An atheist-lesbian speaks the truth - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MS Fowler · #1 01-03-2014, 08:03 AM

Here in OD, I represent the extreme right of the spectrum--almost any spectrum. Yet, my normal pattern is more of an iconoclast. The general leftward lean of OD forces me further to the right in order to bring up points I feel are often overlooked. I am not comfortable when all the discussion is of a single POV--even if that POV was my own.
Below, I have posted a link to an article I find very interesting. I am sure the article will provoke more than a little "discussion" among the leadership of my church.

I invite your comments.

My Favorite Atheist Lesbian Author: A Case Study In Providence | The Heidelblog

Botnst · #2 01-03-2014, 09:39 AM

Paglia has been one of my favorite polemicists for a long time. She's a lot like Christopher Hitchens was in that they both love to take a contrarian position and argue forcefully for it. Loads of fun and if you want to take the other side in argument against her, bring your encyclopedia.

elchivito · #3 01-03-2014, 09:44 AM

I've always liked her. She plsses off everybody. There are a number of articles written from the "gay is a choice" perspective that love to quote her. What I'd like to see is what she has to say about many of those folks and their positions.

martureo · #4 01-03-2014, 10:15 AM

Looks like I too have a favorite atheist lesbian author who isn't Rosaria Champagne-Butterfield.

kerry · #5 01-03-2014, 10:27 AM

I agree that Paglia is always an interesting read. The author of that piece seems, however, to miss the central theological/philosophical/biological point of early Christian attitudes towards sexuality. It assumes that heterosexuality is natural. This is contrary to the early Christian view. Heterosexuality is as unnatural and sinful as homosexuality since both are products of the Fall. Erotic desire was non-existent in the pre-lapsarian world and sex was strictly a rational act, independent of desire, engaged in for reproduction. The only legitimate form of sex, according to the most important of the early sin/sex theorists of Christianity, Augustine was sex for reproduction in marriage. Acting on sexual desire under any circumstance was sinful according to Augustine.
So, yes, Paglia is correct, there is a 'natural life of sexuality designed by God' but it doesn't resemble anything like the current behavior of either homosexuals or heterosexuals.

martureo · #6 01-03-2014, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I agree that Paglia is always an interesting read. The author of that piece seems, however, to miss the central theological/philosophical/biological point of early Christian attitudes towards sexuality. It assumes that heterosexuality is natural. This is contrary to the early Christian view. Heterosexuality is as unnatural and sinful as homosexuality since both are products of the Fall. Erotic desire was non-existent in the pre-lapsarian world and sex was strictly a rational act, independent of desire, engaged in for reproduction. The only legitimate form of sex, according to the most important of the early sin/sex theorists of Christianity, Augustine was sex for reproduction in marriage. Acting on sexual desire under any circumstance was sinful according to Augustine.
So, yes, Paglia is correct, there is a 'natural life of sexuality designed by God' but it doesn't resemble anything like the current behavior of either homosexuals or heterosexuals.

So other than taking Augustine's word for it, could you demonstrate this?

I don't for a minute believe that heterosexual sex/desire to be the result of the fall. Nor do I believe that scripture supports this idea.

Yes, Augustine took that view and yes it shaped some thought in early Christianity. But like the perpetual virginity of Mary, I don't think the apostles, nor Christ himself had such a view. Therefore, unless someone is a strict follower of Augustine (you'd be hard pressed to find one), referencing Augustine as "the" Christian view is irresponsible.

kerry · #7 01-03-2014, 11:30 AM

I agree that it's hard to find such a view in the NT, apart from its insipient basis in St. Paul. Jews don't hold such repressive views of sexuality. However, Augustine's point of view does raise a basic question: What is 'natural'? Real 'nature' existed before the Fall and cannot be known to us by investigation. It's strictly a posit, put forward in the imagination.
I'm totally down with figuring out what is 'natural'. But the process by which that is determined is scientific investigation. On the basis of such scientific indications, there are strong reasons to think that homosexual desire is not a matter of choice. On this I disagree with both Paglia and Foucault. There is a high probability that gay males have older brothers. The statistical unlikelihood of this occurring by chance, indicates that there is some underlying material reason for gay desire.

MTI · #8 01-03-2014, 11:40 AM

If there are "laws" and "nature" which are undeniable . . . isn't it man's understanding, or more importantly the lack or insufficiency thereof, of nature subject to change and, dare we say it, evolution?

MS Fowler · #9 01-03-2014, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I agree that Paglia is always an interesting read. The author of that piece seems, however, to miss the central theological/philosophical/biological point of early Christian attitudes towards sexuality. It assumes that heterosexuality is natural. This is contrary to the early Christian view. Heterosexuality is as unnatural and sinful as homosexuality since both are products of the Fall. Erotic desire was non-existent in the pre-lapsarian world and sex was strictly a rational act, independent of desire, engaged in for reproduction. The only legitimate form of sex, according to the most important of the early sin/sex theorists of Christianity, Augustine was sex for reproduction in marriage. Acting on sexual desire under any circumstance was sinful according to Augustine.
So, yes, Paglia is correct, there is a 'natural life of sexuality designed by God' but it doesn't resemble anything like the current behavior of either homosexuals or heterosexuals.

I had a professor --at a Bible College -- ( for those who don't know, that probably represents the most extreme right wing of religious conservatism-( and I was a rebel, there))-- who said that within marriage, ANY sex that the husband and wife agreed to, jointly was acceptable.
Made for some interesting discussion.

martureo · #10 01-03-2014, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I agree that it's hard to find such a view in the NT, apart from its insipient basis in St. Paul.

Ahem, Paul's words never support such a thing either. It's quite clear that he makes an exception for the purpose of spreading the Gospel, but otherwise marriage is not only encouraged but God ordained. Further since Paul thought he was living in the last days the encouragement to spread the Gospel as much as possible with the little remaining time should be taken into account.

Augustine's prior religious experience should be considered when reading his words regarding human sexuality.

Quote:

Jews don't hold such repressive views of sexuality. However, Augustine's point of view does raise a basic question: What is 'natural'? Real 'nature' existed before the Fall and cannot be known to us by investigation. It's strictly a posit, put forward in the imagination.

The specifics cannot obviously be figured out, but the account in Genesis surely give Adam and Eve a paradigm to be followed.

Quote:

I'm totally down with figuring out what is 'natural'. But the process by which that is determined is scientific investigation.

I disagree. But I'm sure you knew that.

Quote:

On the basis of such scientific indications, there are strong reasons to think that homosexual desire is not a matter of choice.

Only if you lump humans in with lower forms of life and base your conclusions on only a few studies.

Quote:

On this I disagree with both Paglia and Foucault. There is a high probability that gay males have older brothers. The statistical unlikelihood of this occurring by chance, indicates that there is some underlying material reason for gay desire.

Until the 1970s homosexuality was listed in the DSM, it was merely under societal pressure that it was removed. I don't find any reason why it shouldn't be considered to be an form of a mental health disorder, the evidence in the past few decades have not done enough to distinguish it from things still considered mental health problems. (e.g. pedophilia)

martureo · #11 01-03-2014, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I had a professor --at a Bible College -- ( for those who don't know, that probably represents the most extreme right wing of religious conservatism-( and I was a rebel, there))-- who said that within marriage, ANY sex that the husband and wife agreed to, jointly was acceptable.
Made for some interesting discussion.

I would take that position with the exception of anything which belittles or demeans either partner.

The stuff in Song Of Solomon would make most people blush... strike that... surprised if they knew what was in there.

Botnst · #12 01-03-2014, 12:32 PM

Now we're edging backwards into my favorite haunt -- nature vs nurture!

In my view, all eukaryotic life is hardwired for sexual reproduction. In mammals this is expressed as male and female (other phyla are often more 'creative').

But being wired for a certain form of reproduction does not mean we must perform in that fashion. We are not programmed like a machine. We are programmed like biological creatures, in which our programs are modifiable by circumstances and our own will.

For example, because one maybe hard-wired to be an alcoholic does not mean one therefore must engage in imbibing alcohol to excess.

The degree to which one deviates from cultural norms is a matter of choice as well as 'programming'. Culture is itself malleable. What is abhorrent today (adult males marrying pubescent girls, for example) was a commonplace a couple of generations ago. Slavery was once a normal institution of human culture in most of the world. Now it is considered immoral. Homosexuality has been considered normal in some cultures through history and later considered abnormal. Now we're edging back to believing homosexuality is normal.

I predict that within the present younger generation of breeders just coming on line, that their sexual attitudes will be even more liberal than our present-day liberals think is 'normal.'

Here's an example. In the early 1960's I saw some fliers produced by a "White Citizen's Council" (KKK was usually blue collar, WCC were usually white collar). The WCC flier argued that if we have fully integrated schools that our white girls will date negro boys. (OMG, the horror!). Well, most people rejected that argument with "No way my Susie would ever stoop so low" and so they passively accepted integration (again, not the kluxer types). Well, as it turned out, the WCC was right! But now most of us believe this is a normal thing, a good thing. Race mixing makes it awful hard to hate your brownish grandchild as much as you hate his blackish father.

So I think the future nature of sex in our society is exactly what the most ardent conservatives claim -- a wild free-for-all in which consenting adults cohabit in ways that we have a difficult time imagining.

The question is (or should be): So what?

davidmash · #13 01-03-2014, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

Ahem, Paul's words never support such a thing either. It's quite clear that he makes an exception for the purpose of spreading the Gospel, but otherwise marriage is not only encouraged but God ordained. Further since Paul thought he was living in the last days the encouragement to spread the Gospel as much as possible with the little remaining time should be taken into account.

Augustine's prior religious experience should be considered when reading his words regarding human sexuality. The specifics cannot obviously be figured out, but the account in Genesis surely give Adam and Eve a paradigm to be followed. I disagree. But I'm sure you knew that. Only if you lump humans in with lower forms of life and base your conclusions on only a few studies. Until the 1970s homosexuality was listed in the DSM, it was merely under societal pressure that it was removed. I don't find any reason why it shouldn't be considered to be an form of a mental health disorder, the evidence in the past few decades have not done enough to distinguish it from things still considered mental health problems. (e.g. pedophilia)

Cant argue with that logic. It's not like discoveries were ever made that disproved prior theories.

martureo · #14 01-03-2014, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Cant argue with that logic. It's not like discoveries were ever made that disproved prior theories.

The point was that it wasn't a discovery that made the change it was politics.

And if you're arguing that religion forces such changes, then you're merely arguing against your above comment.

elchivito · #15 01-03-2014, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

If there are "laws" and "nature" which are undeniable . . . isn't it man's understanding, or more importantly the lack or insufficiency thereof, of nature subject to change and, dare we say it, evolution?

This.

Non-reproductive sexual behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom. Some of that behavior can be seen as more dominance/pecking order sorting than strictly sexual, but not all of it. That a certain percentage of any given mammalian population will engage in it seems to me to be the natural order of things.