Which do you consider to be more perverse?

(note- if their is such a thing as straight swingers...? )


This is prebably a stupid thread.. but I thought it woudl be interesting.

The former.

equal if the swinger uses birth control

What a delightfully bizarre question!

With some contemplation, I'd have to say straight swingers are more perverse because this involves and effects many more people. Promiscuity is harmful on so many levels.

I have two gay friends, (not a couple - two separate friends) that are in fact God fearing, church going, moral older men. They've had various struggles within their life that's convinced me that they really can't help liking what they like - and being with a woman feels "weird"/"wrong" to them. From seeing them live, I believe its much more complicated than just a choice.

I think its quite deeply rooted psychologically, and from seeing my friends live, I truly believe they can't help the lifestyle.

Straight swingers, definitely.

Straight swingers -monogamy implies a commitment, swinging doesn't.

anyone who wears speedos... greatly offends me more than anything.

Vaguely relevant side note, it kind of pisses me off that a lot of American Christians are so adamantly homophobic (something Jesus never spoke of), yet openly embrace divorce (something Jesus spoke against adamantly).

I have the same experience as Hgouls.

One of my best friends is gay.. and I have learned alto from knwoing him for a long time now.

Interestingly enough, he is pickier and stricter with his romantic interests than I have ever been.

I've also known some Swingers.. not closely.. but close enough to get a glimps into their lives...

And I'd have to say that for me, it is hands down that Straight Swingers are more perverse... aside from the fact that most Chronic Swingers I have ever know are bisexual. And i don't see any difference between bisexual and gay.

the difference between bisexual and gay is that bisexual people are capable of leading non-sexually deviant lives while still having a love life.

How about..eww?! Either way..kinda gross. No strike that. Reallllly grosssss. IDK Im not homophobic. I know its wrong and against God's law, but if I felt attraction to a guy in a sexual way for that long and had problems with being with girls (which I can assure you, I will not ) Id have to just not be with anyone ya know?

LastFirstborn wrote:

Vaguely relevant side note, it kind of pisses me off that a lot of American Christians are so adamantly homophobic (something Jesus never spoke of), yet openly embrace divorce (something Jesus spoke against adamantly).

Actually, Jesus himself did provide examples where divorce was actually encouraged.

Matthew Ch.5 31-32

31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

So, if you find out that your spouse isn't commiting to their vowes and are cheating (ala fornication), Christ still saw it as okay to divorce, other wise he would have never said saving for the cause of fornication.

The other part as well is, what about those who have extremely abusive spouses?

Other than that though, you are correct on what you were talking about when you said divorce. I'm not going to say anything on the homophobia portion, since I don't know what the Bible says other than the laying with another like a married couple is an abomination portion.

They're both equally as bad and people shouldn't be doing either. Good question though.

metalgrinch wrote:

They're both equally as bad and people shouldn't be doing either. Good question though.

Oi. +1

LastFirstborn wrote:

Vaguely relevant side note, it kind of pisses me off that a lot of American Christians are so adamantly homophobic (something Jesus never spoke of), yet openly embrace divorce (something Jesus spoke against adamantly).

Jesus also said that every word in the old testament is valid... he just wanted to let people know that he is willing to forgive if anyone repents of sin. God still sees it as a abomination.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Which do you consider to be more perverse?

(note- if their is such a thing as straight swingers...? )


This is prebably a stupid thread.. but I thought it woudl be interesting.

Both are equally bad in God's eyes because sin is sin. Also, Homosexuality cannot be "excused" because of Heterosexual sins.

A plague on both their houses!

Mark wrote:

A plague on both their houses!

That's what Jesus would do.

Straight Swingers defently

The question that must be asked is, what makes monogamous heterosexuality the proper norm? (bearing in mind polygamy was allowed in the OT).

It would seem to me that heterosexual polygamy does not violate Natural Law per se, BUT it does contradict the theological ideal of marriage. I would say, however, that the natural moral basis for heterosexual monogamy is lesser than the case against "monogamous" homosexuality. Certain persons seem to have greater tolerance for "monogamous" homosexuality, but they do not see, IMO, the
question-begging nature of their position. What makes the monogamous part proper?

The fact is, the natural basis for sexuality is procreation, not psychological comfort and compansionship per se. There are, of course, psychological benefits, but it seems that this is because it makes sense to make the relationship geared toward procreation involve incentives and bonds, for the sake of raising children (the theological aspect, as opposed to the natural moral aspect, is more complicated, but I'll leave that aside for now). The monogamous nature of homosexual relations is actually pointless, in a sense, because the natural basis/incentive for such monogamy--the production and raising of children--is not naturally possible in such cases. Those gays who promote monogamy are really just borrowing from a model that only makes sense for heterosexuals, and appolying it to their practice as a matter of social respectability, etc. The fact is, on a purely conceptual level, the whole notion of "gay marriage" is parasitical.

Now, once one realizes that the monogamy is linked to the biological possibility of reproduction, one could argue that heterosexual polyamory is less unnatural. HOWEVER, where an intentional effort is used to avoid procreation (birth control, etc.), the act becomes largely morally equivalent, IMO, to homosexuality. Wherever sex is seen as being primarily about pyshcological fulfillment, a certain gnosticism is at work--it defines reality in terms of "experience" instead of concrete, incarnate (bodily) reality, in which reality cannot (for us) be separated from genderedness. In this respect, the prohibition of homosexuality seems arbiturary in that the psychological, rather than biological and procreative, model for heterosexual relations has already assumed a misguided status in our society. But in this respect, homosexual acceptance is just the consistent development of an initial mistake in emphasis. In short, anyone who separates sex from its natural biological capacities is in a sense acting perversely (clever readers will ask "what about post-menopausal individuals? That is a fair question, but one that shall not be delved into here. I think the allowance for continued relations is relatively reasonable, all things considered).

For what it's worth, graybeardheadbanger

Death over Life wrote:

LastFirstborn wrote:

Vaguely relevant side note, it kind of pisses me off that a lot of American Christians are so adamantly homophobic (something Jesus never spoke of), yet openly embrace divorce (something Jesus spoke against adamantly).

Actually, Jesus himself did provide examples where divorce was actually encouraged.

Matthew Ch.5 31-32

31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

So, if you find out that your spouse isn't commiting to their vowes and are cheating (ala fornication), Christ still saw it as okay to divorce, other wise he would have never said saving for the cause of fornication.

Saying something is "okay" is not the same as "encouraging," though. Also, there is nothing her which declares per se that REMARRIAGE in such a case is acceptable---though it seems to suggest that divorce itself is acceptable. (Bear in mind, though, that the prophet Hosea, if I remember correctly, was encouragted to take back his adulterous wife, though not obliged--though in large part this was to make a point about God's relationship to the idolatrous Israel).

graybeardheadbanger

But there must be an acceptable reason for divorce, and not just an arbitrary condition.

I, being a catholic, can get an annulment under certain conditions, but I cannot simply arbitrarily be granted a divorce.

olias wrote:

But there must be an acceptable reason for divorce, and not just an arbitrary condition.

I, being a catholic, can get an annulment under certain conditions, but I cannot simply arbitrarily be granted a divorce.

I'm not sure on whether the RCC prohibits divorce per se---I believe (though I could be wrong) that one
can go through the legal repercussions of divorce and remain in good standing within the church, as long as he or she does not remarry. Annulment can be granted even if another marriage is not sought, but in the case that it is, such would remain necessary.

Another way to put it is, if one gets a divorce, from the RCC point of view, this would be merely a legal arrangement, and one would still be considered married in the eyes of the Church (without an annulment). BUT, I do not believe there would be any prohibition of seeking this legal status--though I am not sure. In short, the Church distinguishes what it recognizes as marriage from one's legal status as married--for the Catholic, the Church, and not the law, is the proper source of marriage.

For what it is worth, graybeardheadbanger

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Which do you consider to be more perverse?

(note- if their is such a thing as straight swingers...? )


This is prebably a stupid thread.. but I thought it woudl be interesting.

I think they're both sinful because both are unloving.

Who says a monogamous homosexual couple is unloving?