Is Christianity due for a government-imposed Reformation?

[Cow Poke]

What about a female-female relationship? I doubt a lesbian is any more likely to get a ruptured colon than a straight woman is - probably even less likely.

While gay men do have a higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases than straight people, lesbians generally have a lower risk. (Not to say they can't get any, they can, but the risk is lower.) One particular point to note, is that HIV transmission between female partners is basically unknown. It's still theoretically possible, but far less likely than male-male or male-female transmission, and there has never been a confirmed case.

Part of this reduced risk is due to the particular nature of the sexual practices in which they tend to engage. But part of it is due to the fact that gay men tend to be much more promiscuous than heterosexuals, while lesbians are as monogamous as straight people if not more so. You'll find some interesting theories about why this is so, based on the differing average dispositions to promiscuity vs. monogamy in men and women.

This is the thing that annoys me about these "homosexuality causes disease" arguments - they tend to focus on the gay men and ignore the lesbians, and they don't work very well for the later.

Well, this is what's weird.. many men who gross out over two men "doing it" seem to fantasize over two women. There's a bit of a double standard.

[Ansgar Seraph]

From a Christian perspective, would it be fair to say that our sexuality is a gift from God, an integral part of our human nature? It seems odd to me that He would deny the expression of that sexuality within the bounds of a monogamous, loving, committed relationship with the same opportunities for love, transcending self, intimacy and partnership as heterosexuals with the only distinction apparently being which parts go where. I simply cannot see the expression of homosexuality within these bounds as anything like an addiction or damaging to the participants. Sure there are instances where homosexuals and heterosexuals alike can suffer injury or illness through the expression of their sexuality, but that does not prevent us from recognizing the value of intimate positive human relationships any more than car accidents persuade us that cars themselves are evil.

I know I won't agree with most here on this issue but I just needed to say it.

Walter Wink, a Christian theologian, penned this article, wherein he wrote:

Homosexuality and the Bible. Wink, Walter.

There is no biblical sex ethic. Instead it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand-year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible only knows a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, culture, or period. . . .

Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment.

© source where applicable

Wink goes on to ponder whether sexual mores against homosexuality are relevant today to Christ's ethic of love and concludes that a change in dialogue is needed within the Church, regardless of which side of the debate ends up being correct.

The change in perspective from a circumstantial sexual ethic to a universal love ethic is a necessary change, I think.

—Sam

[Cerebrum123]

Walter Wink, a Christian theologian, penned this article, wherein he wrote:

Homosexuality and the Bible. Wink, Walter.

There is no biblical sex ethic. Instead it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand-year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible only knows a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, culture, or period. . . .

Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment.

© source where applicable

Wink goes on to ponder whether sexual mores against homosexuality are relevant today to Christ's ethic of love and concludes that a change in dialogue is needed within the Church, regardless of which side of the debate ends up being correct.

The change in perspective from a circumstantial sexual ethic to a universal love ethic is a necessary change, I think.

—Sam

Well, maybe if he wasn't refuted by both the OT and NT, then he could be taken seriously.

[Sparko]

What about a female-female relationship? I doubt a lesbian is any more likely to get a ruptured colon than a straight woman is - probably even less likely.

While gay men do have a higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases than straight people, lesbians generally have a lower risk. (Not to say they can't get any, they can, but the risk is lower.) One particular point to note, is that HIV transmission between female partners is basically unknown. It's still theoretically possible, but far less likely than male-male or male-female transmission, and there has never been a confirmed case.

Part of this reduced risk is due to the particular nature of the sexual practices in which they tend to engage. But part of it is due to the fact that gay men tend to be much more promiscuous than heterosexuals, while lesbians are as monogamous as straight people if not more so. You'll find some interesting theories about why this is so, based on the differing average dispositions to promiscuity vs. monogamy in men and women.

This is the thing that annoys me about these "homosexuality causes disease" arguments - they tend to focus on the gay men and ignore the lesbians, and they don't work very well for the later.

and what annoys me is that when people ask why gay sex is dangerous and people give them an answer they totally ignore it and go "yeah? well what about lesbians?? Hmmm?" as if that answers the problem.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Well, maybe if he wasn't refuted by both the OT and NT, then he could be taken seriously.

Maybe you should read the article, first? And then, after having read the article, you'll be able to specify where you think Wink is incorrect (hint: he didn't express that sexual mores against homosexuality are or are not wrong).

—Sam

[ZackMartin]

and what annoys me is that when people ask why gay sex is dangerous and people give them an answer they totally ignore it and go "yeah? well what about lesbians?? Hmmm?" as if that answers the problem.

Because people who are opposed to both equally roll out an argument that at its best only works against one of them.

Some people believe that male homosexuality is wrong but female homosexuality is okay. (I guess a lot of straight guys who like to look at two women kissing, but can't stand the sight of two men doing it, might think that.) If that was your belief, it would be consistent with a "gay sex is dangerous" argument. But to argue both are equally bad, then endorse an argument that only works against one of them, isn't consistent.

[Hamster]

There's no official handbook of what constitutes "gay sex." There was, but it was replaced with craig's list

[ZackMartin]

There's no official handbook of what constitutes "gay sex."

There's no official handbook of what constitutes "straight sex" either. Any sexual act that gay people can do, straight people can do and quite a few of them do do. Acts which many people think of as "gay", are increasingly popular among heterosexuals.

[Cow Poke]

There's no official handbook of what constitutes "straight sex" either. Any sexual act that gay people can do, straight people can do and quite a few of them do do.

Personally, I'm not interested in anything having to do with sex and do do.

[Sparko]

Because people who are opposed to both equally roll out an argument that at its best only works against one of them.

Some people believe that male homosexuality is wrong but female homosexuality is okay. (I guess a lot of straight guys who like to look at two women kissing, but can't stand the sight of two men doing it, might think that.) If that was your belief, it would be consistent with a "gay sex is dangerous" argument. But to argue both are equally bad, then endorse an argument that only works against one of them, isn't consistent.

and gee, no sex is not dangerous either!

But Lesbian sex is not "safe" - it has it's own problems, STD's, injuries due to the use of sexual er, substitutes, and so on.

[Sparko]

There's no official handbook of what constitutes "straight sex" either. Any sexual act that gay people can do, straight people can do and quite a few of them do do. Acts which many people think of as "gay", are increasingly popular among heterosexuals.

and that makes gay sex "safe" how exactly?

[ZackMartin]

But Lesbian sex is not "safe" - it has it's own problems, STD's, injuries due to the use of sexual er, substitutes, and so on.

No sex is safe. The question is, is it less safe than straight sex?

[Cow Poke]

No sex is safe.

WHAT?

[ZackMartin]

and that makes gay sex "safe" how exactly?

It's not the sex of one's partner itself that makes the difference, it is (1) the particular acts one does (2) how promiscuous one is. Due to (1) and (2), you might say that gay men are on average more likely to have sexual health problems. But not all gay men do those acts, and some straight couples do, so those individual straight couples will be at a higher risk than those individual gay couples. Likewise, on average gay men are more promiscuous than straights, but there are some very monogamous gay couples, and some very promiscuous straight ones (e.g. swingers), and so a faithful monogamous gay couple faces less risk of disease than a straight couple who believe in having an "open" relationship. Homosexuality or heterosexuality isn't the real issue, they are just proxies for the real issues (which are the particular sexual acts one performs, and how promiscuous one is)

Since a lot of evidence suggests, that certain sexual acts people see as "gay", are becoming more common among straights, that would suggest that any specifically gay health problems would be becoming more common among straights too. So the average risk levels are converging.

[pancreasman]

And more or less safe says nothing about the morality of an activity. Scuba diving is less safe than reading but not more immoral. Statistics are also involved. What percentage of homosexual sexual acts end in injury or illness? What percentage of heterosexual acts? I don't know.

As for sex and do do :) we fellas need to remember that our external sexual organ is used for both semen delivery and urination. I wonder how women feel about that?