The Fine Art of Sexual Intercourse

[_harmony]

The thread about gay marriage started me thinking about fornication, and by extrapolation, sexual intercourse.

Strictly speaking (which is how our LDS leaders speak as a general rule), is sexual intercourse is even possible for gays? Most of the definitions I found stated that in order for sexual intercourse to take place, the penis must be inserted into the vagina. Therefore, it seems to me there is no such thing as gay sexual intercourse. So if there is no intercourse, how can there be any fornication? And if there is no fornication and no sexual intercourse between unmarried participants, how can there be sin?

[_Zoidberg]

Such a good point. All the sexual taboos/crimes eventually get entangled in definitions. There used to be no such thing as homosexual rape or marital rape. What really constitutes intercourse or virginity, for that matter?

Here's my take on it: virginity was valued in a woman because it served as a guarantee that she is not bringing any offspring from someone other than her legal owner into the marriage. Perhaps as a precaution against STDs, as well.

In the Old Testament, no penalty is imposed on men for fornication per se, especially visiting prostitutes; they are only accountable if their female partners are currently owned by someone else.

Only male homosexuality is expressly forbidden anywhere in the Bible. If it refers to all homosexual acts and not just to temple prostitution, as some have stipulated, I suspect that it is because it is seen as stooping down to a female's level, and there is no denying the fact that women were seen as lowly, inferior creatures in that society. Notice that exactly following the male homosexuality taboo in Leviticus is the bestiality taboo, but that one applies to women, as well, because women are still above non-human animals:

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion.


As for the definition of intercourse, it used to necessarily include vagina; now it only necessarily includes a penis; you can't define intercourse as something that potentially results in conception, either, because there are now alternative means of getting pregnant available.

Now that various highly effective forms of birth control and protection from STDs are available, the fornication taboo has become obsolete. The last resort for people who defend it is Matthew 5:28, and that only makes sense when applied to intentions in general and not just specifically to the violation of the 10th commandment.

But it appears that the Church has rejected that interpretation when they declared that "There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior".

So they really have no leg to stand on. It will probably take them another couple hundred years to realize that, but heed to my prophecy: it will happen eventually.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Harmony...

Strictly speaking (which is how our LDS leaders speak as a general rule),

Well, my observation is that the LDS leaders can define words, interpret scripture to mean whatever they want them to mean.

My guess is that the leaders would include as sin, any form of sexual touching or interaction.


~dancer~

[_Zoidberg]

Hi Harmony...

Strictly speaking (which is how our LDS leaders speak as a general rule),

Well, my observation is that the LDS leaders can define words, interpret scripture to mean whatever they want them to mean.

My guess is that the leaders would include as sin, any form of sexual touching or interaction.


~dancer~

Petting is fornication, according to SWK in the Miracle of Forgiveness: "Too many of them are shocked, or feign to be, when told that what they have done in the name of petting was in reality fornication." Necking is not seen as a sin, however, so they shouldn't have kicked gay people out of BYU for kissing even by their own standards.

[_beastie]

Sure, the church will eventually alter its teachings and policies. It will happen about a decade after the rest of society has already done so, and continuing to oppose the change is viewed as nothing more than archaic prejudice.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Then of course cries of presentism will be the norm for apologetics when critics bring up the past homophobia of the Church.

[_Zoidberg]

Then of course cries of presentism will be the norm for apologetics when critics bring up the past homophobia of the Church.

The interesting thing is that they are not above presentism themselves. When I causally mentioned the fact that women were seen as property in the Old Testament on MAD, charity took it as a personal offense and threatened to make me the first person she puts on ignore, which ultimately resulted in my banning.

[_beastie]

Then of course cries of presentism will be the norm for apologetics when critics bring up the past homophobia of the Church.

Exactly.

Which, just like the way the presentism argument is used now, deliberately ignores the fact that there were plenty of people "leading the way", so to speak, in terms of ethically positive social change, and the LDS church and its leaders were NOT among those moral leaders. They were morally sluggish, seeming to be drawn along by the rest of society kicking and screaming.

But, of course, I realize it's simply my simplistic, black/white, fundamentalistic thinking that leads me to believe that, if God were, indeed, calling certain people to be his "spokesmen", those same spokesmen should be moral lights to the rest of society.

[_Zoidberg]

But, of course, I realize it's simply my simplistic, black/white, fundamentalistic thinking that leads me to believe that, if God were, indeed, calling certain people to be his "spokesmen", those same spokesmen should be moral lights to the rest of society.

Boy, will you be proven wrong when the new apostle who happens to be black is announced on Saturday! Only two something hundred years after the other churches had blacks in high leadership positions. Besides, there are still plenty of segments of society that we can be moral lights to; the FLDS church, for instance. They still haven't given blacks the priesthood; we did it 30 years ago!

[_harmony]

Petting is fornication, according to SWK in the Miracle of Forgiveness: "Too many of them are shocked, or feign to be, when told that what they have done in the name of petting was in reality fornication." Necking is not seen as a sin, however, so they shouldn't have kicked gay people out of BYU for kissing even by their own standards.

This is what bothers me... the double standard. A boy and a girl can hold hands, kiss, snuggle with no church-related ramifications. If they're of marriageable age, they're encouraged A boy and a boy doing the same thing? Huge outcry no matter how old they are. A girl and a girl doing the same thing? Huge outcry no matter how old they are.

It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. Church leaders don't just forbid gay sex or gay marriage. They forbid every human interaction, no matter how innocent.

When the definition of sexual intercourse is expanded 'way past the norm to include kissing and holding hands, our prophets have strayed into being just men again, and not just any men, but repressive irresponsible unrighteous men seeking dominion over that which is not within their stewardship.