tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post2726887989684874515..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: What's wrong with gay sex?Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89245272610471035342019-03-09T06:23:45.005+00:002019-03-09T06:23:45.005+00:00Has anyone written an academic critique on "W...Has anyone written an academic critique on "What's wrong with gay sex?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21856459247074397092019-03-09T06:21:26.099+00:002019-03-09T06:21:26.099+00:00Has anyone written a critique on "What's ...Has anyone written a critique on "What's wrong with gay sex?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5043328065015220022018-05-01T12:38:51.649+00:002018-05-01T12:38:51.649+00:00This, for one:
"Engaging in the practice of ...This, for one:<br /><br />"Engaging in the practice of anal sex may increase risks for bowel problems, including fecal incontinence and bowel leakage, according to a University of Alabama at Birmingham Department of Medicine study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology."<br /><br />https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-02-anal-sex-linked-incontinence-males.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72365967209302598892016-02-22T15:06:15.846+00:002016-02-22T15:06:15.846+00:00It's absurd to compare the 'unnaturalness&...It's absurd to compare the 'unnaturalness' of sodomy to wearing ear rings. Excuse me for the (necessarily) blunt language, but ask any doctor what happens when you stick something up the rectum. There's a reason why anal sex hurts, and why it often causes rectal bleeding. Both are signs that the rectal walls are tearing, which can in turn cause blood poisoning. If the rectal wall is punctured, you're looking at hemorrhage and possible death. A few years back, my local paper published a tragic report about a lady who died from a rectal hemorrhage caused by consensual anal sex with her husband. Another report concerned a lady who died after a colonic because the attendant punctured her rectal wall (and neither party even knew it at the time). Consenting adults are free to take risks in the privacy of their homes, but it's quite another thing to promote the practice as 'normal' and something we should positively celebrate, let alone teach that to children. There is nothing 'normal' about causing that level of potential injury to someone. It's hardly the same as pricking your ear. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91598482854754536462016-02-22T08:33:31.927+00:002016-02-22T08:33:31.927+00:00BTW Cain isn't mentioned in Adam's genealo...BTW Cain isn't mentioned in Adam's genealogy (Gen 5). For further details of the Yahweh/El Elyon distinction, see my comments to this post:<br /><br />http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2015/07/cfi-event-god-religion-and-bible-sat.html<br /><br />The Bible is a lot more complicated than most people think, and many translations are misleading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-73823486164871717522016-02-22T08:21:40.018+00:002016-02-22T08:21:40.018+00:00The argument about cherry-picking from the Old Tes...The argument about cherry-picking from the Old Testament is based on a misunderstanding of the Bible. Unfortunately, it is a misunderstanding shared by many Christians. There's a reason why the Bible is divided into 'Old' and 'New' Testaments. The word 'Testament' is an old English word for a covenant or contract. The first covenant was made by Yahweh with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, and the Levitical laws were part of that contract. The Israelites (as a nation, including all their progeny) were bound to obey the laws or suffer punishment for disobedience. The laws applied within the land of Israel, there was no mention of it applying elsewhere, even to Israelites (some of the laws involved rites which had to be done only in Jerusalem). Eventually Yahweh threw the Israelites out of the land (for disobedience), and the status of the Levitical code has been in limbo ever since. <br /><br />The second covenant was made through Jesus at the Cross, with the descendants of Adam ('beni Adam' in Hebrew, or 'Adamites' in English). Jesus's sacrifice was foreshadowed in the Old Testament laws, in particular the Passover ritual before the Exodus, which involved smearing the blood of a dead unblemished lamb on the four sides of the doorframe (in the shape of a cross) so the Angel of Death sent to punish the Egyptians would 'pass over' the Israelite house. <br /><br />"Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the door frames of the houses where they eat the lambs." (Exo 12:7)<br /><br />Jesus died on the Passover. Both the timing and method of his execution were uncanny coincidences. The descendants of Adam comprise the Israelites as well as non-Israelite Adamites (called 'gentiles'). Not all homo sapiens are Adamites. Jesus made a distinction between the 'childen of the Kingdom' and the 'children of the evil one' (Matt 13:36-43). The word 'children' in the Bible ALWAYS denotes physical progeny. Jesus nullified the Old Testament law, by paying the ransom to free the Israelites from the old covenant (1 Tim 2:6), but He and his Apostles taught certain principles, including the ban on homosexuality (taught by Paul). <br /><br />BTW Jesus NEVER taught that his Father was Yahweh, and Jesus didn't behave like the Old Testament God. Jahweh was only the national god of Israel, other nations were assigned to other 'gods' by 'the Most High' ('El Elyon' in Hebrew), who was presumably Jesus's Father (Deut 32:8-9). Worth bearing that in mind when anyone ascribes the Old Testament laws and atrocities to the 'Christian God'. <br /><br />Finally, who are the 'children of the evil one'? I leave you with these verses:<br /><br />1 Jn 3:12 "Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother."<br /><br />Gen 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man WITH Yahweh (the word translated 'with' connotes proximity, see Strong's Hebrew 854)."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67889080806833895222015-05-04T16:58:00.871+00:002015-05-04T16:58:00.871+00:00Nice share... Obat AborsiNice share... <a href="http://www.womenonwaves.org/id/page/702/how-to-do-an-abortion-with-pills--misoprostol--cytotec" rel="nofollow">Obat Aborsi</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-42983763941019118562014-10-20T11:45:47.943+00:002014-10-20T11:45:47.943+00:00Dr Law
A very interesting scientific paper concer...Dr Law<br /><br />A very interesting scientific paper concerning this topic was written by:<br /><br />R Stoller: Perversion the erotic form of hatred, Hassocks, Sussex, 1976.<br /><br />Quite a difficult and controversial topic.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33629322674013768852014-09-22T05:53:57.315+00:002014-09-22T05:53:57.315+00:00Saddened by the ending...Saddened by the ending...Franklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07286092327997644924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51163962682298010932014-09-21T14:08:27.124+00:002014-09-21T14:08:27.124+00:00Thanks John - not in near future: I am just too bu...Thanks John - not in near future: I am just too busy... apologies.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30008125213368328352014-09-21T13:24:28.256+00:002014-09-21T13:24:28.256+00:00I've spotted a tiny typo
God: But he does has...I've spotted a tiny typo <br />God: But he does has* something interesting to say about what is natural. Don’t you Mill? <br /><br />Great piece which I'm circulating and recommending widely.<br /><br />Any chance of a review of Godbuster?<br /><br />Any chance of coming to speak to Worthing Skeptics?<br /><br />Best<br /><br />John RichardsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16637853052428319655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75873711268374077012013-03-14T20:36:25.685+00:002013-03-14T20:36:25.685+00:00The most glaring flaw is that the Law of Moses (no...The most glaring flaw is that the Law of Moses (not eating pigs, etc.) was fulfilled, replaced, superseded by the Law of Christ (e.g. an eye for an eye was replaced by turn the other cheek - Matt. 5:38-39; eating restrictions were abolished in Peter's vision as described in Acts 10:9-16).<br /><br />What it did do a great job at was showing the fallacy of religion without current, continuing revelation. Men interpreting the Bible into a multitude of doctrinally differing religions proves to be fallible and inaccurate. Modern revelation (communication from God to a spokesman [i.e. a prophet, Amos 3:7, among many other scriptures]). Truth is only fully understood when God is in open communication with His people the same way He has always done it, through a prophet. When left without Higher guidance one must engage in the imperfect task of interpreting the words of deceased men. The end result of that is one book (the Bible) resulting in hundreds of differing religions. The resulting opinions & doctrines of those religions come about the same way as Stephen Law's opinion does: trying his best to understand complicated issues, but ultimately missing the mark. God is not "dead", but living.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26438399543699175822013-01-06T04:02:12.145+00:002013-01-06T04:02:12.145+00:00Dr. Law,
I'm merely pointing out that the reas...Dr. Law,<br />I'm merely pointing out that the reasons given here in support of gay sex apply to the others as well. There may be other reasons for discriminating against incest, beastiality and pedophilia; maybe even good ones though I'm unfamiliar with them. <br />In any case, replace "Gay" in "What's Wrong With Gay Sex" with "incest" or any of the others and I'm not sure Jarvis doesn't remain just as stumped.<br /><br />Finally, I don't mean to offend. If I do I sincerely apologize. I'm not nearly as polished as I'd like to be.FormFactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09260684696778994160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11612196002704065972013-01-05T18:38:06.913+00:002013-01-05T18:38:06.913+00:00Anonymous March 21st offers a shoddy switcheroo, i...Anonymous March 21st offers a shoddy switcheroo, insisting that the defenders of gay sex must show that gay sex *is* morally acceptable, and then maintaining (without anything by way of support) that such a defence will fail.<br /><br />This is about as convincing as (i) saying that those who think blacks/women/Jews should get the vote must justify their getting it (it's not good enough just to show that the arguments for blacks/women/Jews not getting the vote are no good). And then adding that (ii) while religious/Biblically/naturalistically based justifications for witholding the vote from blacks/women/Jews may fail, so too will similar justifications for giving them the vote.<br /><br />In fact, the justification for giving blacks/women/Jews the vote is, precisely, that unless there is good reason to morally/politically discriminate against those with attribute x, you shouldn't discriminate against those with attribute x.<br /><br />That's why the onus clearly is on those who wish to morally/politically discriminate against blacks/Jews/women to justify their doing so.<br /><br />Ditto gays. Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72793201097029475202013-01-05T18:15:31.500+00:002013-01-05T18:15:31.500+00:00What I suspect Formfactor is demonstrating is the ...What I suspect Formfactor is demonstrating is the mindset that says "But if religious reasons for discriminating against x fail, then there can be no reason for discriminating against y or z either". As if religious reasons are the only reasons that there could possibly be for discriminating against anything. In fact there are all sorts of obvious differences between gay sex and incest, bestiality, etc. that might form a basis for discriminating against the latter, if not the former.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90837341603355787092013-01-05T18:07:03.127+00:002013-01-05T18:07:03.127+00:00 Not even Jarvis would be silly enough to argue... Not even Jarvis would be silly enough to argue that. To point out that justifications offered for discriminating against x fails is not to show that there are no grounds for discriminating against y or z. Obviously. But I realize this sort of fallacious thinking plays well in certain religious circles.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89281432834110805062013-01-05T17:53:51.290+00:002013-01-05T17:53:51.290+00:00Jarvis: I can't help but notice that if you ar...Jarvis: I can't help but notice that if you are correct then all forms of sexuality are permissible. It appears that all you've said in defense of gay sex applies equally to beastiality, incest and pedophilia. <br /><br />God: ? FormFactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09260684696778994160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67960667453281450882012-07-10T15:08:40.829+00:002012-07-10T15:08:40.829+00:00I discovered your web site via Google while lookin...I discovered your web site via Google while looking for a related subject, lucky for me your web site came up, its a great website. I have bookmarked it in my Google bookmarks. You really are a phenomenal person with a brilliant mind!Gay Relationshiphttp://www.dateats.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-18090200182102657942012-05-29T14:59:19.734+00:002012-05-29T14:59:19.734+00:00U need to know history!
If you read this without ...U need to know history! <br />If you read this without bias you will find a lot of truth!<br />If you want to go directly to the info its Prophet Lut(pbuh)<br />Try this link<br />http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/books/ProphetsIbnKathir.pdf<br />or<br />http://www.islamawareness.net/Prophets/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87476016376666366612012-03-21T21:22:59.235+00:002012-03-21T21:22:59.235+00:00I came to this party late, but after reading the p...I came to this party late, but after reading the post and the comments about it I think Professor Law should write a follow up chapter entitled: "What's right with gay sex?"<br /><br />Since the point of this essay is to suggest that gay sex is NOT immoral, I think it would be interesting to hear reasons why gay sex IS moral.<br /><br />It seems to me that it would be equally difficult to philosophically defend homosexuality because many of the relevant moral and philosophical objections God makes towards Jarvis's anti-homosex position can be made against a pro-homosex position as well. And I think it would be difficult to find other arguments supporting homosexuality that could not likewise be refuted.<br /><br />Indeed one might argue that the burden of argument should be on the shoulders of pro-homosex advocates, since they are attempting to change society's negative attitudes towards homosexual behavior. If society is to be changed so radically, I think we all should be sure that there is sufficient reason to assume that such behavior is healthy for participants and healthy for society. <br /><br />In other words, there should be strong and cogent arguments to affirm "what's right with gay sex." I’m not sure there are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3534039043171059692012-03-12T04:46:11.220+00:002012-03-12T04:46:11.220+00:00I liked everything, except that last part when God...I liked everything, except that last part when God sends the homosexuals to burn in Hell. I personally think that it's contradictory to the first part of the story. If you finish the story that way, you might as well send people with tattoos and earrings to Hell as well. Don't forget that when Jesus came to the earth, hefreed us of the old laws, the ones established in Leviticus, and preached to us our new laws, none of which condemned homosexuals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-81067352338395051992012-02-23T11:15:52.460+00:002012-02-23T11:15:52.460+00:00we love gaysex .. thats normal for us.we love gaysex .. thats normal for us.Schwule Fussballerhttp://www.schwule-fussballer.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12164763201409670852011-10-13T00:04:03.997+00:002011-10-13T00:04:03.997+00:00Great stuff, Stephen! After reading this, I found ...Great stuff, Stephen! After reading this, I found out my library had a copy of the whole book. Just started it.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30754864005548551932011-06-16T09:29:06.875+00:002011-06-16T09:29:06.875+00:00Thanks, Stephen. Yes, your typo was right, tough q...Thanks, Stephen. Yes, your typo was right, tough questions. Here are my answers.<br />1. My definition need not be unduly limiting. Masturbation might be included within it as 'gift to self'. But I wonder. Does this not ignore the other-directedness of sex. Is not this the language of the 'sqirt of reproductive fluid' as you amusingly define semen? It is ordered towards a second (woman) and third party (child).<br />2. I absolutely agree that the 'squirt' is the means of 'intimate and loving physical union'. I've no doubt that gays can experience intimacy and love but 'physical union' is, sadly, impossible, unless of course we're to reduce all gay sex to sodomy which you, rightly, refuse to do.<br />3. If my definition of sex is too narrow I think yours is too wide. It seems to me something like 'whatever gives pleasure/ happiness'. THat's why I suppose you to be a utilitarian or hedonist if you prefer. And that's why I raised the question of Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. It would suggest that abstinence (Socrates unsatisfied) is better than indulgence (the pig satisfied). And the former does not figure on the moral gaydar which I think shows why there might be a problem with gay sex.<br />Best wishesdunstanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14627891322038238469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1089694098575626072011-06-15T21:39:07.622+00:002011-06-15T21:39:07.622+00:00THanks for your reply, Stephen. THe typo was right...THanks for your reply, Stephen. THe typo was right - the questions you pose are tough, but here goes.<br /><br />You say the definition of sex as self-gift is restrictive. I agree. But I don't think you have given your own definition. Is it 'a squirt of reproductive fluid'? That would enable masturbation to be included. But in referring to semen as 'reproductive', I submit you have implicitly accepted that masturbation contradicts the physical (I don't says natural because there is more to the nature of sex between humans than animals) definition of sex. This is relevant to the question of homosexuality because of what you say about your sexual ideal: sex as 'loving physical union'. I don't doubt that homosexuals are capable of loving one another (I have witnessed that myself) but, it has to be admitted, not in a physical union. Such is a physiological impossibility though I accept that sodomy is a simulacrum of the sexual union between man and woman.<br />And this brings me to the question you raise with London Undergraduate. Granted that a man may walk on his hands, but is sensible to do so? Is it, indeed, natural for him so to do? You mention Aquinas, Stephen. Well, what about teleological causality? The purpose to which the hands are ordered is not walking. I don't think I need to spell out its application to what I believe is known as 'barebacking'.<br />Finally, Stephen, I don't suppose you to be a utilitarian, but I do think your arguments ultimately derive from a utilitarian understanding of sex as pleasure or happiness (there - I've given you your definition of sex - I hope you like it!). This I take it is why you attach 'value' to masturbation and blow-jobs (you are right to mention this since I left out the mouth from my original list of parts of the body that may be used for gay sex). But that is why I recommended to your attention Mill's distinction between the higher and lower pleasures. He famously says (I quote from memory) 'Better Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied'. There is an ascetic concept of value here which I find missing in gay culture. I congratulate you (hope that doesn't sound patronising) on your use of the Socratic method of dialogue in the way you do philosophy and I hope you'll want to continue this dialogue.dunstanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14627891322038238469noreply@blogger.com