Heterosexual sins, adultery, fornication, etc.

[John D. Brey]

I would not say it is glorified but the acceptance that homosexuality is a reality in all walks of life. TV is simply a reflection of that reality. As for the morality the same would apply, a relational commitment.

From my perspective, TV generally portrays adultery (and adulterers) in a suspect light; they're playing with fire and are liable to see someone hurt in the end.

But homosexuality is usually portrayed as a healthy and world affirming relationship. And to most people I've no doubt it appears to be just that; with no genuine danger beyond the normal dangers and foibles associated with sex and relationships. . . I completely disagree with the general perception.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

I think that, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, the things that bring a moral element to all sexual encounters are ─

both parties being of age
both parties equal in bargaining power
absence of coercion
free consent on both sides
openness and honesty on all relevant matters (identity, status, health, other commitments &c)
mutual care and respect
no betrayal of obligations to others eg spouse, partner.
doing no harm
​

If those are in order, what else matters?

Excellent question. . . The short form of the answer is: human history, anthropology, genesis, science, theology, and eschatology. None of these elements of human reality are as simple as your nine point are. And yet they are equally, or, as history show, more important than your admittedly important nine points.



John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I see quite a few threads addressing homosexuality and transgender topics. Many pointing to the sin of it all.

But I don't see many addressing sexual immorality in general, just targeting specific groups. Why is this? Is it just that we choose people's sins as they become pop topics?

It seems that for a great deal of the world's religious that "Thou shall not commit adultery" has been lost in the shuffle, even among today's moral crusaders. Have they given up?

This thread is thusly about a specific naughty group.... heterosexual sinners and why no one cares that they get a free pass. Heterosexuals being the largest group also tend to exhibit the greatest amount of inequity.

Why are so many of us so concerned with what other people are doing in their private lives? You'll enjoy life so much more by paying more attention to what you're doing!

 

[blü 2]

Excellent question. . . The short form of the answer is: human history, anthropology, genesis, science, theology, and eschatology. None of these elements of human reality are as simple as your nine point are. And yet they are equally, or, as history show, more important than your admittedly important nine points.
John

I think the points I listed are specifics under the generalization, DO NO HARM.

 

[Viker]

The concern is about children. They need guidance early to make right decision.

Why wouldn't anyone else other than heterosexual couples be able to do this?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not to the same extent, though. Consider Trump's "Grab em" statement that was justified as "locker room" talk. Imagine if he has made a reference to a homosexual sex act.

It's pretty common for guys in particular to be open about watching heterosexual porn (or lesbian porn for the heterosexual thrill) or making heterosexual sex references. I don't remember ever hearing someone bragging about looking at porn in a homosexual manner or making homosexual references in the same context as I do heterosexually, outside of my friends who are sexually diverse and comfortable with me.

True. I was talking strictly about religion though and was not really talking about the whole cultural experience of men afraid to be seen as effeminate in any way shape or form.

My current theory about homophobia: It seems like the cultural fear of being seen as effeminate is even more deeply seated than religion, because religion cannot seem to control it. Rather it takes over and uses religion. I think we men are influenced by the women. They (overall) keep pushing for sexual limitations. Our fear (men's phobia) is a cascading effect which stems from the women's fear of being rejected by society, which is an extremely powerful and reliable fear. Somehow this gets transferred, because of the shame of sex, to men as a fear of being seen as effeminate. The women (with their biological imperative to give birth and to have a stable relationship) don't want us getting interested in other men, so they push for shame in connection with sexual liberality. This, then, becomes a fear in boys and men and overshadows the culture regardless of any religious teaching to try to be more feminine. We strive to be extremely un-feminine and to look big and tough and hairy, and this has to do with being accepted by other men as manly men but stems from the women's fear of social rejection. Its just a theory.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why wouldn't anyone else other than heterosexual couples be able to do this?

We want children to have as close to the ideal of parents as possible. For example, we want them to be loved, and we want them not to go hungry, etc. Now, fathers and mothers parent differently, therefore the best of all parents, all other things being equal, would be both a father and a mother, not a single parent, and not not two of the same gender. I would rather a child be adopted by a gay couple than flounder in foster care. But that doesn't mean that preference shouldn't be given to hetero couples.

 

[Viker]

We want children to have as close to the ideal of parents as possible. For example, we want them to be loved, and we want them not to go hungry, etc. Now, fathers and mothers parent differently, therefore the best of all parents, all other things being equal, would be both a father and a mother, not a single parent, and not not two of the same gender. I would rather a child be adopted by a gay couple than flounder in foster care. But that doesn't mean that preference shouldn't be given to hetero couples.

Why the preference? I may be missing something.

 

[firedragon]

It's a constant decision to stay true to my nature that God put me upon.

Does that mean its not your natural disposition to be heterosexual but a decision you make everyday?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is any sort of consensual sex a sin?

I can understand how it was a "sin". Just as the death penalty at one time was a moral act. But times change. There is no good reason for a consensual sex act to be a sin today and the death penalty is not longer moral.

 

[Clara Tea]

I see quite a few threads addressing homosexuality and transgender topics. Many pointing to the sin of it all.

But I don't see many addressing sexual immorality in general, just targeting specific groups. Why is this? Is it just that we choose people's sins as they become pop topics?

It seems that for a great deal of the world's religious that "Thou shall not commit adultery" has been lost in the shuffle, even among today's moral crusaders. Have they given up?

This thread is thusly about a specific naughty group.... heterosexual sinners and why no one cares that they get a free pass. Heterosexuals being the largest group also tend to exhibit the greatest amount of inequity.

Opinion of Clara Tea:

Many Christians cherry-pick the bible, choosing to disbelieve many parts of their own bible, and ignoring other parts that they do believe, and obsessing over a few minor issues.

If part of the bible is wrong, then any part of the bible "might be" wrong. Since the bible is the only written reason to believe in God, even the existence of God should be doubted.

Christians need to set their priorities straight. Which is more important?

1. Banning Gay marriage (preventing inheritance and custody)

2. Defying God's commandment not to attack Iraq, resulting in 7 mutations of covid (Revelation 15), economic devastation, droughts, pestilence, famine, followed by the utter destruction of earth and all life on it (source: Revelation, a chapter of the New Testament bible).

While obsessing about Gays, boy-raping priests are sheltered from the law and moved where they can molest again, and the Catholic church carefully hides its mammon from court actions seeking to compensate their innocent victims.

When Reverend Jimmy Swaggart was arrested for paying a prostitute in Lancaster, California, he was forgiven and continued preaching. When President George Bush (the father) had a sex affair with CIA secretary Jennifer Fitzgerald, he, too, was forgiven, and continued as president and didn't have a special prosecutor, grand jury, nor impeachment. Yet, when democrat, Bill Clinton had a similar sex scandal with Monica Lewinski, all hell broke out. What happened to Christian forgiveness?

Being two faced isn't fair to both sides. Punishing only one side is not a fair way of dishing out vengeance or punishment.

 

[Clara Tea]

Does that mean its not your natural disposition to be heterosexual but a decision you make everyday?

Is it really a decision? I find it hard to believe that heterosexual men make a decision to be heterosexual (rather than bisexual or homosexual) each and every day of their lives. It seems to me that their bodies and mind have a preference, and it would be rather hard to choose an alternative.

Lets see.....the choice for a man is:

1. Have sex with a beautiful super-model woman, with long blond wavy hair and blue eyes, smooth skin and fine features.

2. Have sex with an overweight, fat, unbathed, greasy, male brick layer from Atlantic City, New Jersy.

Hmm....seems like a 50-50% choice?????

 

[Clara Tea]

I think that, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, the things that bring a moral element to all sexual encounters are ─

both parties being of age
both parties equal in bargaining power
absence of coercion
free consent on both sides
openness and honesty on all relevant matters (identity, status, health, other commitments &c)
mutual care and respect
no betrayal of obligations to others eg spouse, partner.
doing no harm
​

If those are in order, what else matters?

Many set out to do no harm, but the condom rips, a child is born, then decisions have to be made.

Sadly, the leading cause of poverty appears to be "mutual care and respect." Many men have a baby out of wedlock, then go on to woman after woman after woman, having more and more babies, with no intention of paying child support or alimony, and shielded by privacy laws that prevent DNA proof of fatherhood. The result is many single working moms (or welfare moms), kids that are raised with no guidance form either parent. It should not be the burden of taxpayers to pay for the many children of irresponsible playboys.

So, we have to decide what to do when the moral elements break down.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why the preference? I may be missing something.

read what I wrote again until you see the answer to your question.

 

[Clara Tea]

The concern is about children. They need guidance early to make right decision.

It seems that the initial burden is on their parents. Often fathers don't stay to raise the kids, nor pay alimony or child support. They flit from woman to woman, having many babies out of wedlock. Privacy laws prevent DNA proof of parenthood. It seems to me that paying for a child should take priority over privacy rights. The child can't raise itself and pay for itself. The burden of raising an irresponsible playboy's kids should not fall on the taxpayers. Kids have to be raised with at least one parent looking after them, or perhaps a day care center (which single moms often can't afford). Kids raised without supervision, as you pointed out, will make wrong decisions in their lives.

 

[Clara Tea]

To me, all possible evils are possible choices. All possible goods are possible choices. To give in to the whispers and attacks of devils, and let them convince you to be gay or that you are gay, is evil.

To say "it would be evil if it was a free choice, but it's not a choice", doesn't make sense to me. All evils are potential states, we can choose. I don't see why same sex attraction is different then that.

It's an evil state to give into just like envy. No one tells themselves, "I want to be envious of so and so", but it's a choice to give into to envy and be jealous towards people.

To me the right decision, is to trust, that we humans are created for a higher dignified state with God and look for mental clarity and guidance regarding all our actions.

We may think it's cool to be gay and different as kids, but, we should be informed it's evil by grown ups so that remain upon the straight path.

Prevention is easier then cure in this regard.

Some believe that Gay isn't evil. Everyone should have freedom to practice their own religion and pursue their own sexual relationships. One theist should not have dominion over others.

California voted for the death penalty. But Buddhist governor, Jerry Brown, couldn't bring himself to cause the death of anyone, even convicted murderers on death row, so he blocked all executions. Should a person's religion take precedence over the religions of those that he serves? In some sense, they authorized the governor to make such decisions for them by voting him into office. At what point does a politician give up his core principles or keep them to serve the public?

 

[Clara Tea]

From my perspective, TV generally portrays adultery (and adulterers) in a suspect light; they're playing with fire and are liable to see someone hurt in the end.

But homosexuality is usually portrayed as a healthy and world affirming relationship. And to most people I've no doubt it appears to be just that; with no genuine danger beyond the normal dangers and foibles associated with sex and relationships. . . I completely disagree with the general perception.


John

Can you judge it without trying it? "Judge not lest ye be judged" (Jesus quotation).

 

[firedragon]

Is it really a decision? I find it hard to believe that heterosexual men make a decision to be heterosexual (rather than bisexual or homosexual) each and every day of their lives. It seems to me that their bodies and mind have a preference, and it would be rather hard to choose an alternative.

Lets see.....the choice for a man is:

1. Have sex with a beautiful super-model woman, with long blond wavy hair and blue eyes, smooth skin and fine features.

2. Have sex with an overweight, fat, unbathed, greasy, male brick layer from Atlantic City, New Jersy.

Hmm....seems like a 50-50% choice?????

Not relevant to me.

 

[blü 2]

Many set out to do no harm, but the condom rips, a child is born, then decisions have to be made.

Sadly, the leading cause of poverty appears to be "mutual care and respect." Many men have a baby out of wedlock, then go on to woman after woman after woman, having more and more babies, with no intention of paying child support or alimony, and shielded by privacy laws that prevent DNA proof of fatherhood. The result is many single working moms (or welfare moms), kids that are raised with no guidance form either parent. It should not be the burden of taxpayers to pay for the many children of irresponsible playboys.

So, we have to decide what to do when the moral elements break down.

Yes, we do, which is why I always respect the right of women to choose or not to choose timely abortion.

But the question here asks what are the moral aspects of sexual encounters, and that's what I was opining on.

 

[blü 2]

I see quite a few threads addressing homosexuality and transgender topics. Many pointing to the sin of it all.

But I don't see many addressing sexual immorality in general, just targeting specific groups. Why is this? Is it just that we choose people's sins as they become pop topics?

It seems that for a great deal of the world's religious that "Thou shall not commit adultery" has been lost in the shuffle, even among today's moral crusaders. Have they given up?

This thread is thusly about a specific naughty group.... heterosexual sinners and why no one cares that they get a free pass. Heterosexuals being the largest group also tend to exhibit the greatest amount of inequity.

"Don't commit adultery" is a moral question if and when it involves deceit, a breach of faith with another or others.

"Don't go screwing around" is a moral question if and when it involves deceit, taking advantage, anything that makes one side of the transaction dominate the other. As a willing act between honest equals that doesn't harm the parties or betray the trust of others, I don't see a moral question there.