"Consenting adults"

[CatholicHockey7]

Pallas Athene,

Can you explain exactly how one man ejaculating into another man’s mouth or anus or onto his body is an expression of love? Could you explain how sex without any of it’s procreative aspects is anything more than using another person for personal pleasure?

 

[Bradski]

How is that a problem, if I have no idea what you are doing? How can you or I make judgments about matters we are not aware of?

Exactly. But that is implicit in the OP. Which asks if it should be your business what people do IN PRIVATE. There is also the natural assumption that whatever that is, it causes no harm to anyone.

But the idea that our private activities are entirely no one else’s business doesn’t work. We as individuals and as a society make many judgments about the private behavior of others. In essence, we tell people that their private behavior has ramifications for the whole of society, and we proclaim a judgment.

Then how is what I do in private with my partner any business of yours (again on the assumption that it causes no harm)? And if you insist it is your business, then how does that manifest itself?

Pallas Athene,

Can you explain exactly how one man ejaculating into another man’s mouth or anus or onto his body is an expression of love? Could you explain how sex without any of it’s procreative aspects is anything more than using another person for personal pleasure?

Yet more sex. And it’s always male, as well. What IS it with you guys?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yet more sex. And it’s always male, as well. What IS it with you guys?

Yeah, well by now you should know that our society is awash in sexual perversions.

Perhaps it embarrasses you to hear references to penis and anus, but that’s what it all comes down to. The devil is in the details. Get the devil out of play and the details will go away.

Sadist and masochists are the classic example of consenting adults.

When they play with each other, there is nothing natural about it.

What each is getting out of it is a devil of a time because the devil is in the details.

One hurts the other as hard as he can; the other begs for more.

Please explain how this is natural and defensible behavior between consenting adults if that is what you believe.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Yet more sex. And it’s always male, as well. What IS it with you guys?

Overgeneralizations aside, my post is a direct question responding to someone else’s statements.

Also, as to the sexist, “it’s always male” comment…have you not read the front cover of super market tabloids (which are predominately marketed towards women) lately? Every article advertised is either which celebrities are sleeping together, which ones aren’t sleeping together, which ones might be sleeping together, which ones might be sleeping with someone other than their husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends, or Cosmo with some version of “how to blow his mind tonight” or “how to have amazing orgasms every time.” And you say it’s MALES who are always thinking about sex?

Remove the log from your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your neighbor’s

 

[Bradski]

Sadist and masochists are the classic example of consenting adults.

The first thing you need to do is tell me how you know what people get up to in private, if they don’t tell you. Secondly, you have to explain why you’d consider it your business in any case and what form that would take. Self-righteous indignation doesn’t really count, does it…

And you say it’s MALES who are always thinking about sex?

Well, it seems to be the case in this thread. But that’s not what I meant. When y’all talk about gay sex, it’s invariably MALE gay sex. Any ideas why?

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Well, it seems to be the case in this thread. But that’s not what I meant. When y’all talk about gay sex, it’s invariably MALE gay sex. Any ideas why?

Thank you for clarifying. As to your specific question, couldn’t tell you. Maybe people are worried about invoking the wrath of both the LGBT community and the Femi-Nazis. If they only talk about men, only one group can be offended. (FYI…Sarcasm:thumbsup

In this case I can only speak for myself. When I entered this particular part of this conversation, the thread was already focused on that type of relationship.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Pallas, in reply to a question as to how you would define something as unnatural, you stated:

“If it causes harm, not as a by-product. but due to the actual usage.”

When, as a result of anal sodomy ill health is produced, do you consider that a mere by-product of anal sodomy, or is the ill health due to the “actual usage” of the penis to penetrate the anus?

It may cause harm if no proper lubricants are used. You are definitely obsessed with the anal penetration. I talked about all the different kinds of sexual encounters which are not “open” to procreation. Not just anal sex, but soixante neuf and all its variants. You (and your cohorts) consider this kind of LOVE to be intrinsically evil.

And will you explain to me why sodomy is an expression of love?

That is not for me or for you to decide. If the people who participate in that kind of expressing their commitment and LOVE to each other, it is their own business. If you denigrate it as “evil”, it only casts a light on you - and the light is not favorable.

And while you are about it, would you kindly resist the ad hominems which fly off your tongue? Thank you.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Quote the me phrase which you consider “ad hominem”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Pallas Athene,

Can you explain exactly how one man ejaculating into another man’s mouth or anus or onto his body is an expression of love? Could you explain how sex without any of it’s procreative aspects is anything more than using another person for personal pleasure?

It is their prerogative to decide. But if you really are unaware of the process, I will explain. It is well known that simultaneous orgasm is VERY rare. One party will achieve the orgasm sooner than the other. And then the “role” changes. You call this that one party “USES” the other one. We call it “giving and receiving”, even if it is not simultaneous. Both parties give and receive in their own terms. An since “giving” is as wonderful as receiving, both get the best of the “world” of the process.

As Bradski already explained, your obsession with male-male sexual encounter is rather one-sided. When it comes to lesbian encounters, there is no “exploitation”.

 

[Memaw]

You did not consider the most important part: “It’s rare for someone to do that for years and not require some kind of surgery”. Just look at the gymnasts, and their joints at their “age” of 20 to 25. Their joints are in the same shape as a normal octogenarian’s joints. They are wasted, because they are overused, abused. The human knee joints were not “designed” to be exposed to such usage, in other words it is really UNNATURAL to overuse them. But God never gave a “warning” about this - so obviously he does not care.

There are many ways and means to “abuse” your body. But having sex without the intent to procreate is definitely not one of those. And you think that God actually cared or cares about this? That would be the height of irrationality on the part of the Almighty Creator.

Or maybe it is the “height of irrationality” on the part of those who do NOT agree with the Almighty Creator. God Bless, memaw

 

[clem456]

Exactly. But that is implicit in the OP. Which asks if it should be your business what people do IN PRIVATE. There is also the natural assumption that whatever that is, it causes no harm to anyone.

Then how is what I do in private with my partner any business of yours (again on the assumption that it causes no harm)? And if you insist it is your business, then how does that manifest itself?

Specifically:
What does it mean that your life is none of my business?
Specifically.

Do you and I have license to do anything we please without comment from others?

Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the points of view of others in regard to the way you live your life.
I know I am. There are many exhortations from others that become uncomfortable daggers in the flesh and soul. How else do I change to become a better person, if not from the ideas and exhortations of other people who are also living life?

Have you already arrived at perfection? If you believe you have already arrived, how do you know you’ve arrived without reference to someone outside yourself? If all we have is self-reference, what kind of world is that?

A world of self-reference is a world that refuses to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, free the imprisoned, and watches the world float by without comment, because “we are none of each other’s business”.

Individual sex acts in the privacy of one’s own home usually go un-noticed, thank God. However, due to the fact that we are all irrevocably connected with one another, our actions, our beliefs, our commissions and omissions affect everyone else around us, whether individual circumstances are our personal business or not.

 

[clem456]

What’s an effective way to counter the “what consenting adults do with each other is none of my business” philosophy? I’d appreciate either secular or religious arguments.

The short answer is “the Communion of Saints”.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p5.htm

…
953 Communion in charity. In the sanctorum communio, "None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself."489 "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."490 "Charity does not insist on its own way."491 In this solidarity with all men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all. Every sin harms this communion.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Or maybe it is the “height of irrationality” on the part of those who do NOT agree with the Almighty Creator. God Bless, memaw

God is always welcome to explain his preferences. As soon as he does it, we will KNOW what he cares about. If you think that you are qualified to speak for God, then you are mistaken.

The “silentium Dei” is one of the strongest argument against God’s existence and/or benevolence. Someone who actually CARES does not hide above the clouds without communicating and without helping those in need.

 

[clem456]

Love is supposed to be the central theme of Christianity.

Yet you label this LOVE to be intrinsically evil when it is non-procreative.

Don’t you realize that such a phrase takes away your credibility? “Intrinsically evil LOVE”? What kind of oxymoron is that?

You don’t even begin to understand the Christian conception of love.
No problem, there are many things that I don’t understand as well. But let’s not pronounce what Christians believe when we don’t understand the Christian point of view.
Does that make sense? (you could very easily instead, put a positive statement of your beliefs in you signature)

 

[Memaw]

Pallas, in reply to a question as to how you would define something as unnatural, you stated:

“If it causes harm, not as a by-product. but due to the actual usage.”

When, as a result of anal sodomy ill health is produced, do you consider that a mere by-product of anal sodomy, or is the ill health due to the “actual usage” of the penis to penetrate the anus?

And will you explain to me why sodomy is an expression of love?

And while you are about it, would you kindly resist the ad hominems which fly off your tongue? Thank you.

Do we forget that AIDS started from that very action and has spread wildly through the world. I knew a young man that died of AIDS at age 42 after 20 years of living that type of lifestyle, his latest “partner” died also. So many have suffered and died because of AIDS. I have a brother-in-law that died after contracting AIDS from many blood transfusions from being burned severely in a job related accident. He survived the burns but died of AIDS from receiving hundreds of blood transfusions. (Before they tested blood for it). God have mercy on us. Memaw

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You don’t even begin to understand the Christian conception of love.

You mean “Christian concept”? (not conception ) There are all the different facets of love: eros, agape, philia and storge… and lots more. I do not have to “guess” what Christians think about “love”, they express it loud and clear. When all these are present in a relationship, and the eros is exhibited in a non-procreative fashion, then you call it “intrinsically evil”. Makes no sense to me.

On the other hand, God’s alleged “love” is compatible with total lack of caring, and lack of benevolence, and yet Christians consider it the highest form of “love”, then one starts to ponder, what is wrong with this picture?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Do we forget that AIDS started from that very action and has spread wildly through the world. I knew a young man that died of AIDS at age 42 after 20 years of living that type of lifestyle, his latest “partner” died also. So many have suffered and died because of AIDS. I have a brother-in-law that died after contracting AIDS from many blood transfusions from being burned severely in a job related accident. He survived the burns but died of AIDS from receiving hundreds of blood transfusions. (Before they tested blood for it). God have mercy on us. Memaw

God created the HIV virus… was that an act of “love” and “caring”?

 

[Rohzek]

I think Pallas has raised some very interesting points that no one seems to have answered yet. What is or isn’t natural isn’t very clear. So claiming that homosexuality or sodomy is unnatural when thousands of other species exhibit this behavior requires an additional burden of proof.

Then you have the love-argument. What Pallas is getting at is that love is difficult to define. Christians, of course, generally say that God is love. Therefore, since God condemned homosexuality in the scriptures, then such acts cannot be due to love. As for the procreative aspect, I think the Catholic position is very much debatable, but I won’t go into detail just yet. This whole Christian position, however, is predicated on the understanding that God exists or that the Bible truly and accurately reflects God’s will 100%. As such, an argument cannot take place. In order to address Pallas’ raised points, one must also make a moral argument based upon human reason. Saying, “because the Bible/God said so” is not a sufficient argument here, nor is it very detailed.

And blaming aids on homosexuality just betrays an ignorance of how diseases work. AIDS doesn’t just afflict homosexuals or those who engage in anal or oral sex. It is often contracted by those engaging in procreative sex as well. Which is why a disproportionate amount of the population of many African countries have AIDS.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, it seems to be the case in this thread. But that’s not what I meant. When y’all talk about gay sex, it’s invariably MALE gay sex. Any ideas why?

Even Freud could not figure out what makes women tick. So I’ll go with Freud on that one.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The “silentium Dei” is one of the strongest argument against God’s existence and/or benevolence. Someone who actually CARES does not hide above the clouds without communicating and without helping those in need.

Well of course the silence of god must be deafening to those who cannot bring themselves to believe in him but who are glad to speak for him even so.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It may cause harm if no proper lubricants are used. **

That is not for me or for you to decide. If the people who participate in that kind of expressing their commitment and LOVE to each other, it is their own business. If you denigrate it as “evil”, it only casts a light on you - and the light is not favorable.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Quote the me phrase which you consider “ad hominem”.**

The ad hominem is the constant self righteous tendency you exhibit of arguing that anyone who has an opinion different from yours must have a beam in his eye.

That is a very personal attack, and you know it very well, so it’s surprising that you should pretend not to know it.

When we follow both the Old Testament and the New Testament regarding the intrinsic evil of sodomy, you need to stop referring to it as having a beam in one’s eye, lest you begin to be thought of as having a beam in your own eye.

Skate carefully. You are on thin ice.