Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Aaron, Feb 27, 2014.
From the article
Psychiatrists and legislators of the mid- to late-1800s, Foucault recounts, rejected the classical convention in which the “perpetrator”of sodomitical acts was “nothing more than the juridical subject of them.” With secular society rendering classical religious beliefs publicly illegitimate, pseudoscience stepped in and replaced religion as the moral foundation for venereal norms. To achieve secular sexual social stability, the medical experts crafted what Foucault describes as “a natural order of disorder.”
. . .
The unfortunate history of “heterosexual” we have chosen to forget is that this word came into the English language as a label for a perverted sexual disorder that delighted in sterile sex acts. Usually such desires were for those of the opposite sex, but even that line was blurry, because as it turned out, once the generative purpose of sex had been severed, it often mattered very little who the heterosexual’s mutual masturbatory partner was.
Who IS the Twit that wrote this rubbish?
" Heterosexuals, like typewriters and urinals (also, obviously, for gentlemen), were an invention of the 1860s. Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes."
What a pile of hot steaming horse manure! Not going further with this nonsense.
He makes a compelling argument. Is the following fact from the article false?
. . . this word [heterosexual] came into the English language as a label for a perverted sexual disorder that delighted in sterile sex acts.
The article is correct in that Scripture for the most part does not directly state homosexuality as a sexual orientation, but rather as abominable actions (he is wrong, however, that scripture does not link the sin to same-sex acts). Also, “a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman” may imply homosexual orientation. The author needs to address the implications behind the act. But, Romans 1:26 can be argued that these acts (specific in homosexual behavior) are also related to “degrading passions.” I suppose it could be a strong argument against a homosexual predisposition (if abandoning the natural function for the unnatural is “this reason” that “God gave them over to degrading passions”). It is difficult to ignore, however, the “degrading passions” part. I do not see that Mr. Hannon adequately proved his assertions, although it is an interesting article.
I don’t know. I was interested in seeing if the origin of “homosexuality” proved true. I found this book review by Dr. Zuger (in The New York Times online site - not interested enough to buy the book).
“In fact, it [heterosexual] was coined in Germany only in the second half of the 19th century and was first used in English several decades later with the classical sense of “hetero” (“other, different”), making it initially a term of opprobrium. Only in the first decades of the 20th century did it settle into its present niche, cushioned with overtones of romance, pleasure, health and normalcy.
Just because there wasn’t a word, obviously, doesn’t mean the concept didn’t exist. And yet, Ms. Blank points out, for much of history it never really needed a definition.
Back in the day, heterosexuality was simply the primal process that perpetuated the species with sex and sorted its possessions with marriage. It did not necessarily require much else, certainly not romance or love. “Specific sexual behaviors, to be sure, were named, categorized and judged,” Ms. Blank notes. But individuals were not: “Sexual misbehavior was not a marker of some sort of constitutional difference but merely evidence of temptation unsuccessfully resisted.”
It's wrong, false, whatever.
The term was coined in 1868, by an east European journalist named Károly Mária Kertbeny from the then-nation-state of Austria-Hungary. There was a debate, at the time, before the Prussian Parliament about making same-sex erotic behaviors illegal. Kertbeny may or may not have been gay, but he campaigned vigorously against the legislation, and invented, at that time, both terms, "hetero-" and "homo-sexual." It had nothing to do with "perverted sterile sex acts" by opposite-sex couples. It had everything to do with creating a shorthand term for both proclivities.
Regardless of his intent, which was apparently to apply scientific terms to sexual relationships, the term "heterosexual" describes the God-given relationship intended for marriage. It simply means "different sexually," alluding to the attraction of male for female, whereas "homosexual" means "the same sexually," alluding to the obvious.
another fart blows dust.
...rofguffawing, you have a way with words brother....
I found this which seems to corroborate the author's assertion:
Neither had heterosexuality yet attained the status of normal. In 1901,Dorland's Medical Dictionary, published in Philadelphia, continued to define "Heterosexuality" as "Abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex."" Dorland's heterosexuality, a new "appetite," was clearly identified with an "opposite sex" hunger. But that craving was still aberrant. Dorland's calling heterosexuality "abnormal or perverted" is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary's first Supplement (1933), a "misapplied" definition. But contrary to the OED, Dorland's is a perfectly legitimate understanding of heterosexuality according to a procreative norm.
Why didn't you tell us how the article started out? It is an obvious pro-gay piece meant to paint heterosexuality as "invented" or "abnormal," which is ludicrous.
Also, the reference to "Dorland's" is an obvious effort to mislead, given that the reference work was not called "Dorland's" until 1956, when the original editor, Dr. William A.N. Dorland, passed away and the reference materials renamed to honor his years of commitment. Words change in meaning over the years. Whatever Dr. Dorland chose to call what is now known as nymphomania is beside the point. Heterosexuality is the norm.
Im sorry Aaron......this conversation is just creepy. Heterosexuality is abnormal.....ugggg! Its the most normal thing in existence. Where we goin with this? eunuchs?!? :tonofbricks:
I'm speaking of statements of fact.
The article cited in the OP states that the term heterosexuality was applied by psychiatrists to those who wanted sterile sex acts with the opposite sex.
The PBS article says basically the same thing.
So does this heavily editorialized response in an interview:
But the term took quite a while to catch on. How did it spread?
Thanks to psychiatrists in the 1880s and 1890s —
. . .
So how did this change in terminology play itself out in the real world?
I actually talked to my grandmother about this. My grandmother is 88 and she came to consciousness in a world that didn’t have heterosexuals in it, where nobody knew that word, and certainly nobody used it to refer to themselves. And she associates this change with Freud, whom she’s never read but whom she’s heard a lot about. So there was this sort of culture-wide game of telephone, if you will, in which these authoritative medicalized ideas coming from very rarefied circles trickled down into the larger culture. I think that for people of my grandmother’s generation particularly, heterosexual simply became a synecdoche for normal. And that’s certainly the way Freud talks about it, that you know, you attain heterosexuality. There’s this process of attaining normality. When you manage to develop yourself, or to become developed, in the proper way, in an appropriate way, in the way that Freud says you’re supposed to, what you end up with is a heterosexual.
Only as the term is applied today it seems. When first widely used it apparently defined an individual who had an abnormal sexual apetite for sterile or non-procreational acts with the opposite sex. There are acts which are unnatural, even when performed with a member of the opposite sex. We won't go into those, but they pretty much come to mind when anyone speaks of a homosexual.
badonkadonk --- I get it. :smilewinkgrin:
The article summed up:
The concept of sexual orientation is the brain child of psychoanalysts who had abandoned the natural, marital-procreational model for the purpose of sex. It is a lie, and the church has been deceived by that lie, and thereby plays into the hands of the gay political agenda. The construct is not sufficient to explain why heterosexuality is to be perferred to homosexuality.
What the author calls "queer theorists" can easily tear down the construct, and are attempting to do so in order to "achieve an even greater degree of sexual libertinism than we have today." But the church should abandon the construct as well.
The role of the champion of Christian chastity today, I argue, is to dissociate the Church from the false absolutism of identity based upon erotic tendency, and to rediscover our own anthropological foundation for traditional moral maxims. If we do not wish to be swept away with modernity’s orientation essentialists, then we need to remind the world that our sexual ethics was never really at home in the modern framework anyway, and thus that our forsaking the framework need not lead to postmodern nihilistic libertinism. There is firmer ground to stand on in the classical Christian tradition. Indeed, it seems to me the only place left to stand.
The Bible never called homosexuality an abomination. Nor could it have, for as we have seen, Leviticus predates any conception of sexual orientation by a couple of millennia at least. What the Scriptures condemn is sodomy, regardless of who commits it [whether it is homosexual or heterosexual sodomy] or why. And yet, as I have argued throughout, in our own day homosexuality deserves the abominable label, and heterosexuality does too.
Very, very interesting, well-argued and compelling.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. God made the woman to "fit" the man. The marriage of man and woman is a picture of Christ and His bride. To undermine this is to undermine the bible. And that's what sinful man wants to do.
No argument from me or the author.
Since this thread violates MANY BB rules, I will close it. With a warning AGAINST threads dealing with human sexuality. We simply have never and will never tolerate these.