Originally posted by DoctorScribblesand every thing else as well.
Interesting.
Where are all the Christian big guns when we need them to weigh in on this? I believe the Bible offers quite a different notion of sodomy.
In fact, pull out a book a quarter of its age (some Shakespeare?) and see how much is relevant today. Antiquated notions need to be suppressed for the evil they are.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThey only want to talk about the Love of Jesus and other candy-coated subjects, not this hard-hitting stuff.
Interesting.
Where are all the Christian big guns when we need them to weigh in on this? I believe the Bible offers quite a different notion of sodomy.
No pun intended...
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI believe the Christians would classify sodomy by using the Darvlay criteria above. If they disagree with it, it's sodomy.
Interesting.
Where are all the Christian big guns when we need them to weigh in on this? I believe the Bible offers quite a different notion of sodomy.
Originally posted by darvlayCriteria b) and d) would presumably have to be fulfilled in different ways for pairs of men than for pairs of women. Does copulation require only contact, or something more invasive? And if so, does the relevant invasion have to be with
There are no necessary conditions to be a sodomite, but there are several sufficient conditions. These include:
a) Anal copulation with someone of the same sex;
b) Anal copulation with someone of the opposite sex;
c) Oral copulation with someone of the same sex;
d) Oral copulation with someone of the opposite sex;
e) Copulation with an animal; a ...[text shortened]... rvant.
EDIT - I have changed my opinion of strictly "backdoor" after a bit of research...
(a) the virile member;
(b) some other body part, more long than wide;
(c) some artificial surrogate, more long than wide?
[assuming that (e) and (f) do not qualify as sodomy]
For example, are lesbian sodomites impossible? I'd like to think not. Should they perhaps be called gomorrahites, in recognition of their specialist sins?
[/b]Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Criteria b) and d) would presumably have to be fulfilled in different ways for pairs of men than for pairs of women. Does copulation require only contact, or something more invasive?
Penetration is a necessary condition for copulation.
And if so, does the relevant invasion have to be with
(a) the virile member;
(b) some other body part, more long than wide;
(c) some artificial surrogate, more long than wide?
[assuming that (e) and (f) do not qualify as sodomy]
Any of the above.
For example, are lesbian sodomites impossible? I'd like to think not. Should they perhaps be called gomorrahites, in recognition of their specialist sins?
Absolutely. Oral sex is the main course for most lesbians, is it not?
Originally posted by darvlayFingers and dildos too I think.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
[b]Criteria b) and d) would presumably have to be fulfilled in different ways for pairs of men than for pairs of women. Does copulation require only contact, or something more invasive?
Penetration is a necessary condition for copulation.
And if so, does the relevant invasion have to be with
(a) the v ...[text shortened]... r specialist sins?
Absolutely. Oral sex is the main course for most lesbians, is it not?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayPerhaps I didn't make clear the intent of this thread.
I'm still struggling to think of a necessary condition for sodomy since, by definition, the criteria can be very subjective.
Doc, any thoughts?
My intention was to simply allow people to express their various notions of sodomy. The clearest format for doing this is to express those notions in terms of necessary or sufficient conditions.
My intention was not to take as given that there is one true notion of Sodomy and then have everybody try to formulate necessary or sufficient conditions that express it. That is, when I ask for such conditions, there are no incorrect answers (provided the set of conditions given meet some minimal logical coherence). There are only answers that express different notions of sodomy.
So, if one person says parking in the brown zone is a necessary condition, while another says that tongue-poo is sufficient, that's ok.
It's not like there is a true necessary condition for sodomy that I'm trying to have people guess or formulate. If your notion of sodomy has no necessary conditions, that's cool. Eagle's does -- that's fine too. The only reason a struggle should arise is if your notion of sodomy does have some necessary condition that is vague in your mind and you struggle with expressing it.
Dr. S
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOkay, I see.
Perhaps I didn't make clear the intent of this thread.
My intention was to simply allow people to express their various notions of sodomy. The clearest format for doing this is to express those notions in terms of necessary or sufficient conditions.
My intention was not to take as given that there is one true notion of Sodomy and then have ev ...[text shortened]... ome necessary condition that is vague in your mind and you struggle with expressing it.
Dr. S
Well, I'll have to say that there are no necessary conditions and leave it at that. I cannot think of any since the true definition of sodomy is broad and subject to the opinion of the beholder.
Originally posted by darvlaySame here. I guess you could call me a Weak Sodomist, since my only thoughts on the subject are in direct response to others' assertions about it. Other than that, it's not a notion that I keep in my working conscience.
Okay, I see.
Well, I'll have to say that there are no necessary conditions and leave it at that.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSure it isn't... 😉
Same here. I guess you could call me a Weak Sodomist, since my only thoughts on the subject are in direct response to others' assertions about it. Other than that, it's not a notion that I keep in my working conscience.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDo you want a description of acts which are in the poster's opinion sodomy, or do you want a blanket definition of sodomy?
Same here. I guess you could call me a Weak Sodomist, since my only thoughts on the subject are in direct response to others' assertions about it. Other than that, it's not a notion that I keep in my working conscience.