Donny Pauling used to grace our comments and forums. I see that he’s still pushing himself as a “former porn producer.” I guess that’s not unlikely, but I have to admit that I’m skeptical. We meet so many “former witches,” “former atheists,” and “former satanists,” that I can’t help suspecting that Donny is just as full of it as all the rest.

I also don’t know why someone would go to a former porn producer for sex advice. That’s like getting cooking tips from someone who used to make plastic food. Of course, it’s no worse than going to the Bible, which was written in a time when the authors still thought that the child’s traits were set by what the mother was looking at during conception (Genesis 30:37-39).

[via]

Richard Fellows, who blogs at Paul and his Co-workers, has a good breakdown of how our Greco-Roman ancestors understood sexuality and how our early Christian ancestors felt about it. Neither side can be said to think that “homosexuality is wrong” in the way we understand the phrase.

2) Don’t our sexual organs exist for reproduction? How does homosexuality square with that?

This line of questioning has always baffled me. As an evolutionist, I do not believe that purpose is a useful way of finding natural morality. In an evolutionary understanding, function follows form. Purpose is something that humans assign to the form after the fact.

At some point in history, a proto-giraffe was born with a long neck. It must have been useful for reaching leaves, but also in getting a higher vantage point to see predators and (for males) in mating combat. None of these functions were assigned to the giraffe’s neck by nature, and we can hardly say that the neck has only one purpose and all the other uses are sinful.

Would anybody follow this line of reasoning to other aspects of the human body? We clearly have an omnivore’s digestive system, but are we willing to say that a meat heavy diet or strict vegetarianism are sinful lifestyles?

3) It is no secret that the human sex drive is a lot stronger than is needed for reproduction. Do we just give into those desires, or do we try to control them?

Obviously we try to control our drives and emotions. We learn at an early age that we have to control anger, jealousy and other emotions. We Americans have learned that the basic drive to eat can lead us to consuming more than our bodies can process or consuming things that are ultimately unhealthy, hence our expanding national waistline.

But saying this isn’t actually an argument. If I were to tell you that you must restrain your emotional affection for your children, I’m sure you’d insist that I give a reason why you should. How are displays of affection harmful? And so I return the question: so what? Why should some couples control their love and attraction, simply because they are both of the same gender?

And of course it should be said that same-gender marriage is more than an outlet for the sex drive, just as heteronormative marriage is more than just about producing children. The fact that we have to keep pointing out that this is more than just a matter of men having sex with other men is disquieting. It says bad things about our understanding of married relationships.

[summation]4. Adultery, pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. So homosexuality?

I think this just goes back to my above points. Rev. Cressman answers this in a straght-forward way.

5)Prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted. Why is it going to work this time when all the other appearances failed? Changes in norms require universal acceptance. Why should we go down this road again when many, probably a majority, will always see homosexuality as going against nature, not normal? Can’t we learn from the past that prevalent homosexuality will not work in society?

I have no examples of “prevalent homosexuality” making an appearance. As Richard Fellows points out in the link above, the ancient idea of sexuality is very different from the modern idea. I honestly don’t see a way to make a historical argument for or against gay marriage without comparing apples to oranges, and everybody knows how much I love historical arguments.

As for the idea that changes require consensus, this is obviously false. In America, major changes in our society have frequently been unpopular. Segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were all popular in certain regions. Contrary to Gov. Christie’s comments, a referendum on civil rights would not have created equality between the races.

Honestly, I’m having a hard time believing that this isn’t a parody. The only thing that makes me think it’s real is the fact that it’s no more creepy or ridiculous than the “Purity Balls” and “Purity Rings” that this crowd has already come up with.

Via Christian Nightmares

I guess Wooden has never had oral sex, ’cause sperm can’t germinate there, either. Oh wait, I bet he has.

What an ignorant moron.

[via]

You might have already heard about this, but if not, it’s worth a laugh. Ed Young, a mega-church pastor, is staging a publicity stunt where he and his wife stay in bed for 24 hours on the roof of his church.

Talk about a bunch of weirdos:

To encourage members of his congregation and others to take part in what he calls a “sexperiment,” Dallas pastor Ed Young and his wife Lisa began staging a “bed-in” on Friday morning, laying in a bed on the roof of their Texas church for 24 hours.

They say they want to illustrate that sex begins in heaven.

“It’s time to put the bed back in church and God back in the bed because God is the one that thought sex up,” says Ed Young, senior pastor of Fellowship Church.

While in bed, the Youngs plan to have bedside interviews via skype with various pastors and friends to “discuss tantalizing truths about sex as God intended,” according to their website.

“God said that we are to make love within the beauty and the covenant of marriage,” says the pastor.

Right. Well, whatever floats their boats.

My first impression is that it’s a painfully awkward field in which you have to cater to the shifting biases of you market:

To an outsider, visiting the religious sites feels a bit like listening to the bleeped-out version of an explicit hip-hop song: the substance is the same, it’s just missing the X-rated details. None of the sites feature any nudity, instead relying on mannequins to display lingerie. Nor do they feature any sexy language. Kosher Sex Toys, for example, rewrites product descriptions that risk shocking its audience. (The “Butterfly Clitoris Stimulator” becomes, simply, the “Vibrating Stimulator.”)

What am I missing? Are butterflies not kosher? But really, that’s the least of it. Everyone else has their own hang-ups:

Despite consistencies across the religious sites, the vendors do vary based on doctrine, audience, and each owner’s preferences. Wilson refuses to sell anal devices and condoms, not because she objects, but because her customers do. “The Catholics protested the condoms, and the evangelical Christian community is sensitive about anal sex and play,” she said. “But I’ll special order anything if people ask.”[...]

Aouragh, who rejects the term “sex shop,” preferring to say that he’s in the business of “sexual well-being,” sells only Sharia-compliant items. Meaning: no vibrators, dildos, or drugs that claim to enhance size or use, because these items misinterpret the male form.[...]

Meanwhile, Kosher Sex Toys’ Gavriel won’t stock male masturbatory aids because, he says, God frowns on wasted potential, according to the Torah. However, since Judaism doesn’t prohibit female self-pleasure, he carries myriad trinkets that buzz.

What a mine-field of taboos.

I’ve read through the Bible multiple times, and I honestly don’t remember it offering much guidance about what we’d call sexuality. I’m less familiar with the Qur’an, but my impression is that it offers little guidance as well.

The ancient writers were more concerned about behaviors that could disrupt the community. Things like adultery were a problem, since that disrupted the family alliances that were bound together by marriage. Sex before marriage could be a problem, since it might result in a child that the community would have to raise. But the ancients didn’t really seem to care that much for the actual mechanics.

Apparently, we moderns care. And those of us involved in religion expect it to offer some guidance. But since our religious texts and traditions don’t care, they have to be dragged into the discussion, kicking and screaming if necessary. And so we get problems like the above, or the problem noted by Rachel Held Evans in her harsh review of Mark Driscoll’s new book of marriage advice:

The chapter entitled “Can we…?” which has scandalized so many people with its advice on everything from oral sex, to role playing, to sex toys really isn’t that shocking to me. It seems like common sense that couples should feel free to engage in such activities if both partners enjoy them, so long as they don’t become obsessions. The fact that Christian couples seem to need the approval of a pastor along with some strategically placed Bible verses in order to engage in these activities is a bigger concern to me. It seems that we are once again demanding more from the text and from our pastors than they can and should give.