Bible shouldn't be used to clobber people, especially non-believers, with how things should be.

Interesting that when someone disagrees with you, you assume they are not a Christian. You do know that many believers back marriage equality, don't you? Or is it the case that they aren't Christian in your eyes if they disagree with your theology?

>45 nathanielcampbell:. The greatest harm being done to the Christian church today, and the reason for declining church attendance, is the church's decision to focus on God's wrath instead of God's grace, and the righteousness of good Christians against the distasteful and doomed sinners whom God hates. Which is terrible theology, but reinforces the comfortable "us vs. them" mentality that allows good Christians extra smugness.

>34 nathanielcampbell: >28 RickHarsch:: "a family of lesbians"

Were the biological parents of the lesbians heterosexual or homosexual? Did they procreate?

Are you suggesting that they don't merit the term "family"?

>45 nathanielcampbell: No, rather, the problem is the assumption by many today that "loving your neighbor" in incompatible with telling your neighbor when they've done something bad.

And once again, this is the root of the issue. You think homosexual people "have done something bad" by being homosexual.

That's a prejudice. They haven't done anything bad. They are just people. I am just a person. Anything bad I have done is a result of the choices I've made. But being gay was not one of those choices.

No, NC's point with respect to procreation is simply an ad absurdum... Until we achieve immortality, we need procreation to have people, without which we have no people to put in our families.

36 I love when my thinking is called muddled without any explanation.

Let me amend this: Please explain, for I have never had no beef with you and would like the opportunity to clarify or learn. And I recall you did me a favor once.

48, Thanks for answering for me. I don't consider the questions relevant for my part.

#49 already covers it. Admittedly you're still left with whatever families we have, but in a hundred years or so, that would be the end of families.

One may note that procreation may be necessary for families, yet families are not necessary for procreation.

Or rather, "family" in the sense that NC uses the term.

I was recently reading one of Temple Grandin's books, where it was mentioned that only something like 9% of mammals are monogamous. I couldn't help but wonder whether humans are included in that 9%.

Bonobos are the closest genetically and they are decidedly not monogamous. As for the rest, as I seem to agree with you perhaps my writing was to rapid.

If procreation on the part of humans truly were in danger of coming to a halt, I think the rest of the planet would rejoice.

>47 RidgewayGirl:: "When opponents of marriage equality speak of "biblical marriage" they are speaking metaphorically and should not be taken to be speaking of the actual Bible, which has not and will not be used to cherry-pick verses calling gay people "abominations", among other things."

You seem to be confusing me, as well as the mainstream Christian theological tradition, with a certain type of evangelical (and/or fundamentalist) Christianity that rejects any concept of a systematic theology outside the literal words of the Bible.

I don't cherry-pick verses calling gay people "abominations". Look through every single post I've ever made on this subject, and you will find that I've never quoted Leviticus as some type of proof that gay people are evil.

Traditionally, systematic sexual theology takes its cues from the natural law tradition; and while biblical statements reflect that, they are not solely constitutive of it.

I understand that many "opponents of marriage equality" in America today do come from a fundamentalist/evangelical perspective that throws out cherry-picked verses from the Bible as if they are constitutive of a systematic moral theology that should apply to all in a pluralistic society. I don't do that, and neither do the Christian denominations that represent most Christians worldwide, e.g. Roman Catholics, Anglicans, many Lutherans, the eastern Orthodox, etc.

"You do know that many believers back marriage equality, don't you? Or is it the case that they aren't Christian in your eyes if they disagree with your theology?"

I do understand that, and I apologize if I appeared to imply that they aren't Christians. In this regard, I would highly recommend the following blog post, which represents very much my thinking on this: http://religiomunda.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/some-reflections-on-scotus-doma-and...

What I have been trying to do here is articulate the traditional moral theological framework within which Christianity understands the institution of marriage to be essentially defined by the complementary relationship between a man and a woman. That traditional moral theological framework, while having its roots in the Bible, is a discourse that takes its cues from a variety of other factors to be systematic rather than ad hoc.

As I have indicated in previous posts on this topic, this is a complex and difficult topic from a theological perspective. There is no easy answer as of yet. (And the blog post I indicated above says much the same.)

Ultimately, I do believe that Christian theologies will find a way forwards to recognize a more positive role within the Church for gays and lesbians. But it will likely not take the form of "marriage equality", as the Christian foundation of marriage within the complementarity of man and woman is too strong to simply declare homosexual unions to be of the same nature. It is an error to assume that equality must equal homogeneity; to offer a simple example, gender equality does not presume that men can give birth to children (and if southernbooklady's contributions to another thread, racial equality does not presume homogeneity in the use of certain words).

At one point do the rest of us not have to worry about what your Christian theology says we should do?

>56 nathanielcampbell: I do believe that Christian theologies will find a way forwards to recognize a more positive role within the Church for gays and lesbians. But it will likely not take the form of "marriage equality"

Since the push for marriage equality is social, not theological, I'm not worried about church consensus. But it has been said by others that one of the great issues facing the Christian church today (at least in the US) is the growing perception that it is homophobic. So I think unless there is some theological breakthrough, those churches will find themselves increasingly marginalized in contemporary society.

"And once again, this is the root of the issue. You think homosexual people "have done something bad" by being homosexual.

That's a prejudice. They haven't done anything bad. They are just people. I am just a person. Anything bad I have done is a result of the choices I've made. But being gay was not one of those choices."

This requires clarification, as I do NOT think homosexual people "have done something bad" by being homosexual. Traditionally speaking, same-sex desire, while "disordered" in the same way that any inordinate desire (excessive heterosexual lust, greed, selfishness, etc.) is "disordered", is not itself a sin. Sin is acting according to those desires but against the moral order.

This requires some unpacking, as the previous sentence can too easily be misunderstood and cast aside as "bigoted". Especially, an initial caveat is required: I am using other types of sinful behavior, like greed or pride, as systematic analogies. I am NOT saying thereby that gay people are greedy and prideful. I know that this has caused problems before, so I want to make this very clear from the start. These analogies illustrate the systematic relationship between natural order, disorder, inordinate desire, virtue, and the like.

The concept of the natural law does NOT posit that all naturally occurring desires are therefore ethical and/or moral. Rather, it posits that there is a natural order of morality inherent in all of creation. Individual creatures each have their own areas of disorder, that is, areas (desires, inclinations, and behaviors) that depart from the order or standard of the natural law.

As an example: any student of the human condition quickly grasps just how prevalent greed is amongst human actors. It is a pervasive cancer upon the society. But just because most of us are naturally greedy does not make greed a moral virtue. Rather, the natural order and law demands that we castigate that greed because it departs from the harmonious order under which humankind thrives.

In Christian language, the inherent disorder within the human psyche that causes its desires to be inordinate, that is, to depart from the harmony for which it was created, is called "original sin". Quite simply, "original sin" refers to the fact that human beings are usually morally weak and fallible, rather than perfect in virtue. More recent moral theologians have also enunciated the fact that this failure operates both at a personal level--I react with inordinate anger when my neighbor plays loud music, for example--and at a societal level--society treats a particular class of persons with contempt rather than equal love, for example.

Traditionally, homosexuality has been considered a disordered desire because it departs from the natural order under which human society thrives. Despite those who have mocked this contention, the fact remains: the perpetuation of the human species requires heterosexuality, not homosexuality. Christianity goes one step further by recognizing in the marriage between one man and one woman the sacramental mirror of Christ's marriage to the Church: the heavenly relationship between Christ and his people is effected in human society in the relationship between husband and wife.

That heavenly ideal is rarely found in full in human marriages because a husband and wife remain sinful creatures. This is something that seems to be forgotten when critics of traditional marriage point to the peccadillos of Christians or to biblical examples of infidelity and polygamy and accuse Christians of hypocrisy. We distinguish between the ideal, divine model of humanity--Jesus Christ leading the City of God--and the fallen path through which humanity stumbles in this life, half-blind and wandering through the Earthly City. Nevertheless, the failures of the latter should be censured for not striving to conform more to the former. Ultimately, however, it is the grace of God that effects that conversion from fallenness to blessedness, from inordinate desire to virtue.

Twentieth-century developments in the specific area of Christian sexual ethics have striven hard to break through some of the systemic failures that have plague the institution of marriage until now, especially the inequality between husband and wife. Paradigmatic of this is John Paul II's Theology of the Body, which sought to rebalance the marital relationship by emphasizing the equality-in-complementarity of man and woman--in this case, drawing on the biblical model of Genesis 1:27 ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.") rather than the more asymmetric model of Genesis 2.

It is likely that mainstream sexual theologies will continue to grapple with the effects of a growing socio-cultural acceptance of homosexuality and the corresponding growth in our understanding of sexual orientation and sexual identity. But this is a process that will take a lot of time and a lot of effort. It is naive and impractical to expect Christianity to turn on a dime on this subject; and it is likely that whatever solutions it reaches, they will not simply erase the distinctions between heterosexual marriage and homosexual companionship.

The key to all of this, finally, must be compassion. Compassion must be our starting point, the goal towards which we tend, and our constant companion upon the journey.

>57 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: "At one point do the rest of us not have to worry about what your Christian theology says we should do?"

It depends on whether you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to try to understand other points of view from your own. If you are content to simply ignore people who view the world from a different perspective from you, then you can stop worrying.

But if you think that understanding others is an inherent component of growing as a human person, then perhaps you should make the effort to actually understand Christians' perspectives, rather than simply dismissing them as bigoted (a term which is now used, apparently, to close down discourse rather than engaging with the other).

Well, compassion until some gay person insists that the way God made them is not "disordered". Maybe God's world is quite a bit more complex and lovely than your theology allows?

>47 RidgewayGirl:: "The greatest harm being done to the Christian church today, and the reason for declining church attendance, is the church's decision to focus on God's wrath instead of God's grace, and the righteousness of good Christians against the distasteful and doomed sinners whom God hates. Which is terrible theology, but reinforces the comfortable "us vs. them" mentality that allows good Christians extra smugness."

By your logic, the Church should do nothing to speak out against racism, or violence, or greed, or the oppression of the poor, or.....

After all, in those cases, they are declaring a particular behavior to be sinful and wicked and in need of God's grace to be healed.

I absolutely agree that there should be a positive focus on the transformative power of God's grace for the good -- but that grace becomes meaningless if there is no wicked sin away from which grace is to transform us. To recognize sin in ourselves and in our society is the essential first step in accepting God's grace to save us from that sin -- otherwise, we simply continue merrily on our way, sinning at every turn but rationalizing it by insisting that God's grace is with us.

To put this in secular terms: you can't do anything about systemic injustices and inequalities like racism or class inequality if you don't first identify the injustice. You have to call out the injustice for what is: an ugly cancer upon the body politic. Only then can you work to change it.

>61 RidgewayGirl:: "Well, compassion until some gay person insists that the way God made them is not "disordered". Maybe God's world is quite a bit more complex and lovely than your theology allows?"

You're not reading what I'm writing, are you? I'm advocating a theological reconsideration to think about those complexities, a prayerful discernment for how to effect God's vocation of all people to be holy, gay and straight alike.

But that's not really what you want from me. You want me to simply roll over and say, "Homosexuality is virtuous. Period." You don't want Christians to actually discern God's will here -- you simply want them to accept your will. But it's not that simple.

Disordered desire: that's a lovely phrase.

The argument contra same-sex desire, as immoral or disordered desire, is built on a set of beliefs that are hard to sustain apart from their repeated, willful assertion.

I should point out, in fairness, that most humans experience disordered sexual desires at some point. I'm certainly not immune. I wouldn't otherwise want to make this an issue, but it might put some of what I'm trying to articulate in the proper perspective...

When I was in college, I struggled, sometimes seriously, with an addiction to internet pornography. In those actions, I was acting upon disordered sexual desires and committing a habitual sin that was just a serious as any other sexual sin. (The disordering, here, is in the objectification of the sexual act for personal gratification that is tied, not to the communication of love but simply to physical pleasure. The great virtue of modern movements in sexual theology has been the recovery of the sense that physical pleasure can be a virtue, so long as it is connected to the authentic communication of love. The only communication in viewing pornography is selfish: it is "love" disordered, perverted by being turned inward into "self-love" rather than outwards towards another.)

I share this because I think it is important to establish that the Christian perspective is that all of us, every single one of us, is a sinful, fallen creature. All of us are sinners, and all of us fail to live up to the proper order of virtue and love for which we were created.

This is, I think, something that gets forgotten frequently by both sides, leading to great confusion. One of the things that folks find most objectionable about traditional Christian perspectives is the seeming condescension, the "We're better than you" attitude that RidgewayGirl thinks is so horrendous (in post 47).

And it's true: when the promotion of virtue is turned into condescension, it is perverted from the promotion of virtue into an exercise in selfish, prideful vice. The virtue of the Christian message should be that, having recognizing our common fallenness, we recognize our common need for healing, for grace.

But again, as I said above, recognizing the need for grace must precede that actual reception of it. Without first recognizing our failures, we cannot ever work to correct them.

>59 nathanielcampbell: But this is a process that will take a lot of time and a lot of effort. It is naive and impractical to expect Christianity to turn on a dime on this subject

Take all the time you like. But don't expect me to be accommodating when I'm told I'm a sinner for having sex with the person that turns me on.

Mr Campbell, you seem to have different expectations for how you wish your words to be read and interpreted and in how you will regard the words of others. You want everyone to view your views as unique, divorced from others who share your views, yet you often complain with broad strokes about "liberals", "non-believers" and the like. Either we all have complex and nuanced views on a variety of issues or no one does. You also want a conversation that tosses out the stereo-types and assumptions, while posting emotional poems and pictures pulled from the internet that are supposed to prove a Facebook-level point.

And I would still be interested in reading the research behind your statement that a fetus at 20 weeks dreams.

No, I don't expect you to "roll over" or for anything written here to change your mind. I do think your views ignore the complexity of the universe, but you are certainly entitled to have an opinion and state it as loudly as you like. It's just that everyone is also allowed to voice their views and when they disagree with your own it really, really isn't some war on Christianity or liberal-feminist agenda, but what people believe, all on their own and different than the next guy. You are not being prosecuted here. You are forcefully stating your views. I am not being prosecuted here. I am forcefully stating my views. Just as every other poster here.

>67 RidgewayGirl:: "You want everyone to view your views as unique, divorced from others who share your views,"

Except that the traditional sexual theology I'm talking about is that held by the majority of Christians around the world -- the Roman Catholic Church hardly counts as "unique" in that regard. Perhaps you are the one whose perspective is provincial, in that you assume that, however vocal they may be in certain parts of the United States, evangelical fundamentalists somehow are representative of most Christians?

"yet you often complain with broad strokes about "liberals", "non-believers" and the like. Either we all have complex and nuanced views on a variety of issues or no one does."

In this regard, your criticism is valid. I apologize for painting in broad strokes in inappropriate contexts, and I pledge to try to do better in the future. (For whatever reason, that sentence reads as rather trite and cloying, which was not the intention: it was meant to be a sincere apology and pledge.)

"And I would still be interested in reading the research behind your statement that a fetus at 20 weeks dreams."

Because there seems to be a consistent inability here to understand that it was not my statement, but that of a female friend offered to illustrate that the pro-choice side is not uniformly representative of all women, I will delete that quote from the post in the other thread. I will also keep this fact in mind for the future: if I ever post anything, it will be assumed that I am completely and entirely in agreement with its every word and letter. (Unfortunately, this will impinge on my ability to offer articles and the like that are written from different perspectives, thus limiting my contributions to LT to my own views. I had thought that examining other perspectives was a good thing, but that doesn't seem to be in fashion here at the moment.)

"It's just that everyone is also allowed to voice their views and when they disagree with your own it really, really isn't some war on Christianity or liberal-feminist agenda, but what people believe, all on their own and different than the next guy. You are not being prosecuted here."

But I've never claimed that I'm being persecuted or that there is "some war on Christianity". I haven't made that claim, so why are you bringing it up?

" It's just that everyone is also allowed to voice their views"

I agree -- have I ever implied otherwise?

But I've never claimed that I'm being persecuted or that there is "some war on Christianity". I haven't made that claim, so why are you bringing it up?

Probably an assonance with the theme of "religious liberty" that you did bring up.

>66 southernbooklady:: "But don't expect me to be accommodating when I'm told I'm a sinner for having sex with the person that turns me on."

And don't expect me to be accommodating when I'm told I'm a bigot for thinking that not all sexual activity is necessarily moral.

(This is one of those times that electronic communication is terribly limiting, as I wish you could see the friendly smile and twinkle of the eye with which it is expressed.)

>69 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: "Probably an assonance with the theme of "religious liberty" that you did bring up."

Well, yes, I did start another thread in which I asked whether folks thought there would a legitimate risk in the longterm future of churches facing civil penalties for refusing to marry gay couples.

If being concerned about preserving that particular religious freedom is tantamount to claiming that there is a "war on Christianity", then I think y'all need to recalibrate your "incendiary terms" meters.

Given how allowing gay marriage has already been cast as infringing upon religious liberties by some who oppose it, I'm not sure you have a point.

>72 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: "Given how allowing gay marriage has already been cast as infringing upon religious liberties by some who oppose it, I'm not sure you have a point."

And once again, arguments made by others are imputed to me. So I will repeat:

I SUPPORT granting all legal and civil rights to gay couples that are currently enjoyed by civilly married heterosexual couples.

Yes, up to and including the right to marry. We know.

/initiate mode: diatribe

One of the more interesting changes in the American Christian Church in the last 50 years is the move toward the understanding that belief on your part does not merit the compulsion for others to believe the same. For example, when the Presbyterian issued a statement about salvation through Christ, they strongly affirmed the most of the traditional stance, that salvation comes through Christ, but added something along the lines of, "This belief does not limit the actions of God." Meaning, this is what we believe, but we recognize others may believe differently and we even recognize that God can work with others differently.

Now what is even more interesting is that way that some non-theists have moved in the opposite direction. Now we have raging inexorable thunder-lizard evangelists working the crowd OUTSIDE the revival tent. It is still a revival, but evangelists are preaching from a counter-pulpit.

A long time ago I was involved in both Evangelical Christianity and radical left-wing politics. While the content of what the Bible Baptist Church and the Communist Workers Party believed was different, their faith in what they believed was not, and their approach to faith was not. (Hence the splintering of the evangelical Church and of the Left.) Back then I learned that the personalities behind belief or non-belief could be similar and usually when there was shouting over the fence, the real differences between the parties were only formal.

The inability of most (not all, but most) people here to even engage NC on the issues is not a difference of belief as much as a personality conflict. There is a type of who cannot believe that a person can hold strong beliefs and yet not feel that others need to believe the same way they do. That is probably because they are not really tolerant of the beliefs of others, even when it comes to the issue of tolerance. The only real difference I see on here (not in society in general) is that the Christians who try to foist their beliefs on others tend to be naïve and ignorant of issues, while the non-theists who do it are unkind and callous.

As I understand NC's stance, he believes that the marriage of same sex couples is wrong before God. He is not against those couples having the same civil rights as all other Americans, and he would prefer if those rights did not come under the rubric of marriage, but if that was all that was offered, would not oppose it on those grounds. In other words, he is not opposed to gay and lesbian people entering into a formal relationship which the rest of us call marriage.

In form, this is similar to my belief that people should not use the N-word. I don’t’ want to hear it, and I am offended when I hear it, even from African-Americans (See Pryor, Richard; http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/opinion/15iht-edjackson.html?_r=0 ). However I do not ever want to see a law making it illegal. Personally I am against it. I would not ever pastor a church where people used it, or where they even accepted it. If I ever use it, it is in a way that people clearly know I am opposed to its use. But I don’t feel my opinions on this issue should be codified as law.
As I understand NC, he also does not feel his personal beliefs, and the corporate beliefs of the Catholic church should be codified as law.
Most people are just plain missing this fact, or at least they jump over it, preferring instead to exercise their self-righteousness by calling him a bigot, and showing they have little understanding of his position. Name calling is easier than argument, especially if someone is dim-witted enough to believe that actually is an argument.
There is a mistaken belief that modernity is better than the old ways because modernity is more tolerant. This is only partially true. In fact, modernity has its own needs for conformity, and even stronger tools to reinforce it. (The Catholic church only tried to torture the body. Our modern society insists that we change our minds, and all learn to love Big Brother in a Lab Coat.
For example, the issues of creationism and Intelligence Design come up often here. Most people here, Christians included, accept the scientific explanation of creation, yet because of their faith, are always having to defend their faith because there are yahoos out there who think Creationism or Intelligent Design is a science.
Personally I don’t care about the scientific explanation of creation. I do not disbelieve it. I have no problem accepting it. But I think it is irrelevant to my life. (For the record, if you are in the sciences, I am sure it has much more relevance to your life.) The scientific explanation of creation really does nothing for me, but the story of Adam and Eve are crucial for my understanding of myself, humanity, and our relationships to God.
Many people are insulted by that, and demand I affirm the scientific explanation at the expense of the biblical account. I like the biblical account better. It tells me more about what I need to know to survive in this world. It tells me there are snakes in the garden (and that God put them there). It tells me that the forbidden fruit will always draw me, and that I will most likely try to pull others into my own wrongdoing.
I work with troubled adolescents, most of whom are in trouble with the law, and I can tell that Genesis is a lot more help in working with them than Darwin—although Pinker does have some fascinating insights on neurology, which are helpful.
I don’t reject evolution, I just find it irrelevant. But that goes against the grain. I am sure there are people here who write me off simply because of my beliefs. Those who do and who have engaged me never did it from a stance of toleration, but from their core belief that I should believe in science or reason the same way they do. (Of course when they use the word “Reason” they tend to have a very monochromatic view of What Reason Really Means, and What Reason Really Means is What I Believe.
Which they believe is modern tolerance. And I guess they are right. That is what modern tolerance is all about.
/end mode: diatribe

>75 Arctic-Stranger:: "As I understand NC's stance, he believes that the marriage of same sex couples is wrong before God. He is not against those couples having the same civil rights as all other Americans, and he would prefer if those rights did not come under the rubric of marriage, but if that was all that was offered, would not oppose it on those grounds. In other words, he is not opposed to gay and lesbian people entering into a formal relationship which the rest of us call marriage. "

A perfect summary, with one exception: I believe that there may be theological room to establish a place within the church for some form of same-sex companionship, though it would remain something other than marriage (just as there are other types of Christian vocation other than marriage) and likely non-sexual.

And you have my deepest gratitude for this eloquent defense.

Well, within the church is the key phrase, isn't it? If I want to enjoy internet porn without feeling a sinner I guess I simply have to avoid Nathan's (and others') church.
So, the bright side here is that Nathaniel is exclusive, or his beliefs/church are, but any attempt to discuss it is a move toward inclusivity, no? If it doesn't work, no harm done.

I have to admire nathanielcampbell for holding his own and carefully explaining his meaning repeatedly in a thread where 90% of what has been said has been emotional backlash to a perceived insult. This thread is a prime example of why communicating over the internet is a terrible idea - people attack and say things without thinking that there is another person on the receiving end of that statement.

Taking out your anger and frustration on someone over the internet is the same as taking it out on someone whom you are face to face with, except with the internet you are usually much less aware of the damage you are doing and feel free to give your emotions the reins. Be careful when you start labeling people as "bigots" when they are trying as hard as they can to maintain their morality while still being fair to those that disagree with them. It doesn't make you seem like a civil-rights advocate, it makes you seem completely intolerant and insecure.

Have enough pride in yourself to engage with someone calmly. Don't resort to internet tantrums and name-calling - that should have been left behind in preschool.

>77 RickHarsch:: "If I want to enjoy internet porn without feeling a sinner"

Quite absent any Christian discourse, don't you find the objectification and subjugation of women that is rampant in the pornography industry not only degrading but morally repugnant?

When the young women whose sexual encounters are displayed across the world for the oggling eyes of men to grope at "choose" to go into that profession, do we really think it's a free choice? Do we really think that they are not the victims of an oppressive patriarchy that objectifies their bodies and degrades their personal dignity, all to fulfill the male sexual gaze?

When does "tolerance" of "consenting adults" turn into supporting systemic patriarchy at the expense of the equality and dignity of women?

You should feel guilty when viewing internet porn, because you are complicit in the degradation and sexual objectification of another person simply to fulfill your own selfish desires.

Have enough pride in yourself to engage with someone calmly. Don't resort to internet tantrums and name-calling - that should have been left behind in preschool.

Thanks for patronizing.

Do you have anything positive to add to the discussion?

The inability of most (not all, but most) people here to even engage NC on the issues is not a difference of belief as much as a personality conflict. There is a type of who cannot believe that a person can hold strong beliefs and yet not feel that others need to believe the same way they do. That is probably because they are not really tolerant of the beliefs of others, even when it comes to the issue of tolerance.

Acknowledged, particularly my part since I know that Nathan and I have been disagreeing on this subject across multiple threads and I know I have raised the warning flag of bigotry in several cases. I have tried to be careful but I've probably overstepped the line now and then.

That said, there is something else being debated here besides the right to two people to get married--something that is at the foundation of the apparent chasm between what Nathan calls "traditional sexual ethics" and what I've been calling "gay rights ." It's the legitimacy of the homosexual as a person.

Nathan consigns homosexuality to the general category of "immorality" because he sees it primarily as a sexual act. But from my perspective, calling someone immoral for being gay makes about as much sense as calling them moral for having hazel eyes or immoral for having blonde hair. That is why that flag gets raised.

And the back-and-forth arguments we've had, by and large, have been circling around this one central (possibly insoluble) disagreement. If those "traditional sexual ethics" were centered on things like...commitment, consent, love, fidelity....we might find ourselves standing on more common ground.

But instead, there is this (to my mind) unreasonable, prurient focus on who beds who, where they put what, how they do it. And suddenly whatever agreement we might have about the nature of a successful relationship is moot because any same sex relationship is, by default, "immoral."

This has cause homosexuals to be classed with a long list of morally repugnant acts including--just off the top of my head from some earlier threads where the subject has come up: rape, cannibalism, pedophilia, and licentiousness. It has caused homosexuals to be referred to as aberrant, deviant, abominations.

I recognize Christianity is wrestling with this issue because it is a serious problem for them. But the almost violent nature of the usual response of the person following their "traditional sexual ethics" demands a strong defense. It is not for gay people to help religious people work it out.

Personally, I think those traditional sexual ethics would do much better if they paid more attention to who is getting hurt than who is getting off.

The concept of the natural law does NOT posit that all naturally occurring desires are therefore ethical and/or moral. Rather, it posits that there is a natural order of morality inherent in all of creation.

Isn't it interesting that notions of "natural law" always seem to be in accord with the prejudices and biases of those who promote them?

SBL

Actually you were the person I had in mind when I wrote that not all were misconstruing what NC was saying. Your disagreements have been vehement, but not abusive, and you have been trying to understand him, you just disagree with him, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact I disagree with him on this issue, but I understand where he is coming from.

And there are aspects of "Traditional sexuality" which I think most progressive people should in fact endorse. I just finished a group on sexuality with my kids, and basically they don't want relationships; they want a willing vagina to masturbate in, and preferably one that will not be around when they are finished. I think those kids need to learn something about traditional sexual ethics, where you at least know the girl's name before you get her pregnant.

NC's words on porn ring true. (That plus that fact that repeated exposure to porn can cause some people to lose the ability to have actual intercourse without it. I did a paper for one of my graduate seminars on this.) Plus, it teaches men to have sex that aims at, not intimacy, but "porn moments." (There was a great article on Salon about this.) Whether it is two men, two women, or a man and a woman, there are aspects of traditional sexuality that should be part of every relationship; respect for the other, an understanding of boundaries, a willingness to give, the ability to be open with the other person, and an sense of empathy about the other person and their needs.

Paul, that hidebound bachelor evangelist who wrote much of the New Testament, said that in a relationship the two people belong to each other, and he makes it clear that the man belongs to the woman just as the woman belongs to the man. Not a bad traditional value. Relationships are not about wielding power; they are about giving up power over other people, a point we all have a hard time recognizing.

Nathaniel, this topic may cover worlds...pornography? I don't even know what it is.

See Umberto Eco's essay "How to Recognize Pornography." He does a good job of it.

"To put it simply, crudely, in porn movies, before you can see a healthy screw you have to put up with a documentary that could be sponsored by the Traffic Bureau."

85: In most porn movies now you don't even have that much acting.

The essay is dated.

>83 Arctic-Stranger:.I just finished a group on sexuality with my kids, and basically they don't want relationships; they want a willing vagina to masturbate in, and preferably one that will not be around when they are finished.

I think one of the problems that developed when as a culture we began to regard sexuality as a legitimate drive that could be healthily expressed, rather than as the...uh..."consummation" of the act of marriage is that we opened the bedroom door but forgot to give people the resources they'd need to go in. We let go of one model of relationships, but never provided any others.

As a culture and despite all the porn and the graphic content available to us, Americans are still very squeamish about sex. We fight about sex ed classes, challenge explicit books in libraries, cringe at explicit song lyrics instead of discussing them with our kids...heck, the poorly conceived graphics on the Daily Show not withstanding, there was even a state senator or something who got told off for using the word "vagina" --as a medical term---on the statehouse floor.

So kids get really mixed signals from us about what's right, what's not, what's sexy, what's abusive.

I'm just a lurker anymore on LT but would like to say that there's been some interesting stuff here. I'm not remotely in NC's camp but do appreciate posts like >59 nathanielcampbell: that are nuanced about the RC position. (Sometimes I wonder if Nathaniel is being made to pay for the wackiness of Jay what's-his-name and some other less subtle Catholic posters on Pro & Con from days of yore. Not his doing!) Thus Arctic's >75 Arctic-Stranger: post resonates with me, though I can't muster the faith position(s) and--on an entirely different matter, which recently has come up on other threads, too--it troubles me that LT posters are self-censoring about the word "nigger". We need to confront the so-called "N-word." I fear that such tippy-toeing will inadvertently perpetuate the word's poison, instead of disarming its hurt.

Thanks SBL and Jesse for saying articulate things that I've been too distracted or lazy to summon myself. StormRaven, I sometimes enjoy and sometimes cringe re the inexorable tenacity of your posts. I can't help but wonder if you have friends and family that you love but who say things that you regard as nutso...but you still manage to engage with them, nonetheless? Is there another kind of space for dialogue out there? I suspect so, though obviously on the personal level it's none of my business.

And now, after having made a bunch of presumptuous and undemonstrated statements (who the hell appointed me?), I retire, while inviting you all to carry on... Thanks...

So kids get really mixed signals from us about what's right, what's not, what's sexy, what's abusive.

Word.

To SBL:

As I said in a comment on your profile, I agree with Arctic's analysis in 83 -- you have made a great effort to try to understand my position, whilst at the same time challenging it with thoughtfulness and empathy, rather than with abuse and scorn.

Thank you for that.

>88 southernbooklady:: "So kids get really mixed signals from us about what's right, what's not, what's sexy, what's abusive."

I absolutely agree with everything you've written in this post. This makes an excellent way to move this conversation forward into more fruitful territory.

>81 southernbooklady:: "That said, there is something else being debated here besides the right to two people to get married--something that is at the foundation of the apparent chasm between what Nathan calls "traditional sexual ethics" and what I've been calling "gay rights ." It's the legitimacy of the homosexual as a person. "

And this chasm is mostly my fault, as I have gotten bogged down in trying to articulate the traditional moral framework--the theological status quo, as it were, since apparently, the standard "Organization for Marriage" folks have done a piss-poor job of it, falling back instead on flagellating some verses from Leviticus and preying upon homophobia.

So: where does the conversation need to go to move forwards?

As you've articulated, the problem seems to be that the traditional moral framework treats gays and lesbians as artifacts of a sexual act, rather than as whole persons. I absolutely agree that the task that confronts Christian sexual ethicists today is to shift that perspective.

(I have to go now ... more thoughts on this probably tomorrow....)

Just as an aside: if I like it, it's erotica; if you like it, it's pornography.

And porn stars are not actors; A.A. Gill observed that they are closest to athletes in what they do.

The chief problem is not with NC per se; it's those people who espouse similar ideas without compassion. Unfortunately, since he's posting and they're not, he gets tagged with the same brushes that would be more rightfully used on others.

Personally, my issue is with the idea that a theological framework; ANY theological framework; should be used as a basis for anything other than one's personal beliefs. No matter how wonderful such ideas might be, the forced imposition of those concepts on others makes them wrong.

Except that, in the late '50s and early '60s, religious beliefs were a large part of what drove the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King was a MINISTER, for goodness sake, and when he said things like, "The Arc of the Moral Universe Is Long, but It Bends Toward Justice" he was making a theological statement.

Basically you want to marginalize people who do not accept the dominant paradigm of modernity. Now, I do agree that they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If I believe, for theological reasons, that gays and lesbians SHOULD be able to marry (which I do) then I should be able to enter the public debate on this issue. But I do not get a privileged seat at the table. I have to follow the same rules of engagement as everyone else, some of which, in the US include making sure that religious liberty is not threatened for anyone (including the right to NOT believe), and that I cannot shut down someone's right to their speech, etc.

The myth of modernity is that if we claim reason as a foundation for our convictions, then we are always right, and that is a myth. People have the right to engage in public debate no matter what the foundations of their convictions are. But they do not have a privileged position, no matter how they defend their convictions.

I should clarify; the forced imposition based solely on that theological framework. ("Blue Laws' are a clasic example of just such an impostion.) Clearly, certain concepts are generally accepted across a lot of philosophies (don't kill people, don't steal, don't do things that cause harm, don't talk loudly in movie theaters) and to reject them simply because they are also part of a religious dogma(s) would be silly.

By the same token, much of what MLK said was not confined solely to Christian thinking (although it's almost certain that was the initial basis of his thinking). In fact, a core point were the four words engraved on the SCOTUS building; 'Equal Justice Under Law'.

Claiming reason is not enough. For one thing, you have to show/demonstrate your reasoning (which again should be true for all participants). A thief can claim he's acting reasonably when he steals from those much wealthier; however, I doubt that reasoning would hold up well under examination. So, yes, simply saying that you're starting from a reasonable position isn't sufficient, any more than claiming that your position derives from divine sources.

Given that, I apologize if you thought I was seeking to 'marginalize' those whose reasoning stem from religious training. Of course they have a right to express their opinions and beliefs; but too many of them react to challenges to those beliefs quite personally (although that's rarer on LT).

(And as another aside, although it's very poetic, I don't subscribe to a 'moral universe', let alone one that has any concern for justice. The universe does not care. People, however, do.)

I agree about the "forced imposition," of things. Although in Germany it used to be against the law to work on Sundays. (Seriously, you would be cited for it, although some jobs were exempt.) I asked why, and the reason I was told was that "people should spend time with their families."

97: I recall those German laws too. It seem that there was reason to believe that they were for protecting small family run businesses so they didn't have to hire someone to work weekends to compete.

#97

And those are quite reasonable sentiments; although I'm dubious that this was the real reason. And you note that some jobs were 'exempt'; does that mean that the people employed in those jobs didn't need to spend time with their families? I highly doubt it.

That was why stores were closed. But I had a friend who went out to look at a house he was having built with his contractor on a Sunday, and the police showed up. They had to convince the cops they were not actually working on the house, but that the contractor was just showing it off.

the people who worked in the exempt business were almost all Turks. (Not including doctors.)

101: Yeah. I remember a fair amount of racism in German employment laws as well.

The disordering, here, is in the objectification of the sexual act for personal gratification that is tied, not to the communication of love but simply to physical pleasure.

That's not disorder. That's just body shaming. You've taken something that harms absolutely no one and attached a stigma to it.

#34: Were the biological parents of the lesbians heterosexual or homosexual? Did they procreate?

I don't see why it's relevant whether their parents were heterosexuals or homosexuals. They could have been homosexuals and procreated; certainly enough of them had. And lesbians and gays certainly can have children together; artificial insemination is not terribly complicated, but we do have the technology to handle it if we want or need it complicated.

How am I supposed to defend myself against these scurrilous charges of bigotry?

How is someone who believes that interracial couples are living in a state of sin supposed to defend themselves against charges of bigotry?

#45: No, rather, the problem is the assumption by many today that "loving your neighbor" in incompatible with telling your neighbor when they've done something bad. You're just supposed to smile and nod while they fritter their lives away in sin, because it's "intolerant" and even "bigoted" to presume that there are, in fact, standards of morality that individuals should not transgress.

So if someone believes that Christianity is actively damaging to its believers, what are they justified in doing? If they believe that you are actively causing untold damage to gay people by your social hostility, then what? They're apparently wrong for calling you a bigot.

Many atheists will condemn Catholics wholesale for standing behind the Catholic church after the child abuse scandal. If someone believes it's wrong to support a organization that has facilitated child abuse like the Catholic Church has, what are they supposed to besides smile and nod? It seems like anything more will get Catholics quite huffy and even claims of bigotry and intolerance.

I see no evidence that you've universalized these things at all; I don't feel you're willing to extend these privileges of judgment to people who agree with you that there are standards of morality that individuals should not transgress but believe that you are actively transgressing them.

>35 nathanielcampbell:

How am I supposed to defend myself against these scurrilous charges of bigotry? Agree with you? Is that the only way?

Good question: stop being a theologian, admit that theology has about as much use as studying Lord of the Rings, that you have been gulled, and that you regret gulling and corrupting the young who are in your charge, and that you will not be a party to it any more, grow up and admit that there is no spaghetti monster in the sky which you call god...., stop trying to disguise your bigotry and hatred by bullshitting on and on about love and what a terrible sinner you are all that crap....stop expecting us all to gasp in admiration everytime you hint at your close relationship with Jaysis, enough with all the false Pecksniffian humility (look it up)....stop expecting us all to sniff the crack in your arse with delight just because you are a pastor or some other daft job..stop distorting language and history....don't be so effffing efffing effing stupid all the time....
...geez, I could go on and on and on with a list of things you could do.

ok?

TC, My son, 9, is currently reading Lord of the Rings, so I will tell him NOT to study it. At the same time, he is no pecksniffer, at least not in the house, where we strive to keep the peck to a minimum.
In matters such as those here, he agrees with me so as to avoid corporal punishment or late term abortion.

Good to hear from you, kitty.

>105 QuentinTom:: I'm very glad that your form of ideological intolerance and bigotry against people of faith is not the norm amongst atheists and agnostics on LibraryThing.

>103 StormRaven:: "You've taken something that harms absolutely no one and attached a stigma to it."

Are you seriously going to claim that the pornography industry "harms absolutely no one"? Are you really that blind to the misogynistic subjugation of women by a patriarchal society that objectifies their sexuality and mistreats and degrades their personal dignity? Are you really that blind to the psychological damage that repeated exposure to pornography does to men?

Quit changing the fucking subject to bring it onto ground that you are more comfortable with. It's obnoxious, dishonest and offensive as all hell.

Mayhap I should go change the fucking post I just made in the other thread to add an instance to the list.

Mayhap we should just make a fucking bingo out of this or something. See if Tim wants to give away an ER copy every time someone calls you out on reframing a discussion in terms that favor your preconceived notions of what the proper answer should be.

Are you seriously going to claim that the pornography industry "harms absolutely no one"?

You mean the patriarchy that you represent that tries to shame women for enjoying sex? Do you know any women who have worked in the pornography industry? I do, and they would laugh at your claims.

And psychological damage to men? Seriously? That's just you trying to evade responsibility for your own actions which is about the most cowardly evasion I ever seen anyone make on LT. Any psychological damage is caused by people like you who talk about how enjoying physical pleasure for its own sake is "disordered". The problems that you claim pornography causes? YOU cause them. Any problems are the fault of small minded people exactly like you.

In any event, that's a sideshow. You derived physical pleasure from jerking off. Who exactly was harmed in that process?

>109 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: Look, the thread had turned in the direction of discussing traditional sexual ethics, and so I offered pornography as a structural example of the ways in which disordered desire operates. As a teacher, I've found that coming up with examples drawn from different areas is often an effective way to re-present material for students who have had difficulty understanding it in its initial presentation. Often, an oblique angle can put things in a different light, and doing so allows for better comprehension. These are called "analogies" -- perhaps you've heard of them?

I am not "reframing the issue" in order to score rhetorical points -- I'm doing so in order to advance the discussion in fruitful ways, as it had gotten bogged down under the previous framework.

I'm sorry that you can't handle it when someone offers new and different perspectives or uses illustrative examples that are not precisely the same as the topic under discussion.

the thread had turned in the direction of discussing traditional sexual ethics, and so I offered pornography as a structural example of the ways in which disordered desire operates.

But you could say that the problem with the porn industry, or the sex industry, isn't the sex, it's that we've corrupted our ability to have sex or enjoy sex. And that if, as I've suggested before, we were less concerned with the act of sex, and more concerned with the motives and who is hurt it's entirely possible the sex industry would look just like, say, the health spa industry--something people do to relax and enjoy their own bodies.

But instead, because culturally we just can't seem to deal with sex rationally, it gets twisted into something that barely resembles the natural healthy act that it is.

It's interest to compare the sex industry with, say professional sports from that perspective. There are many similarities.

Look, the thread had turned in the direction of discussing traditional sexual ethics, and so I offered pornography as a structural example of the ways in which disordered desire operates.

Other than the empty catchphrase "disordered" you haven't shown any way in which your examples are similar or why we should care about you jacking off in college.

The problem with sex work isn't the sex, it's the work. Most work is degrading and alienated. The best chance sex workers have for defending themselves and improving their conditions is for their work to be legal, in the open and respectable. See this essay and references cited therein.

#112

Just how narrow, ignorant and, yes, perverse, your views on sex are became apparent during that discussion about pre-marital sex. You needed then to be informed of such basic facts as, for instance, that women in general enjoy and desire sex at least as much as men in general do, that there is nothing inherently "degrading" for women in the sexual act, and that women who engage in pre-marital sex or casual sex or take multiple partners, aren't automatically "victims".

Now I bring you the Good News on pornography. (Personally I don't distinguish between porn and erotica unless discussion profits from distinction on some ad hoc definitions.)

There is no one type of pornography. There's porn for every taste, and tastes vary. Your focus on misogynistic porn conveniently ignores everyone who isn't a misogynistic male--which is probably the majority of human population. Perhaps the "misogynistic male" is the main consumer of commercial porn? Could be (I'd be interested, unrhetorically, in data on this--after all, gay men have a respectable market share), but it's also probable that everyone* who ever masturbated did so to some fantasy in their heads--porn, IOW.

*Children (can) discover masturbation as early as toddlerhood, and sexual fantasies--fantasies accompanied by sexual excitement and indulged in precisely in order to bring on that excitement--(can) follow without and before any real understanding of sex.

There was "porn" before porn industry and there will be as long as people like us are being born.

I suggest that before you go on spouting about pornography you first learn more about sex.

>116 LolaWalser:: "You needed then to be informed of such basic facts as, for instance, that women in general enjoy and desire sex at least as much as men in general do, that there is nothing inherently "degrading" for women in the sexual act,"

You will cast about in vain to find a place where I denied any of these facts or showed any ignorance of them. Indeed, as I stated multiple times in that other thread, the ideal goal of sexual ethics is mutual justice and parity between men and women.

Why it is that you insist on misrepresenting my views is beyond me. I would hope that you would retract your inaccurate and false statements, and stop attacking a strawman that bears little relation to my actual views.

If it were Andrea Dworkin or Catharine MacKinnon making these arguments against porn instead of me, would you be quite so dismissive of them?

How about Kate Banyard, one of Britain's leading contemporary feminist voices: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/14/kat-banyard-feminist-pornogra...

Or an essay from the Scottish Socialist Youth: http://ssy.org.uk/2011/04/feminism-pornography-and-the-fight-against-patriarchy/

#118

I would oppose anyone who exhibited your prejudice and ignorance. I don't have time to read sheets and manifestos nor taste for "debating" links--either you are capable of summing up your own position or not. Also, I don't trust you to present anyone other's view honestly, or with understanding. You have a clear agenda to co-opt feminist criticisms for your own Christianist puritanical wagon.

>119 LolaWalser:: The hermeneutic of suspicion makes for a much colder and less friendly world...

...and it's also a useful way of shutting down discussion rather than engaging in it.

I'm sure the world will be a better place when we all simply decide to dismiss those who disagree with us as prejudiced and ignorant, unworthy of our attention and engagement. Sounds like a great recipe for reenforcing stereotypes and suspicions, rather than breaking them down--and really, that's what the world needs more of, right? More stereotypes and suspicion, less empathy and compassionate engagement.

And yours is certainly one method to avoid having to deal with the moral issues of pornography.

>120 nathanielcampbell: the moral issues of pornography

But once again, Nathan, a significant part of what you seem to regard as the moral issue of pornography is the sex. It prompts me to ask if you regard sex as "intrinsically immoral" unless it is performed under certain predetermined situations for approved reasons. To my understanding, such reasons you might cite might include:

--only have sex when you are married
--only have sex to express love and/or to conceive children

The reason the porn industry draws the ire of feminists is not because of the sex (well, Catherine Mackinnon, maybe--I once heard her say that "intrusion on women is the definition of sex")--it's because of the way it is used to express the hatred of women. And in fact, I think our culture is so twisted about sex that "traditional sexual ethics" require us to feel shame and self-hatred whenever we feel sexual desire or arousal.

So is the problem with the fact that people will have sex in front of a camera? Is it that people will jack off looking at the pictures? Is it that people get paid for it? Are willing to pay for it?

Or is it that we can barely stand to touch ourselves or pursue sexual release without being made to feel guilty, ashamed, dirty, and "bad."

>121 southernbooklady:: "But once again, Nathan, a significant part of what you seem to regard as the moral issue of pornography is the sex....it's because of the way it is used to express the hatred of women."

Actually, if you reread what I posted above about pornography, it is precisely its misogynistic abuse of women, by which it objectifies them to fulfill the lustful gaze of men--thus creating a powerful imbalance in which men use and women are used--that I was objecting to. (It's a rare day when I start citing Andrea Dworkin and Catharine Mackinnon with approval!)

"So is the problem with the fact that people will have sex in front of a camera? Is it that people will jack off looking at the pictures? Is it that people get paid for it? Are willing to pay for it?"

In addition to the patriarchal hegemonies that the porn industry maintains (as I explained above), the main problem I identify is that the selling and buying, the production and consumption, of porn create a complete disconnect between sexuality and the expression of mutual love. I am of the firm belief that such an expression, together with procreation, is the goal (the "end", in philosophical terms) of human sexuality. When that expression of mutual love--an expression that therefore must turn outward towards another, rather than inwards to the self--is abandoned, as in the case of porn (or of porn's cousin, prostitution), sex is reduced to an expression of abusive and abused power.

(I want to write more on this, but I will put it another post below.)

It prompts me to ask if you regard sex as "intrinsically immoral" unless it is performed under certain predetermined situations for approved reasons.

I tried to address this at length in the "Christianity and sex" thread that Lola misrepresented and which I then linked to in 117. I think that my comments there would actually help clear up some of the confusion now:

This brings us back to the question of what place sexuality has in human relationships. As I've argued, for human sexuality to be practiced in a just manner--that is, in a manner that does not put one partner in a position of power over the other, but places each on an equal footing--demands a certain high level of trust and loving commitment. Can unmarried persons establish such levels in their relationships? Sure. But marriage is a very good way of establishing such levels, because it makes those commitments open and above-board, rather than leaving them undiscussed and implicit. The danger in the latter situation is that one partner may have a different perception of the commitment-level of a relationship than the other: and that asymmetry can lead to sexual injustice.

My concern here is to ensure justice in the sexual relationship -- for I hope that we all recognize that the history of human sexuality is plagued by its injustices, usually towards women. Sexual liberation addressed some of those injustices, principally by freeing a woman's sexuality from subservience to a man. But it created thereby a different set of injustices by ignoring the reciprocal respect and trust that a truly just sexual relationship demands.*

I believe that there modern sexual relationships, as with those of the past, continue to suffer from asymmetries of power and expectations and the resultant injustice that comes from relationships that are not founded on mutual respect, honesty, and commitment. I have suggested that marriage--idealized, I suppose, and revisioned to do away with patriarchal hegemony--can offer a stable, committed, and deeply loving context in which sexuality can be practiced with justice and mutual love.

What you are seeing from me is an attempt to refract Christian sexual ethics through the lens of contemporary perceptions of the injustices of patriarchal hegemony.

-----
*I believe that southerbooklady was identifying some of these problems in post 88 above.

#112: "As a teacher, I've found that..."

I think that's where you went wrong. Analogies are useful in teaching. They are harmful in debates. In order to use an analogy to prove a point, you have to show that the topic in question maps to the analogous domain, that the argument you make in the analogous domain is still valid when you consider all the differences between the topic and the analogy, and that the conclusion you reach has a valid corresponding conclusion in the original domain. It's much more work than simply making your argument directly, and in addition the analogy itself tends to derail the discussion by introducing a new topic. As happened here.

I've learned in decades of experience of Arguing on the Internet, to never use analogies to argue a point.

What can be useful is to make the analogy for yourself, then translate the argument back to the original topic and make it there. It can be eye-opening for everyone involved.

This post is sincerely meant as helpful advice.

>123 Amtep:: "Analogies are useful in teaching. They are harmful in debates. "

I was under the impression that this was a conversation geared towards learning from one another--and thus ripe for "teachable moments"--not a debate.

Apparently, I have been misinformed. We're not supposed to listen to and learn from one another here -- we're supposed to fight to score points and to win.

"This post is sincerely meant as helpful advice."

And I take it as such, despite the sarcasm in my response just now. I still hold out hope that we can strive to put aside our baser tendencies to throw fits and try to "win", and instead engage in a reasonable, compassionate conversation whose goal is better understanding rather than "win or lose".

nc at #122: Actually, if you reread what I posted above about pornography, it is precisely its misogynistic abuse of women...

YOR DOIN IT RONG.

It's entirely possible to find PC porn.

122> So you would agree with Catharine MacKinnon's argument that "Male dominance is sexual. Meaning: men in particular, if not men alone, sexualize hierarchy; gender is one."

>126 theoria:: I wouldn't go so far as she does to make it a universal blanket statement. Rather, I would agree that a powerful and frequent expression of male dominance is sexual. (The problem with MacKinnon's statement is that it leaves no room for the inevitable complexity and nuance that such topics as human sexuality entail.)

I do not agree that "gender is one", except in the sense that all human beings share a common nature as human, equal in dignity and worth. Yet, within that common nature, there are certain distinctions. The fact that there are transsexuals, hermaphrodites, etc. does not mean that gender is entirely homogenous across a spectrum -- the fact is, most people are both physically and mentally either male or female.

Thus, if we imagine human sexuality as a force field, it will have two poles (male and female) around which most humans cluster, and the primary interaction will be heterosexual. (I believe that the most reliable surveys peg the number of people who identify as homosexual at no more than about 10% of the population.) But there will be many smaller outliers in the fuzzy areas that spread out from those two poles, with smaller interactions and eddys that produce the dizzying array of expressions of human sexuality that we actually see around us.

(Is this image making any sense?)

Look, the thread had turned in the direction of discussing traditional sexual ethics, and so I offered pornography as a structural example of the ways in which disordered desire operates.

Maybe you should try pedophilia instead, Nathaniel.

Or better still, since this is a discussion (if I'm in the right thread) of marriage equality, maybe you should discuss homosexuality.

That faux-naif pose wears very thin.

Also, I don't trust you to present anyone other's view honestly, or with understanding

and

The hermeneutic of suspicion makes for a much colder and less friendly world...

...and it's also a useful way of shutting down discussion rather than engaging in it.

Back to back are pretty fucking hilarious given your penchant for moving discussions only in the directions you want to go and cherry-picking salient data points that support your positions.

127> I think your argument lacks some nuance with respect to pornography. If you refer to a few feminist critics of pornography, you should acknowledge the existence of other feminists who are critical of the Dworkin and MacKinnon point of view. From what I recall of the "sex debate" inside feminist theory, the so-called "bad girls" rejected the anti-porn position, in part by referencing lesbian pornography (see "On Our Backs" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Our_Backs ). This debate is somewhat dated, but Carole Vance's edited volume, Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, gives a picture of its contours.

Returning the question of Christian sexual ethics, its traditional orientation, and possible future evolutions:

Fundamentally, (and this was a bit of where I was starting to head last night before I was cut short by the arrival of my in-laws for dinner), I am following the movement in sexual ethics represented by John Paul II's Theology of the Body, which moves away from seeing sex as either (1) just a physical act or (2) the dirty little secret of humankind, necessary for the survival of the species but distatesful in all other respects. (This latter owes its prudery in no small part to the link that took hold in Late Antique Christian theology, as exemplified by Augustine, between sex and the transmission of original sin. The problem, we have finally come to realize, is that, despite his brilliant theological mind in most matters, Augustine was really the wrong person to develop our basic sexual ethics, as the "thorn in his flesh" {as Paul would call it} was his own inability to give up his mistress for so long. Thus, his own disordered desires left his formulations of sexual ethics a bit skewed.)

What the modern movement in sexual ethics has done (and this actually predates John Paul II, but he put his indelible stamp upon it) is, first, to recognize that sexuality is not only the vehicle for procreation but also a gift by which humans express and engage their mutual love for one another. (It was a big deal when Vatican II's Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, placed these two functions of sexuality side-by-side and refused to give one priority over the other.) It is the ultimate physical expression of the bond that husband and wife share as lovers and then as parents.

Second, it began to put sexuality within the wider context of a discussion about the dignity and wholeness of the human person. Thus, sexuality is one of several areas in which our identiy as persons made in the image and likeness of God is exercised--and either fulfilled or abused. The human person has a vocation to live according to that dignity--and one of the fundamental implications of being made in the image and likeness of God is thus that we are made, not for ourselves, but to live in a community of sharing and of love; for the Trinity is precisely that: each person overflows in love for the other, and is that act of overflowing that constitutes the essence of God.

So sexuality is part of what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God; it is an essential component in enacting the vocation of that dignity of being so created; and that vocation is fundamentally ordered towards communion with others in love.

This broader framework that sets sexuality within a discussion of the entire dignity and vocation of the human person offers the most fertile ground for exploring new approaches to expressions of sexuality that have historically been considered abuses of that dignity rather than fulfillments of it. But that's about as far as I've gotten...

127> I do not agree that "gender is one"

I interpret this to mean that gender/sexuality is defined from one point of view: the male point of view. (I sense she's referencing Luce Irigaray's This Sex Which is Not One). As for the rest of your speculation, I would argue that gender is a social and historical construction, which means gender identities and performances are potentially fluid unless institutions and beliefs impose limits on fluidity.

>130 theoria:: You are correct that there was a whole other side to the inter-feminist pornography debates that I chose, for reasons of presentation, to omit. I am not as capable of describing that side's position, so I hope someone else (you, theoria?) who is might interject with any useful contributions.

>132 theoria:: "I interpret this to mean that gender/sexuality is defined from one point of view: the male point of view."

Ah -- in that sense, then, I would agree, but only to the extent that, though there be multiple points of view, they are all of the same gender/sexuality. That is, men's points of view and women's points of view should (at least in theory) be complementary as they describe two halves of a whole, as it were. (N.B. There are more fractions than just two halves involved here, but the phrase has a simplicity of concept to it that works in this case.)

"As for the rest of your speculation, I would argue that gender is a social and historical construction, which means gender identities and performances are potentially fluid unless institutions and beliefs impose limits on fluidity."

Certainly they are fluid, and their expressions (or performances) are shaped by instituional and cultural barriers, limits, and curbs.

However, I would argue that the existence of the two main poles (male and female) around which the entire force field operates is determined by biology, and is thus not entirely fluid. That is, the existence of the poles is fixed; the expressions around them are not, and are determined by cultural and other, non-fixed factors.

You are correct that there was a whole other side to the inter-feminist pornography debates that I chose, for reasons of presentation, to omit.

Do you think this tendency might contribute to the "paranoia" mentioned upthread?

>135 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: So you mean to tell me that, in all of your posts from here on out, you will include not only the things you believe in but also a fair and balanced precis of those things that you don't believe in?

Or will you do as I do, and choose to write about the things you know about and the things you believe in, and leave if for others to write about other things?

Oh wait -- I keep forgetting! You've anointed yourself supreme arbiter of what topics are legimitate for discussion on LT, and I broke the rules, didn't I, by introducing a topic for discussion that you didn't approve of? Shame on me!

Actually, if you reread what I posted above about pornography, it is precisely its misogynistic abuse of women, by which it objectifies them to fulfill the lustful gaze of men

And the objectification is the result of people like you slut shaming and telling everyone that the sex they enjoy is "disordered" and sinful. The reason that the porn industry is the way it is is because of puritanical prudes like you.

Oh wait -- I keep forgetting! You've anointed yourself supreme arbiter of what topics are legimitate for discussion on LT, and I broke the rules, didn't I, by introducing a topic for discussion that you didn't approve of? Shame on me!

Supreme Arbiter? Not even close. But you're damn fucking sure I'll point out what you're doing when you're doing it.

I mean, it's only like 3-4 topics in a row that you've decided that you're going to move the discussion entirely to a grounds and frame that shows your side to advantage (speaking of scoring points or learning). It's a pretty cheap trick.

>138 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: Once again, we are at an impasse, because you seem to think that introducing new ways of looking at things is a "pretty cheap trick".

I'm sorry that you can't handle complex conversations that involve lots of different ideas and discourses meeting and interacting.

(And wasn't one of lawecon's favorite complaints that threads would wander from topic to topic, rather than maintaining strict adherence to the OP?)

139: Keep justifying your serial lying. I'm sure it help you convince yourself you're not a dishonest person.

Once again, we are at an impasse, because you seem to think that introducing new ways of looking at things is a "pretty cheap trick".

Explain to me why we're discussing pornography instead of marriage equality right now.

And yeah, you're claims that you're merely doing this to be helpful carry about as much water with me at the moment as rrp's claims that he doesn't advocate religious belief.

#107: I'm very glad that your form of ideological intolerance and bigotry against people of faith is not the norm amongst atheists and agnostics on LibraryThing.

And I stand by #104; him calling you out on you frittering your life away in sin, assuming there are standards of morality that individuals should not transgress, doesn't seem to have provoked a positive response from you. In fact, you dropped accusations of bigotry, just because he believed being a person of faith is morally wrong!

And we're left exactly where we were back on #46.

>122 nathanielcampbell: I believe that there modern sexual relationships, as with those of the past, continue to suffer from asymmetries of power and expectations and the resultant injustice that comes from relationships that are not founded on mutual respect, honesty, and commitment

It's the commitment aspect that is under scrutiny in a sexually liberated culture. Honesty and respect I think are both attributes of a healthy sexual relationship, but the latter, anyway, is I think often needlessly encumbered by those traditional sexual ethics. Hence the continued premium on chastity (not to mention the ongoing obsessions with virginity) and the eternal question of "will you still respect me in the morning." Or the "walk of shame" we've probably all done at some point or another.

Commitment, however, is less certain in this era of easy access to contraception. I'm not sold on the notion that it is fundamental to a healthy sex life. Presumably, if there is honesty and respect, then commitment won't even be an issue.

One thing I find interesting about your statement, Nathan, is that you don't mention consent, although you do talk about power. Perhaps you feel that consent is an understood requirement, but it does open the door on the morality of people who like to play sexual power games and consent to do so with each other. There are entire BDSM, role playing, and fetish communities out there where people find sexual release in ways that are safe and satisfying. And consensual. Are those to be relegated to the "intrinsically immoral" or does the consensual nature of the sex allow them to co-exist under the umbrella of morally acceptable sex?

After several hours in Italy, some conversation out on the street, some sexually obscure playing with my dog, and after finding out the Pirates lost, I have come to see how things are and after a skim of what I have found here I think I would immediately jerk off if I didn't have to piss so bad.

>144 southernbooklady:: "Commitment, however, is less certain in this era of easy access to contraception. I'm not sold on the notion that it is fundamental to a healthy sex life. Presumably, if there is honesty and respect, then commitment won't even be an issue."

You may be right that honesty and respect make it a moot point. However, I still worry that the danger without a firm notion of committment is that one partner may have a different perception of the commitment-level of a relationship than the other, and that asymmetry of expectations can become unjust.

"Perhaps you feel that consent is an understood requirement, but it does open the door on the morality of people who like to play sexual power games and consent to do so with each other. There are entire BDSM, role playing, and fetish communities out there where people find sexual release in ways that are safe and satisfying. And consensual. Are those to be relegated to the "intrinsically immoral" or does the consensual nature of the sex allow them to co-exist under the umbrella of morally acceptable sex?"

As I've tried to articulate before, consenting to something that is immoral does not magically make it moral. In this case, voluntarily forcing the sexual relationship into inequality would be immoral because it distorts / abuses the dignity for which sexuality was created: the expression of mutual love. Justice in mutuality demands equality-in-complementarity, and becomes injustice when that equality is squandered. (Though a case could be made that their harm against justice is less because it is consensual, i.e. the injustice of rape is greater than that of a consensual BDSM practice that has all the appearances of rape.)

And while I know that you won't make this false assumptions, others might, so I should be clear: I am not saying that BDSM, role playing, etc. should be made illegal. Rather, I am arguing that their creation of illusory or actual inequalities is an abuse of the justice and dignity with which human sexuality ought to be expressed.

>146 nathanielcampbell: As I've tried to articulate before, consenting to something that is immoral does not magically make it moral. In this case, voluntarily forcing the sexual relationship into inequality would be immoral because it distorts / abuses the dignity for which sexuality was created: the expression of mutual love

And this is where I have to reject any morality that focuses on the act rather than the motivations or the results. As an outsider, you really are judging the sexual relationship based on surface things, like what toys they use, who says "sir" and who is called "master," etc, etc. Presumably, in a healthy sexual relationship as long as there is consent then the complexities of the needs each person is fulfilling run deeper than might be intuited based on the fact that one person likes to be handcuffed.

Consider if I were to turn that around and judge other kinds of sexual relationships based on such surface indicators: many of my female friends changed their names to their husband's when they married. Am I to jump to conclusions about the inherent inequality of their marriage? The unhealthy nature of their sexual relationship because one partner had to give up her identity to the other? Or shall I simply ask them if they have a happy marriage or a good relationship, and trust them when they tell me yes?

>147 southernbooklady:: You've offered some good food for thought as I sign off for the night.

An aside: my wife didn't change her name when we get married. As you might expect, it causes some consternation in our rather old-fashioned, rural Appalachia town. (And because we moved here for her to take up a position on the faculty at the university, we are actually often known in town more by her last name than by mine -- and for convenience's sake, I occasionally adopt her last name just so I don't confuse people.)

146 'the dignity for which sexuality was created: the expression of mutual love.'

I'm glad you have the satisfaction of knowing the answer to one of the supremely confounding questions of all time. I am sort of stuck in this rut where it seems to me that sexuality was 'created' so that creatures would reproduce--and yet their sexualities are multifarious, strange even at times, like the many creatures who procreate in such excess that it seems merciless, so many die without even coming close to experiencing sex. Even mice get screwed here, so to speak, only 10% at best surviving to an age at which they are capable of enjoying sexual union. It is no wonder the bonobo, who apart from their increasing troubles trying to co-inhabit the planet with humans, have a high rate of survival, enjoy their sex in so many ways and with so many partners of either sex (though it is true that females have sex with females in the form of g-g rubbing mostly than males with males)...

>148 nathanielcampbell: I like that.

Ah yes the "asymmetries of power" These are of course implicit in Paul's writings and the teachings of most churches, Gay marriage undermines this model by its very existence.

Most religions handle the issue of sex...poorly. To be blunt, they are all over the map when it comes to making rules for others to live by when sex is involved. Not to mention being completely contradictory, depending on the time period you look at.

However, there is a strong thread of disapproval of sexual behavior (of any type) that runs through Christian (and Islamic, and Judaic) thinking. Basically, sex within marriage has to be accepted. Not necessarily approved of, but accepted. Sex outside of marriage (again, of any type) was officially disapproved of (again, considerable exceptions were made when people with power and influence were involved, but this is true under any system of rules; however, the hypocrisy was rarely so blatant under other systems).

This disapproval became more vehement when same-sex pairings were involved; even sex between heterosexual couples that in some way resembled homosexual sex (sodomy laws) were prohibited under Church and secular law.

But now that secular barriers to such activity are falling, religious leaders are becoming more frantic. Lacking the 'freakin' big hammer' of the Law to enforce their rules, they turn to social disapproval, backed by Divine mandates.

Saying that something is 'immoral' is much like saying 'you're offended'; it may well be true, but it only applies to you. By the same token, your opposition to sin ultimately means you are attempting to apply your sense of morality onto others, without their invitation. If their sinning causes you direct harm, then few would dispute your right to oppose it. However, your mere disapproval doesn't (in many peoples' minds) give you the right to meddle in their affairs, no matter how well-meaning that meddling.

Before you get to 'But what about...?' there are some concepts (such as the Golden Rule, which has been restated in multiple faiths across the world, and therefore can be considered a human idea) which do allow meddling. Slavery, for instance, violates the GR simply because no one willingly chose to be enslaved, or even thought it to be an enviable condition. (We can leave aside the ancient practice of selling onesself into slavery to repay debts, as this delves into ancient law.)

Pornography, on the other hand, is a voluntary job. No one forces those involved (again, with rare exceptions) to take part; any of the participants, at any time, may walk away from the profession with relatively little fear of retaliation. (In fact, quite a few former adult actresses have gone on to worthwhile lives in other roles.) This is no more coercive than any other job in the service industry, some of which are equally or more degrading of human dignity. But it involves sex, which somehow makes it worse in some eyes.

>152 BruceCoulson:: "No one forces those involved (again, with rare exceptions) to take part"

I think you are underestimating the prevalence of sex trafficking and forced participation in pornography -- see e.g. this recent article: http://verilymag.com/magazine/sex-money-and-slavery/

152> Monotheism has a sex problem, a sex obsession really.

Basically, sex within marriage has to be accepted. Not necessarily approved of, but accepted.

While there are exceptions to this, for the most part sex within the confines of marriage are celebrated within religions. I cannot speak of Islam, but Judaism can have a very frank and open attitude toward sexuality. (Ever notice the last thing they say about Moses? He was old, but, "his moisture had not fled.") Christians probably had a saner attitude of sex within marriage than the Romans did. Rabbis were expected to celebrate the Sabbath by having sex with their wives. The Apostle Paul tells couples NOT to withhold sex from one another, unless they mutually agree to.

Granted there has been some craziness about sex within religious circles, and if you start talking about pre- or extra-marital sex, then, yes, traditional Christianity has issues there.

If it were established that at least ten percent of all people who are making pornography were not necessarily voluntarily participants, would that change your attitudes toward it? (I actually have no idea how many are doing because of coercion, but I kind of doubt that many young girls says to themselves, "I want a job where five men cum all over me."

Christians probably had a saner attitude of sex within marriage than the Romans did.

Who said "Better to marry than to burn"?

but I kind of doubt that many young girls says to themselves, "I want a job where five men cum all over me."

You know, there are some women who actually enjoy that. It isn't the norm, but there are some. There are also a lot of women who like getting paid quite handsomely for working a few days per month.

Sex is actually "important" so I understand the obsession re religions as well as per ol' Doc Freud. (I'd say I am a "Freudian" before I'd say I'm a "Marxist" because at least I have read Freud or some of him and thought he was pretty well "right on" as "they" say.)

At the same time I think most societal sexual restrictions fall mainly on women which by the way makes most of the middle east (and interestingly "western" religions all have a middle eastern origin) appear so "unfair" and inhumane but then "the west" hasn't a history of being much better until secularism rescued it in the 19th century which had something of course to do with both Marx AND Freud eh.

And then came the movies which have probably been the most "liberating" sexually, Hitchcock's neuroses notwithstanding or maybe precisely BECAUSE of Hitch's hmm.

I don't read porn because it repels me; I don't like "explicit" because it does too so that's why I like Hitchcock? (The NAME is so so "apt"?...)

159> A wild speculation that is open to refutation: a system of belief that celebrates fertility would be less conflicted about sexuality.

I do not deny that there are people who do like that, both male and female, and they have found just the right job. But I would also imagine that those are rare creatures.

I think it was the New Yorker that did a piece on male porn stars, and if you ever dreamed of being one, this article would put you off it forever. You are not allowed to have an orgasm except for filming, but because pre-orgasmic excite produces semen, you get to almost orgasm several times before the money shot. Basically your genitals no longer belong to you once you join the stable. And if you cannot do the money shot, you don't get paid for that day's "work."

>157 StormRaven:: "There are also a lot of women who like getting paid quite handsomely for working a few days per month."

So as long as I pay someone enough money, whatever I do to them is no longer immoral?

The only problem with slavery, then, was that the price paid for each slave wasn't high enough!

159 What is so wild about that?

Freud I think was mainly addressing the repressive sexuality promoted to the emerging middle classes (which Marx didn't trust, with good reason) as the upper classes always did pretty much what they wished sexually and could because, of course, of their wealth and power, while "nobody" really cared what the "peasantry" were doing as long as it didn't threaten the political order.

Among the Greek and Roman upper class the sexual relationship between an older man (of power) and a "youth" was seen as a "mentoring" and was perfectly acceptable along with marriage.

(Sexuality with women as "wives" was necessary for progeny and the maintenance of the "class" but "what's love got to do with it"? Well not much necessarily. By the way young Julius Caesar's penchant for bedding women and "getting bedded" by powerful men folk resulted in a popular "joke" about him -- that he was "every woman's man and every man's woman!")

"Repression" plus "sublimation" equals "civilization" according to Papa (F) so it's totally understandable that societies and religions are rather "obsessive" about sexual behavior and propriety -- at least among the leading classes. Women as I say get the "worst" of it and then homosexuals who are identified as a kind of man who is a woman.

That's simplistic of course as say who's the "man," Cary Grant or Randolph Scott, both of which were certainly capable of playing both "roles" -- in the movies and maybe otherwise?

I think we "in the west" are doing better as per sexual acceptance in part because of the promotion of "freedom and liberty" (happy Fourth!) and that "pursuit of happiness" eh and because religion in the west is increasingly "narrowing" and isolating itself. The "kids" won't read Leviticus anymore; they may not even read Genesis (which is too bad; great read!) but they do go to the movies eh...

161

Watch out Nathaniel, you are getting VERY close to the notion of Wage Slavery, which leads to Marxism, which leads to Communism, which leads to voting for Barak Obama!

161: You seem to not understand the concept of consent.

If they were paid for their work, and free to seek work elsewhere if they didn't like the job, then it wouldn't be slavery. The fact that you don't understand this seems to me to be very telling.

Among the Greek and Roman upper class the sexual relationship between an older man (of power) and a "youth" was seen as a "mentoring" and was perfectly acceptable along with marriage.

Once one became a Roman citizen there sexuality, and the passions it drew from a person, were supposed to be in service to the State. Rome owned your orgasms. You were supposed to have children, but then not waste your passions of sex. (See Peter Brown's The Body and Society.)

164 Just like intercourse might lead to dancing.

#161: Nathaniel, have you read Michael Sandel's latest book What Money Can't Buy: the Moral Limits of Markets? In essence, yes, in a market society (Sandel argues that we used to have a market economy, but now we have become a market society) the only question of import is "How much?"

162> Because I haven't read anything that offers support for my speculation.

167> Marx is a gateway drug.

Robin Morgan, an American author, feminist, and child actor, made the following statement in her book, Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape, in, The Word of a Woman, part 1, which which was written in 1974, but published 1992;

“The act of rape is merely the expression of the standard, ‘healthy’ even encouraged male fantasy in patriarchal culture, that of aggressive sex. And the articulation of that fantasy into a billion-dollar industry is pornography….Pornography is sexist propaganda-no more, no less. Pornography is the theory: rape is the practice” (pp. 137, 139).

The essay that accompanies this talks about distinguishing between Playboy and amateur web sites that feature eastern European girls of questionable age doing things on camera most couples would never do at home, which is a valid distinction.

169 Run with it.

170 A case could be made that air-brushed pubes was the beginning of the end for healthy sexuality in the western world.
And never forget why certain folk are so fucking poor.

#172: it finally dawns on the American audience that Lolita was long, inside joke.

Ah, my Lo!

Lolita sweeta?...

feel it on the tongue!

>165 StormRaven:: "You seem to not understand the concept of consent.

If they were paid for their work, and free to seek work elsewhere if they didn't like the job, then it wouldn't be slavery. The fact that you don't understand this seems to me to be very telling."

Rather, you seem to have too simple a concept of consent, for you are ignoring the powerful socio-cultural forces of patriarchy that are still (and have ever been, it seems) at work in creating the culture of pornography.

When the culture at large continually fuels the myth that women are only as good as the size of their boobs (whether large for some men or small for others -- isn't that where the Lolita reference was headed?) and the amount that they scream in "ecstasy"; and as long as there is a ready audience to consume a medium (I will not dignify with the term "artform", even in air quotes) that is predicated upon the idea that women are there to perform for the lustful visual gaze of men, how free are women really to make the the choice about pornography?

Setting aside the pernicious undercurrent in which women are trafficked for both prostitution and pornography (as indicated in the article I linked to in post 153), there is the simple fact that the patriarchal culture demands that women be, first and foremost, sex objects. Nobody ever looked at a porn star and said, "Gee, I'm attracted to her intellect!"*

Thus, it remains a difficult thing to say that the women whom the porn industry abuses are actually and freely consenting to the treatment -- rather, they are much more in the position of the battered spouse who "consents" to her husband's rages because she has been conditioned by years of mental abuse to think that she's supposed to.

----------
*I'm setting aside the fact that, at least in the '60's and '70's, one could legitimately read Playboy for the articles -- after all, most of the intellectual heavy-hitters (e.g. Norman Mailer) in that department were men.

how free are women really to make the the choice about pornography?

???. Lots of women seem to have no trouble choosing a different line of work.

I don't know about the culture at large, but my sexual life in the US involved a great variety of positions of all kinds (not just tantrically speaking), betrayals and such bad behavior all around of which I was as often victim as perpetrator, generally engaging in EXPERIENCES, none of which I regret other than the times I lied. I regret no affair with any woman who lied to me. And I think that generally the initial attraction was physical, both sides. (me and them, front and back)

I read SOME of the articles and I always got a kick outta "The MALEman." ("He delivers the MALE!")

Mailer's best stuff was in his political books like "The Armies of the Night" and "St George and the Godfather." I even liked "The Prisoner of Sex" although it was so "MALEcentric" but then that was one of his shticks eh...

#155

If (and I suspect that's a mighty big 'if') it could be proven ('beyond a reasonable doubt' shalll we say) that ten percent of those involved in the making of pornography were being coerced by methods other than an offer of payment for services performed.... No, it would not change my opinion.

By extension, that would indicate 90% of the performers ARE there of their own volition. Outlawing a method of expression solely on the basis of criminal acts committed by a minority is wrong on a lot of levels.

The sex industry has always faced opposition based on the proposition 'I would never do such a thing, no matter how much money I was paid, so clearly those people are being compelled/coerced/forced to do those things.' This is wrong.

Let's look at a counter-example.

I would never walk around unarmed in dangerous neighborhoods, step onto the properties of armed men, and shove papers at them. So, clearly, postal workers, process servers, and delivery people are being coerced into taking these dangerous actions.

Obviously, this is a bit satirical. But the point is, there are a lot of things being done by people that other people would never dream of doing, no matter how desperate their situation. (Being a migrant worker, for example.) Generally, however, the workers and employers are not accused of coercing or forcing people to work for them. (Underpaying them, yes; but that's another topic.)

A lot of people like to read/watch pornography. This has been true for a long time. And there is money in providing such material. In economic terms, pronographers have 'found a need and filled it'. So have sex workers in other areas. If anything, such things should be legal so that the workforce has legal recourses available when actual criminal actions take place.

As an unemployed feller, you could say that my next job if it be 1% odious is an abuse of my humanity.

I don't "like it" but I'm not for banning it...

#155: I actually have no idea how many are doing because of coercion, but I kind of doubt that many young girls says to themselves, "I want a job where five men cum all over me."

I've never understood that argument. How many have ever said "I want a job where I stand on feet all day dealing with cranky customers?" Most people make compromises to get through life.

#177: how free are women really to make the the choice about pornography?

How free are women to make choices if women are treated as if they aren't free to make choices?

"Sex sells"; as long as it sells there will be sellers...

Peter, for one, to get back to Lolita.

>181 BruceCoulson:: "Outlawing a method of expression solely on the basis of criminal acts committed by a minority is wrong on a lot of levels."

This seems to be a common (and mistaken) assumption in these threads, and not just in this one on sexuality.

That is, the false assumption is frequently made that if one thinks something is immoral (as, for example, has been expressed in another thread on abortion), one is ipso facto saying that it should be outlawed.

I, at least, have not suggested that, because pornography is immoral, it should therefore be outlawed (nor, in the other thread, have I suggested that because abortion is immoral, it should therefore be outlawed).

I think that these conversations would run a lot smoother if these false assumptions that equate immorality with illegality weren't constantly being made.

Fair point.

Ummm...that's fine, but I wasn't responding to a post from nathanielcampbell, but rather from Arctic Stranger. He may well appreciate your response; but...

But my question to your response would be; if you feel that act 'X' is immoral and wrong, then why aren't you advocating using force to prevent it? Without force, all you are doing is saying that it's wrong; which is fine, but rarely (I won't say never) corrects a pattern of behavior.

I believe that a passage from Pope Francis' first encyclical, released today, is apropos to the argument I've been trying to make:

Love cannot be reduced to an ephemeral emotion. True, it engages our affectivity, but in order to open it to the beloved and thus to blaze a trail leading away from self-centredness and towards another person, in order to build a lasting relationship; love aims at union with the beloved. Here we begin to see how love requires truth. Only to the extent that love is grounded in truth can it endure over time, can it transcend the passing moment and be sufficiently solid to sustain a shared journey. If love is not tied to truth, it falls prey to fickle emotions and cannot stand the test of time. True love, on the other hand, unifies all the elements of our person and becomes a new light pointing the way to a great and fulfilled life. Without truth, love is incapable of establishing a firm bond; it cannot liberate our isolated ego or redeem it from the fleeting moment in order to create life and bear fruit.

If love needs truth, truth also needs love. Love and truth are inseparable. Without love, truth becomes cold, impersonal and oppressive for people’s day-to-day lives. The truth we seek, the truth that gives meaning to our journey through life, enlightens us whenever we are touched by love. One who loves realizes that love is an experience of truth, that it opens our eyes to see reality in a new way, in union with the beloved. In this sense, Saint Gregory the Great could write that amor ipse notitia est, love is itself a kind of knowledge possessed of its own logic.

Rather, you seem to have too simple a concept of consent, for you are ignoring the powerful socio-cultural forces of patriarchy that are still (and have ever been, it seems) at work in creating the culture of pornography.

You seem completely blind to your perpetuation of the patriarchy with your constant slut shaming and attempts to deprive women of the power to make their own choices regarding their sexuality.

Note, for example, that your concern is for the poor benighted women who participate in porn, but you are silent concerning the male participants. The unspoken assumption is that men love sex, so of course they would participate willingly. But women, no, in your mind women are supposed to be delicate flowers who only have sex for love and would never willingly engage in porn as a career. But in doing so, you deprive women of agency, you deny that women have control over their own choices. You are the patriarchy speaking, and your stance is much more degrading to women than porn could ever hope to be.

as long as there is a ready audience to consume a medium (I will not dignify with the term "artform", even in air quotes) that is predicated upon the idea that women are there to perform for the lustful visual gaze of men, how free are women really to make the the choice about pornography?

And again with the arbitrary restriction on what is porn and who consumes it. I'm a woman and I made a free choice about pornography--to use it, buy it, and, once upon a time, make it (comics, and a play that would be difficult but interesting to stage).

My favourite sex stores in NYC (Toys in Babeland) and Toronto (Good For Her) are owned by women.

There will ALWAYS be an audience for porn. If you don't know this, you know nothing about sexuality. There's porn on stones thousands of years old. There's porn on every toilet wall in every school that ever existed. Children discover bodies--their own and that of others--before anything else. The species will die out before this instinct dies out (or about at the same time...)

But speaking of lustful gazing, how absurd is it to complain about it in regard to commercial products expressly made for visual consumption, when women get lustfully gazed on and treated as sex objects in real life? There's no blaming porn industry for that sort of thing, when porn industry doesn't even exist in most of the world.

there is the simple fact that the patriarchal culture demands that women be, first and foremost, sex objects.

And there is the simple fact that your religion during all its existence has embodied and supported the patriarchy, and still does. Why would your religion's penchant for treating women as, first and foremost, silent breeding stock, be any better? You affect a sympathy for Catholicism--what's your take again on those uppity nuns who dared to be ambitious above their station?

Bingo.

I find it interesting that none of the pornography supporters have bothered to read or respond to the article I posted previously concerning the deep ties between the trafficking of women for prostitution and for porn: http://verilymag.com/magazine/sex-money-and-slavery/

One wonders why they express so much outrage (!) at somebody who thinks pornography is degrading, but utter not a single word against sex trafficking.

To tell you the truth, given that the thread is about marriage equality, I see no point in taking your little detour down a blind alley.

If you want to start talking about disordered sexuality, you may as well explain why homosexuality is an example of such instead of changing the subject.

Or in other words, I don't find the smoke and mirrors very interesting (much less interesting than you find my apathy about them to be).

>192 LolaWalser: My favourite sex stores in NYC (Toys in Babeland) and Toronto (Good For Her) are owned by women.

There was a place called Good Vibrations in San Francisco that all the radical feminists I used to hang out with in the 80s really liked. I'm think they're still going strong. ;)

I've come into contact with both the good and the bad of the sex industry over the years. I've had friends who worked it and loved it, and met some who felt forced into it and wanted nothing more than to escape it.

I think as an industry its workers are especially vulnerable to some kinds of abuse because no one wants to admit that they are there, much less leap to their defense.

But a lot of that would correct itself if we altered our Puritanical notions about sex and allowed ourselves to express our desires without forcing them into the few constrained situations we currently consider "appropriate."

As for the connection between the porn industry and the sex trafficking industry, I regard it as something like the connection between agriculture and illegal immigrant workers.

There was a place called Good Vibrations in San Francisco that all the radical feminists I used to hang out with in the 80s really liked. I'm think they're still going strong. ;)

Was at the point I left the city ('07 or so...)

195> I think he got sidetracked when he made his confession in #65. Porn is an interesting topic, but the debate is dated. As for sex-trafficking: no one supports it. Neither topic has anything to do with same sex marriage.

Because this is the first time that a thread of 200 posts has forked into several different topics...

(Wasn't lawecon, when he was still with us, the one who harped so loudly that we needed to do a better job of staying on topic?)

It worries me that the assumption seems to be that the side-topic of pornography was some sleight-of-hand on my part to "change the terms of the debate" in bad faith. Rather, it was a topic that was introduced as part of the wider discussion on sexual morality to which the thread had turned. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that, as the conversation begin to delve into those deeper questions, other forms of sexual behavior traditionally considered immoral might be discussed?

But rather than simply accept that is in the nature of a 200-post discussion to morph into different forms, there is this incessant notion that I must be intentionally and even unethically trying to "engineer" some master plan to make you all my minions, or something of that sort. It would be ridiculous if it weren't being taken so seriously....

200> Jesse has a point. Rather than discuss the merits of your idea of "disordered desire" with respect to homosexuality specifically, you turned to an analogy: internet porn addiction, which you've broadened into sex trafficking. The analogy fails because homosexuality and porn that is produced under non-consensual conditions aren't even in the same universe as comparable phenomena.

I take it that you believe homosexual desire is disordered because it doesn't comport with natural law or "traditional" religious ethic. What you fail to see is the fact that pleasure, sexual pleasure, is a human good in itself, independent of any other functional "need": procreation of the species, family life, and the like. The category of sin pre-empts such a vision of pleasure for pleasure's sake.. This is why I think you'll never understand what some of us are arguing, as evidenced by your analogizing with porn addiction/sex trafficking.

Given how often you seem to engage in the practice, my faith there is sort of limited.

>201 theoria:: The original introduction of pornography (in post 65) was never meant to be a strict analogy to homosexuality; rather, it was to establish that all humans experience disordering in their desires in one way or another, and to forestall the inevitable calls that my views were hypocritically condescending because of course I don't have disordered desire, only you do. As I said then:

I share this because I think it is important to establish that the Christian perspective is that all of us, every single one of us, is a sinful, fallen creature. All of us are sinners, and all of us fail to live up to the proper order of virtue and love for which we were created.

This is, I think, something that gets forgotten frequently by both sides, leading to great confusion. One of the things that folks find most objectionable about traditional Christian perspectives is the seeming condescension, the "We're better than you" attitude.... And it's true: when the promotion of virtue is turned into condescension, it is perverted from the promotion of virtue into an exercise in selfish, prideful vice. The virtue of the Christian message should be that, having recognizing our common fallenness, we recognize our common need for healing, for grace.

But again, as I said above, recognizing the need for grace must precede that actual reception of it. Without first recognizing our failures, we cannot ever work to correct them.

What kept pornography on the table was the insistence by certain parties that it caused absolutely no harm to anybody, which is absurd on its face; and the discussion proceeded apace from there. (Again, is this really the first time anybody has experienced a digression in an LT thread?)

I never meant to turn away from the discussion of gay marriage, nor to imply any relationship between it and pornography than simply at the general category level of "things that are traditionally thought of as sexually immoral". Why others chose to impose a hermeneutic of dangerous suspicion upon this--which caused them to misperceive the entire discussion--is not something I quite understand.

For example, why has southernbooklady not faced the same recrimination for introducing in post 144 the "BDSM, role playing, and fetish communities"? For surely those are just as off-topic as pornography!

Probably because she was following your lead and doesn't have your history...

>203 nathanielcampbell: why has southernbooklady not faced the same recrimination for introducing in post 144 the "BDSM, role playing, and fetish communities"? For surely those are just as off-topic as pornography!

Actually, I think I was at least partly responsible for the topic drift in #81 by stepping back from the particulars of marriage equality to discuss why Christianity insisted on classifying homosexuality as immoral.

>205 southernbooklady:: And there's no need to apologize for it, either, as topic drift is in the nature of both these threads and of any good conversation.

It is only those who insist that we are engaged here in formal debate who get upset when new topics crop up in the course of conversation. When one is focused on the process of communication, listening, and learning that engages others, rather than on winning points for your side, one accepts the evolution of a conversation from one topic to another as the delightful course of a complex journey of discovery and understanding.

Topic drift? When you start a thread comparing Paula Deen to "misogynistic rappers" or complaining about marriage equality and it's threat to "religious liberty" I'm not sure if that counts as topic drift.

What kept pornography on the table was the insistence by certain parties that it caused absolutely no harm to anybody, which is absurd on its face

No. What is absurd on its face is the idea that pornography does harm. Pornography does no harm. Silly pontificating prudes who talk about "disordered" desires cause harm and then you blame the pain and destruction that you cause on porn.

For example, why has southernbooklady not faced the same recrimination for introducing in post 144 the "BDSM, role playing, and fetish communities"?

Because she was responding to your silly claims concerning pornography by pointing out that consent matters. She was "on topic" with respect to your tangent.

160> In someways being a porn actor is not dissimilar to being a member of the Aka and Ngandu tribes, who have sex three or four times a night every night. believing "night work" as the call it to be necessary for reproduction.

It is possible for the reasons discussed in the recent thread on man rape. The penis reacts to mechanical stimulation, on the whole they seem moral by Christian standards indulging in neither masturbation nor homosexuality. Night Work having left them without the excess for either.

I do not think porn is going to suit many as a career but I can see why people might participate in it once or twice.

Porn is I think it is fair to say the driver of sexual change in society,

and while lagging behind Christians are changing to.

Google as I just did oral sex Christian. or anal sex Christian, for evidence.

I find Porn as the driver of change very problematical, it depicts sex that is uncomfortable, unsafe, unrealistic and demanding while implying that refusing to consent is not an option.

Porn is I think it is fair to say the driver of sexual change in society,

That would be an interesting discussion. I mean, we're talking about pornography and culture, but we haven't discussed advertising and culture. Or body image and culture. Etc. Etc.

>210 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: "That would be an interesting discussion. I mean, we're talking about pornography and culture, but we haven't discussed advertising and culture. Or body image and culture. Etc. Etc."

That would be an interesting discussion, but as you've made clear, we are not going to have that discussion, because this thread is about marriage equality. Your attempt to shift away from the difficult topic of pornography to the easier fare of bashing the advertising industry and talking about body image is clearly a rhetorical move to reframe the debate in terms more favorable to your side.

</sarcasm>

Of course, I don't actually think that you are trying to dishonestly shift the "debate" in your favor. Rather, I think you honestly voiced your reaction to Simon's post, in the way that in an open and respectful conversation, the ideas offered by one partner inspire another to think about connected ideas that may be technically "off-topic" but which actually propel the conversation forward as a vehicle of intellectual engagement and discovery.

>208 StormRaven:: "Pornography does no harm. "

Tell that to Jessica Richardson, whose appearance in online pornography came while she was forced as a minor into the sex trade:

She remembers it like it was yesterday. It had been many years since Jessica Richardson was involved in the sex industry—years of getting herself back on her feet, starting a career, building a place in her community, and growing a family—when one day she was recognized. A man looked at her, cocked his head, and said, “I know who you are. You wear red, don’t you?”

It “sent me into a horrible spiral,” she told me in an interview. He had recognized her from online pornography made while she was forced into prostitution as a minor. Richardson was trafficked against her will by people for whom pornography and prostitution have a large goal in common: money.

For Richardson, porn is “more damaging than prostitution in the physical sense; the photos are out there forever.” There’s an added humiliation that comes with the staying power of Internet content, which lasts for eternity.

Richardson has a remarkable candor about her. She’s a successful professional in Portland, Oregon, with a book coming out. She is polished, organized, and has what appears to be effortless business savvy. But she can also jar you with the painful reality of her past. Like when she described her attempt to return to normalcy after escaping the pimp who manipulated and exploited her: “Try to fill out an application at McDonald’s after you’ve been raped a few hundred times.”

No harm, right?

Richardson was one of an estimated 100,000 American juveniles who are or have been sex-trafficked, according to a figure published in the National Report on Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking, published by Shared Hope International and also cited by the Polaris Project, the organization chosen by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to run the nation’s twenty-four-hour hotline dedicated solely to human trafficking. “That number ranges as high as 300,000,” according to Ernie Allen of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).

The U.S. government considers all minors exploited in pornography to be victims of human trafficking, by virtue of their youth and inability to consent. And child pornography is a booming business. “With the advent of the Internet,” Allen notes, “the problem of child pornography has exploded . . . with that sense of anonymity and the ability of people to connect with each other, like-minded individuals, and trade images.”

The Department of Justice and NCMEC “both recognize that pornography is an element that adds to the serious problem of sex trafficking,” notes Elaine McGinnis in her 2004 report The Horrifying Reality of Sex Trafficking. “Many traffickers are found with filming equipment and cameras to create and sell pornography.”

(And you don't get to the play the "no true Scotsman" card here, SR, given your claim that I am a "killer" and "pro-death" because I have moral qualms about abortion, and that I am a "bigot" because I don't believe that ecclesiastical marriage should extend to gay couples. You've amply demonstrated that your moral world is black-and-white: so here it is, pornography at its blackest.)

One day, NC, you're going to be the bitterest old man in the nursing home.

NC at #200: ...other forms of sexual behavior traditionally considered immoral...

That's part of the problem: lots of people have no intrinsic problem with porn-as-porn. Your example at #212 is an example of the harm caused by compulsion, by lack of choice, by power inequalities; inequalities which you seem to otherwise support.

NC at #203: ...all humans experience disordering in their desires in one way or another...

Accepting for the moment that "disordering" is the proper term here, I'd be ready to argue that this is a feature, and not a bug.

What kept pornography on the table was the insistence by certain parties that it caused absolutely no harm to anybody...

There's good evidence that the widespread availability of porn has resulted in a drastic reduction of the amount of sexual violence in American society. That is, access to porn has had GOOD effects.

Desire is "disordered" only if one presupposes the validity of the concept of sin and the idea of "natural law." The one disparages the body and bodily pleasures; the other subordinates pleasure to procreative functions.

>213 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: I'm not bitter, but merely perplexed that you so completely misread the initial discourse on this topic, and have doggedly (and, apparently, maliciously) maintained that misreading despite explanations to the contrary.

#212

Forcing a minor to have sex is indeed wrong; but it is wrong whether or not pornography is involved, and certainly (and unfortunately) happens without any cameras or lights.

As for the 'sex trafficking' issue...I recommend the blog site 'The Honest Courtesan' for an actual insider look at the in and outs (sorry!) of the sex trade as it actually exists. You may still believe that such work is degrading and wrong; but you may have a better appreciation of how the 'other side' views the issue, along with facts and figures concerning how the 'trafficking' numbers are grossly inflated by certain parties for their own agendas.

Porn is also kind of boring after the initial "frission" -- and as per above "Lolita" is an intellectual's exercise and the film is a comedy but for the unsettling perception that James Mason's "Humbert" actually even "TRULY" (re the pope hmm) LOVES Lolita while she is essentially mildly interested and finally indifferent.

Nobokov who wrote the screenplay for Kubrick's "masterpiece" (Kubrick's "BEST"? to start yet another "contest") also noted that "Miss Lyon" (the "great" Sue Lyon who is so "perfect" as the lead) was ALWAYS chaperoned! (Were "we" to suspect otherwise? Or worse?) And unlike the disappointing and rather uh "preachy" remake the audience NEVER sees any actual "sex" which is the um "proper" way to make a movie about sex?...

I'll just make bold to bold part of theoria's #201 (see also #215):

I take it that you believe homosexual desire is disordered because it doesn't comport with natural law or "traditional" religious ethic. What you fail to see is the fact that pleasure, sexual pleasure, is a human good in itself, independent of any other functional "need": procreation of the species, family life, and the like. The category of sin pre-empts such a vision of pleasure for pleasure's sake.. This is why I think you'll never understand what some of us are arguing, as evidenced by your analogizing with porn addiction/sex trafficking.

The gist of the problem and why any discussion on these topics with NC and similar is basically futile.

There are two Lolitas, one by Kubrick, and the other with Jeremy Irons, directed by Adrian Lyne (who also directed Fatal Attraction). If we are talking Lolita we should include both versions, except that the second was less "artsy" than the first. But, hey, what is wrong gratuitous sex?I like C.S. Lewis's take on it. Imagine a society where people pay to watch other people eat. The food is slowly revealed, as people salivate, and...oh wait we have those shows today, hard and soft core.

I think porn, not sex toys, but porn, is a sign of a disordered sexuality, or at least a sign that someone is not getting what they want, or went a long time not getting what they want. I mean why would someone chose to WATCH two people if they are in a relationship where they can actually engage in the behavior?

The answer to that is probably pretty simple; we watch because it is our only option. Sometimes our partners do not want sex the way we want it, or with the same frequency (I am reminded of Annie Hall here) or we don't have a partner where we can easily engage in consensual sex.

To bring us back on topic, if we see all same gender sex as disordered, we are creating that very same dynamic, except on a permanent basis. If I believe in only engaging in marital sex, I always have the option of finding a spouse, and whetting my sexual appetite. If I were gay, and only believed in marital sex, then I would NEVER be able to engage in sex. If we define all same gender sex as disordered, we are creating a situation where incredibly powerful needs are not being met appropriately and cannot be met appropriately.

Personally I think the Church should be in the business of encouraging healthy sexuality as a greater goal, but it seems to get lost in the particulars.

One thing I know for certain; we are a society that is incredibly screwed up when it comes to sex, and not just the religious folk.

I will say that some of the most healthy attitudes toward sex I have seen are in the BDSM community, but that community also contains some people with incredible emotional baggage.

There is really only ONE "Lolita" -- Miss Sue Lyon -- and ONE film worth watching -- Mr Kubrick's...

The first Lolita is so good and the second (more faithful, hah!) so bad that there really is no need to discuss the second.

The first deviated more as Peter Sellers cinematically re-defined Humbert, with per MW Vlado's permission.

Absolutely, on both points...

"I think porn, not sex toys, but porn, is a sign of a disordered sexuality, or at least a sign that someone is not getting what they want, or went a long time not getting what they want. I mean why would someone chose to WATCH two people if they are in a relationship where they can actually engage in the behavior?"

I think that about tennis.

The answer to that is probably pretty simple; we watch because it is our only option.

That doesn't seem to match reality, as lots of people who have other options still choose to watch porn. Your argument is like saying that everyone who watches golf does it because they cannot play golf, which is obviously untrue. Some people just like to watch.

Tennis. Agreed. Also martial arts.

Consider that porn 'actors' are in reality athletes, and you get another answer.

Lots of people can dance; not everyone can perform ballet well enough to join a dance troupe.

Lots of people play baseball; not too many are good enough to play in the World Series>

Lots of people run; only a few win Olympic medals.

Some people enjoy watching superb athletes/performers demonstrate their prowess, even though they are personally capable of doing the same. Because they're just not as good as the people who are paid/rewarded to do so professionally.

226: I don't play tennis much (no nearby available court), nor do I watch it much any more (although when I played more I watched fairly avidly). I do participate in martial arts (Tae Kwon Do, 1st Dan), and it wasn't until I started participating that I started watching martial arts competitions.

One of the greatest predictors of who will watch something like a sport appears to be that they participate (or participated) in that activity to some degree. What does that suggest about the theory that only people who watch porn do so because it is the only option?

I think porn, not sex toys, but porn, is a sign of a disordered sexuality, or at least a sign that someone is not getting what they want, or went a long time not getting what they want. I mean why would someone chose to WATCH two people if they are in a relationship where they can actually engage in the behavior?

You obviously know as much about porn (or sex) as you do about "mere" physics: shit-all.

Good to know that the authoritarian streak which makes you decree whose posts are "worthy" and whose are not extends to decreeing how people are supposed to view and use porn and sex toys. Even more: obviously you have very clear ideas on what is and isn't "getting it" etc.

Welcome to your dumbass opinions, but spare the rest of us.

>220 Arctic-Stranger: I think porn, not sex toys, but porn, is a sign of a disordered sexuality, or at least a sign that someone is not getting what they want, or went a long time not getting what they want. I mean why would someone chose to WATCH two people if they are in a relationship where they can actually engage in the behavior?

Isn't this predicated on the assumption that sex should be private? Is there a good reason for that assumption?

#230

Ah, his assumptions. Does this thread have a week for meandering before hitting sea?

How about the assumption that one would be watching TWO people, or PEOPLE? Why can't we watch horses fucking without that being implicitly "disordered"?

How about the assumption that one is into porn fantasies one would like to enact?

How about the assumption that everything one would like to enact is actually reasonably "doable"? (Bring on the cheerleaders... and the team... BOTH teams...)

How about the assumption that watching porn is a solitary pastime?

Or that one can't want to watch porn IF one is also having fine sex with (assumption again) a partner?

Very revealing, these ass-umptions.

Let us recall here my post on the Salon last year of touching the actual penis of a Lipizzaner outside Maribor just because, well, I had to so I could say I did. And though I felt no sexual feelings, he certainly may have--the thing was OUT!

oh martial arts i can watch all day. I can learn from that.

I always find discussion of sex "interesting" but I must admit that I think that generally it must be difficult to be a woman although "they" no doubt are "used to it."

For instance in disintegrating Egypt, in Cairo and probably elsewhere, Herr Professor Freud's axiom -- "(sexual) repression" + "sublimation" = "civilization" has collapsed, i. e., there are reported roving bands of men, sometimes as many as a hundred, who grab some woman and tear off her clothes and cetera. The "police state" in this regard seems absent although it has ample resources to murder dozens of Muslim Brotherhood supporters yesterday hmm.

I think there's a "class war" as well as a secularists vs sectarians war going on here in that the "Islamists" are identified by the former Mubarakists as "lower class" while the rich and powerful are seen as "modern," secular sophisticates. Don't try to get into an "exlusive" night club in Cairo wearing a hijab in other words; you will be POLITELY if you speak English turned away and if no English kicked out on your arse?

"Everywhere" in the "Arab spring" there is endless Allah inspired we're told violence particularly toward women who are "uppity" and insisting on participating in society and perhaps even (QUEL HORREUR!) learning to read and write.

It's become a sad and even confusing "revolution" George W was said to put in motion ten years ago. Right now I would hope the Obama administration would curtail its money flow to the murderous Egyptian army but then is that out of character for "US"?...

very much out of character

220 I think porn, not sex toys, but porn, is a sign of a disordered sexuality, or at least a sign that someone is not getting what they want, or went a long time not getting what they want. I mean why would someone chose to WATCH two people if they are in a relationship where they can actually engage in the behavior?

Isn't this predicated on the assumption that sex should be private? Is there a good reason for that assumption?

I, personally am not one to engage in sex with more than one other person, but no, that is not an assumption. If someone likes groups, that is their business. If all they can get is movies of group sex, I think the point is still valid.

The point I was making was, why do it virtually, if you can do it in reality. Unless virtual IS your reality.

And yes, I know there are couples who use porn as part of their lovemaking, and I will admit that mystifies me. It is like watching someone on TV watching TV. Which do I pay attention to, the people on the screen or the person in the room? (That is one reason why I am not interested in groups. My ADD would kick in big time, and I would be so distracted by who I was not with I might miss who I was with.) That people would pay more attention to watching someone have sex rather than having sex is, I admit, a mystery. But some do like it, so ok.

And yes, I know there are people who have an inclination to watch and not participate. But sex is not quite like football or basketball, is it?

>236 Arctic-Stranger: And yes, I know there are people who have an inclination to watch and not participate. But sex is not quite like football or basketball, is it?

I suppose it depends on the sex. ;-)

Truthfully, I'm not trying to put you on the spot or give you a hard time, Arctic but I am having trouble understanding what is inherently "disordered" about liking to watch porn--with or without others in the room. Once again, I suppose for me it comes down to who gets hurt, not who gets off. As theoria said above, there is nothing "sinful" about sexual pleasure--the problem only comes when there is dishonesty, disrespect, or a lack of consent.

Porn is just fantasy for the person watching--and fantasy is something that the film industry is built on. I don't think I'm a crazy tinfoil-hat-wearing kook afraid of aliens just because I enjoy movies with space aliens. (Even bad ones). I just enjoy the fantasy of it. Porn plays the same role in a sexual context.

Mind you, I think if we lived in a culture where women--heck, people--embraced their sexuality fully and without fear or shame, porn would look somewhat different. But it's not the watching that's the issue.

I guess the difference is that I know I will never be a secret agent, or hunt zombies. I will never find Incan treasure, or fly into outer space. I will never save the world from an asteroid.

Those are fantasies.

But sex? That is real. Why waste time on what is in my head?

I am not sure I used the word disordered. Maybe I did. But there seems to be something wrong when we prefer to watch something we can do on a TV screen rather than actually do it.

Why waste time dictating what other people can waste their time on...? I mean, sure, if you find pornography to be boring or a waste of time, don't partake.

Perhaps Dan Savage can have a go at synthesizing hundreds+ reasons anyone anywhere any time might want to use porn or jack off to "what's in their head" (clearly, it's just possible that the inside of the heads of some people is more interesting than that of others')--I can't bother with such a bovine attitude to fantasy.

#239

Amen.

#237

Mind you, I think if we lived in a culture where women--heck, people--embraced their sexuality fully and without fear or shame, porn would look somewhat different.

But porn is always "different", there always was "different" porn. My first encounter with it, at age fourteen, was a thick little paperback compiling the entire run (about 16 months, I think) of an underground Victorian pornographic newspaper, The Pearl. Before 20th century, before women's and gay rights, before Freud, before sexual revolution, The Pearl serialized stories encompassing every taste with unflappable equanimity--garden variety heterosexuality, homosexuality, sadomasochism, fetishes etc. It literally and literarily educated me--the phenomenon of attraction to one's own sex, specifically in women, wasn't something I "discovered", there were words for it (if the quaint "tribadism" instead of "lesbianism"--and the rest of the funny Victorian lingo for naughty things), people could have sex with people of either sex, people could want to have sex, lots of, in all kinds of ways, many of which took no notice of good manners, morals, religion, or the law, men and women found sex was good, sex was great, orgasms were super, and sexual satisfaction something pursued with zeal and any means necessary. I liked its humour, its good-naturedness, but above all the lesson in the very structure of the book, the juxtaposition of these different tastes as if all were worthy of the same treatment, as if all were in this respect the same. And the reason they WERE all worthy of the same treatment was simply that they EXISTED, in people, these different appetites for sex. And I got this not from some theoretical lecture or sermon, just from what the book WAS.

THAT was revolutionary. Sexual desire had a myriad expressions; no one faction ruled over sex. That and--sex was joy, and joy was good. Who woulda thunk it, coming from Queen Victoria's and Jack the Ripper's black and gloomy London? And yet.

Mind you, I think if we lived in a culture where women--heck, people--embraced their sexuality fully and without fear or shame, porn would look somewhat different.

I think we would have erotica then not pornography.

240> For all "its humour, its good-naturedness," The Pearl was at heart about flouting taboos rather than embracing ones sexuality. and this idea that we are doing something "naughty" is what that lies at the heart of pornography.

Now already for many porn is not an abreviation of pornography. but for all that porn's fascination with the naughty rather than simply the fun continues.

#241

No... erotica is what I like; pornography is what YOU like.

At least, that was always the impression I got from censors who banned 'filthy' films and yet refused to force museums to remove nude paintings. The common people like pornography, which is bad; sophisticated, intelligent elites like erotica, which is good.

And part of the fun of porn is still the dark lure of the forbidden, as well as the sheer fantasy elements and the display of sexual prowess.

I am not trying to ban anything. Oh and I guess expressing opinions is no longer allowed on LT if you disagree with certain people here? Nice to know where we stand on things.

>243 Arctic-Stranger:

I think Bruce was making an observation about how fractured our reaction to sexually explicit is in American society, Arctic. Not trying to squash anyone's opinion. He's got a point. One person's erotica is another's obscenity. The question of why this or that is considered obscene remains.

I don't have problems with that. The issue, and the only issue I was addressing was that porn is often a substitute for the real thing. I think the real thing is better. Apparently others disagree. For the purposes of discussion, I think the difference between erotica and porn is that erotica is what excites you, porn is what you get off on. Erotica excites the brain, porn excites the genitals. (and yes I know the connection between the two, and this is not a perfect definition. But there is a real difference between Emmanuel trying on a baseball hat and a bukkake video.

#245

Sorry about the bad impression; #244 restated my position correctly. What obscenity is, and what erotica is, varies from person to person; often it can vary in a person's lifetime. Which makes defining the terms rather difficult, as they mean different things to different people. Your definition is certainly valid for your purposes, and like gay marriage, I'm sure you agree that if you don't like a fictional sex expression (whatever you choose to call it) you're certainly free not to purchase it.

Yes, there are always degrees and shades; but again, where the lines get drawn can't be rationally standardized. It comes down to an emotional reaction; 'yes, this is okay; no, this is NOT okay'. Other than areas where lack of consent trumps other issues (i.e. child pornography), it's all a matter of personal preference.

I'm not sure I agree that porn is a 'substitute for the real thing'. Well, it probably is in some cases, but not all, or even a majority of the time. It's fantasy; it's something that quite often, you can't GET in real life. (Anymore than I can become an Olympic biathlete.) Or in some cases, it's a fantasy about something you SHOULDN'T do in real life. (Like cheating on your spouse/S.O.)

The entire digression is a sign of how conflicted many Americans are about sexual matters. What should (imho) be simply a question of preference and taste (for the most part) gets wrapped up in questions of moral behavior and conduct, and definitions. For other countries, this seems mad; particularly when it's contrasted with (from their opinion) American's casual acceptance of violence as an credible method of conflict resolution (again, in general)...which seems (word intended) obscene in their eyes.

When I lived in Germany I noticed that sexuality was a lot less stressful than in America. Like alcohol. It was assumed people did it, and the emphasis was more on healthy expressions or use, and not the either/or dynamics we have this country. (either you totally free in your sexual expression or you are a bovine prude, either there are no standard or there are oppressive standards, either one is a virgin or a slut.)

It's that Calvinist streak; Americans want everything to be defined in black/white good/evil, right/wrong. With no shadings, no grey arees, and no difficult moral or ethical questions.

Not Calvinist. Puritan. (Calvin was Swiss, and that can hardly be defined as puritanical nation.)

Granted the early puritans adopted some of Calvin's theology, but they had a lot of other baggage as well.

I think it is also due partly to the fact that we are forging our nation from scratch, and when there are few rules people will tend to either gravitate toward stricter rules, or lose the overarching structure altogether.

I think Bruce was trying to make my point. the naughty the taboo the forbidden is what separates pornography from the erotic. It is why so much PC erotica fails to arouse. Its why Bdsm practitioners try to convince their partner that they are pushing the safe sane and consensual limit far closer than the reality.

I think erotica can be taboo as well. Erotica teases, it entices, it tempts, it beguiles, it charms. Taboo can be a part of that.

#249

Correction noted. Wherever it stems from, it means that Americans have problems whenever a social issue can't be clearly defined in binary terms.

You are dead right on that. I think the binary mindset is worse than the puritanism. (Maybe it is a form of puritanism.)

I wonder if it is the either/or that keeps people from saying, "I like the opposite gender, they like the same gender they are BAD." or "They disagree with me on this issue, they are bigots."

We lost our ability for nuances.

I see precious little nuance on threads like these.

Nuance is punished here.

#253

A good point; the inability to see any merit in an opposing view makes for inflammatory rhetoric, but rarely enlightens.

It also leads people into the fallacy that because those others disagree with them, they are not merely wrong; they are apologists for EVIL. And how can you, in good conscience, even think of compromising with EVIL?

Which in a pluralistic society is causing more and more problems; our country was designed on the idea of compromises being made. The Founders were, for the most part, pragmatic politicians who understood that total agreement would never happen; that the laws and government were what people would accept and live with, notexactly what anyone truly wanted.

So, if you believe that homosexual relations are wrong, under that mind set, they're not just wrong, they're EVIL and must be opposed. Anything that encourages such relations (such as extending marriage benefits) is equally EVIL, and promotes the 'gay agenda'.

(Which, as an aside, I haven't been able to get much information on; I guess the gays I know are too low-ranking to be given the full agenda.)

Oh, the gay agenda is very simple.

1) Destroy America.

And that about sums it up!

257 That is truly a bizarre post. Utterly without foundation.

#257

Oh. Well, that makes sense; gays are immoral, therefore EVIL, and of course would want to destroy the only source of goodness and light in the world today.

Silly me; I was overthinking things.

>255 Arctic-Stranger:

Some topics are perhaps less inclined to lend themselves to nuance. Politics and Religion, for example. There's a reason they are verboten at dinner.

Plus, this is the "Pro and Con" group, not the "50 shades of any given topic" group.

As a rule, though, I think sexuality has been artificially confined to either/or scenarios, and that in fact most of us would be able to find, and enjoy, wider ranges of attraction, arousal and sensuality if social pressure didn't so relentlessly force us into one box or another.

>258 RickHarsch: Arctic was being sarcastic.

I almost added that disclaimer. I guess I should have, since people have not read my theological and personal defense of same sex marriage.

IT WAS A JOKE!

The other thing that goes when you regard existence as a series of yes/no good/evil black/white scenarios is your ability to appreciate satire.

Worrying about what gives other people pleasure lies at the heart of the problem. Sapere Aude! Have the courage to mind your own business!

The therapist in me gets out of control sometimes.

To be fair, if you're bothered or concerned about what you think or do sexually, you have a problem...even if what you're doing would seem pretty tame to an objective view. Which is where therapy would play a part.

Thanks to the lord and I apologize...

I worked with a couple a while ago who had some major sexual dysfunctions. They used to watch porn together, and while have sex once she realized he was trying recreate what he had been seeing, and she felt like he was not really "with" her, but that his head was on the movie. She froze up, and sex became very problematic after that. The more porn he watched, the less she wanted to have sex with him. The less she wanted to have sex with him, the more porn he watched. (He thought he was hiding it. Seriously, he thought she didn't know.) When I saw them they had not had sex in more than six months (they could not remember the last time, but knew it was winter, which does not tell me a lot up here!)

it took a long time for the schizogenesis of the relationship to come out. She was deeply hurt, he was deeply hurt, he self-medicated with porn, she with wine.

They tried to patch things up, but he refused to give up the porn. Last I heard they were separated.

Some women don't have a problem at all with their husbands or SO's looking at porn; for others it is a major issue. But when the guy choses porn over the relationship, that is trouble.

That anecdote tells nothing about the relationship as far as I am concerned. Who betrayed who? Impossible to say.

Why bring betrayal in? That is an unnecessary question, and goes back to the binary stuff were talking about earlier...gotta find the culprit! There is no culprit here, (except maybe porn, but that is arguable.)

We don't need to demonize people here. It is like alcohol in a relationship. Sometimes it is totally not an issue, sometimes it is THE issue. But pointing fingers, trying to figure out who betrayed who is pointless.

#269

I think you're missing the point. If you're at the point where you're worrying about who wronged whom in a relationship, then there's a serious problem, possibly beyond repair.

If you're more concerned about patching things up, then the question of 'blame' becomes secondary (at best).

Everyone makes mistakes in their relationships; it's how you deal with them that's important. If you make up, resolve to do better (and do so), then it's just a part of the relationship. If you're trying to absolve yourself and/or blame your partners, then it's a problem.

Whoa doggies. I am just saying that the anecdote says nothing about either partner in terms of right and wrong, guilt, etcetera. In which case what the fuck does porn have to do with it?

Porn, in this case, is like alcohol in other cases. People are making the case that porn is just dandy, and I just wanted to make the case that, like a fine wine, it can be a pleasure or it can be a destroyer.

Do I need to add all the disclaimers? I don't' want to ban it, etc. I have just seen the damage it has caused.

As to the other stuff, I guess we are becoming a virtual society and I am hopelessly old fashioned about sex. I would rather do it than watch it. I accept that is old dated and possibly bovine thinking.

I can agree that porn is like a lot of other things in our lives; potentially destructive if abused.

274: Almost anything can be destructive in the right circumstances.

AS, your own take is probably what most would say is theirs, but it is like trying to find an Italian who voted for Berlusconi. No one ever does but he always wins...(though a certain pornographic spree seems to have ended his career).

"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" Francis asked. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/29/pope-francis-gay-priests

>277 theoria:

I think that is probably as far as he could go without getting into doctrinal issues.

I ask this question every time a thread such as this is posted.
What is it with religion and sex ? Certainly human kind has the propensity to commit enough sins without the hyper attention paid to who is having sex with who, when, how often and why.
Never get an answer.

Maybe you need to have sex with your minister and post coital he will open up and provide some insight.

Otherwise, I would have to say that the church is up against the Great Biological and it is not a fair fight

#279: What is it with religion and sex ?

Sex is an emotional topic, with deep connections to human society. Humans have made a fuss about who was sleeping with whom since the dawn of time, with particular emphasis I think on firmly establishing fatherhood of children; mothers wanting someone to support them (as pretty much always in patriarchal societies where that was necessary) and fathers not wanting to raise someone else's children.

But I think the current emphasis on sex is new in some ways. Given the secular government, churches no longer get to demand governmental support and make fuss about that; even in the UK, if the Church of England made a fuss about the freedom other churches got, they would get quite a bit of hostility even from their own congregation. Judging people in power has always been not particularly healthy to your bottom line, so it's the smaller and minority churches as always that make a big push towards social justice. Given that they can't push back against usury or social injustice or mistreatment of the church, and society agrees with religions on stuff like theft, what's left to make a big noise about is sex. Medievally, I don't think anyone really made that big a fuss about it.

27> It is because things like selfishness or selflessness. pity, anger love. hunger, pain, Thoughts dreams and ideas. Things that we think of as fundamental are merely products of evolution.
But Evolution is a product of sex. Sex is an entirely different order of importance.It cannot be anywhere but centre stage. If we are anything at all it is because of sex.

>280 RickHarsch:
Thanks for the suggestion, however, I don't need an answer THAT badly !

>281 prosfilaes: & 282
Both answers make sense, however, when the church involves itself in the "sexual" without considering the "evolutional" side of the issue, they start to look somewhat foolish.

While some sexual behaviors have been deemed sinful, or morally corrupt.....one can not dismiss the church's bent towards suppression of women. Is this a control issue devised by men ? One could argue that sex has the potential to affect a woman in ways that a man is not, however the idea that regulating sexual behaviors by placing most of the responsibility on one side, the woman's, seems counter productive. It "feels" more like an issue of power and control rather than anything to do with morals or sin.

"what's left to make a big noise about is sex."

Indeed !

Dear Faceinbook, I hope i didn't offend you--it certainly wasn't meant in that vein.

I think the whole religious approach to dealing with homosexuality--the "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach, is the ecclesiastical equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell." It strikes me as philosophically untenable.

Well on his plane ride back to Rome the new pope Francis held a news conference in which he defended the idea that gays may become priests (which they already are of course) but in the waning desperate days of the JPII papacy the pedophilia scandals so petrified that it was stated that gays ought to be barred from the priesthood.

Francis also reiterated yes the "love the sinner" aspect but eliminated reference to the "sin" per se. He moreover commented that he thought the church hadn't any REAL "theology" about women (!) and though it's hardly likely he'd change the "male only" priestly vows club he at least acknowledged that all those "celebate" unmarried guys haven't a clue?...

284
No offense taken. I am a firm believer that a maintaing a sense of humor will make life a lot easier.

I'd be much more impressed if he said "If someone is gay and in a romantic/sexual relationship with a lover of the same sex, who am I to judge? Love is love!"

"It's the LOVE BOAT -- we're expecting you!..."