937Re: [Jesus-is-our-victory] Is it ok to have sex with men if you don't have anal?
- Mar 2, 2010In regards to this matter I have been asked by the
moderator of another group to post the message below which I am doing for
him without opinion, prejudice or comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------First of all Mr. Hunter, it's g0y or g0ys. Not GOY or goys. If one uses theproper spelling, one will see the vast difference in results when one doesan online search. Perhaps this might be how you are getting all yourmisinformation, by not simply realizing the spelling makes a hugedifference, both in representation and understanding. The only one that hasbeen deceived is yourself. You lead fellow readers to perhaps think you arean 'expert' on what the g0y movement is or stands for, but you can't evenget the spelling right, which right away puts your whole premise on a shakyfooting. And regarding the spelling, that IS a very important aspect and inthe g0y web site - www.g0ys.org - there IS a whole page on WHY -theologically - the name is spelled with a zero...but you must have missedthat point when you went to the site to "check it out".I know of no g0ys that portray themselves as ministers, nor do we, as awhole, portray the g0y movement as a ministry, in the 'religious' sense.G0ys, such as myself, do however, give freely of our time and energy toreach out to men who struggle with the misconception that their feelings ofsame-gender-affection are an abomination, when the real abomination, spelledout literally in God's Word is specific sexual BEHAVIORS.I've been involved with g0ys for 6+ years and nobody has ever suggested Ireduce any church donation and redirect it to the movement. WE have noTreasury, no budget, no president or CEO, etc. I don't believe in tithing(to the present day religions) anyway, as the money often nowadays getsmisused. I prefer to donate my time and my own resources directly to thosein need.how is it that Men of God claim to have the direct pipeline to informationand know for a fact that intimacy - or forget intimacy, as that oftenerroneously implies sex - relationships are only approved between man andwoman? The Bible states man will not LIE with man AS with a woman...whichspeaks to specific BEHAVIOR. Two men cannot LIE with each other AS with awoman, unless they mimic penetrative sex. A man only has one closely similarmanner in which to accomplish this...oral sex doesn't fit the criteria...andby the way, where is the prohibition for two women? I see no statement thattwo women shall not lie with each other AS with a man and woman, so whatwould the direct pipeline (please limit your clarification strictly to theoriginal Hebrew texts) say in response to that?By the way, King James...he was a homosexual...so why do fundamentalistChristians often put so much stock in the King James Version of the Bible?Back to my distinction between BEHAVIOR and Orientation; the latter tying inspecifically to a situation where men have bonded to one another - heart,soul and lives - those men whose 'souls were knit together as one', while ofcourse, eschewing the specific prohibited sexual behaviors. I ask you, whatdo you make of the relationship - and there clearly WAS a relationship,whether it was sexual or platonic is not the issue - of David & Jonathan inthe Bible? Two men whose 'souls were knit together as one', whose 'loveexceeded even the love of women', 'whose 'love found favor in God's eyes'.Hmmm, I wonder what that means...it sure sounds like they were much morethan just 'good ol' buddies'. Just what was it that made Saul so angry aboutDavid & Jonathan's relationship that motivated him to try to have Davidkilled? Surely if they were just mere friends...or was Saul mad that David &Jonathan had a deeper relationship, and one approved and celebrated by Godhimself?http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&q=#hl=en&source=hp&q=David+%26+JonathanTalk about the 'love that dare not speak its name'? This is the love storythat most 'fundamentalists' dare not acknowledge, because it would weakentheir strategy of instilling guilt, teaching flawed theology, and promotinghatred for 'different emotions' rather than ~~rightly dividing the word~~and teach that the SIN is about SPECIFIC BEHAVIOR, not about emotionalfeelings or loving relationships gathered in one household.There were many soldiers of the time who shared a bond of brotherhood -whether platonic or intimate - there is historical, and as I just described,Biblical evidence. Would you presume to be God's spokesman and deny twoloving (present-day) individuals a chance at happiness, (Saul)? Note veryspecifically I am NOT promoting prohibited BEHAVIOR. I am still anti-analsex. I find it repugnant and hypocritical that 'Men of God' would claim torepresent a God of Love, but would attempt to intertwine (prohibited) sexualbehavior with (God-pleasing) soul/life bonding as if they are synonymous andpromote a view that two people so bound to each other cannot have anapproved union in God's eyes. Do you, sir, think that there is somerequirement that simply because two men make a emotionally-close lifetogether (even as David and Jonathan did, both also having women (plural) intheir lives as well), that automatically indicts them as sinful and theirunion dictates they surely MUST be engaging in prohibited sexual behavior?Or are you simply applying your own struggle and guilt (with lust, etc.) toall men?You state that "...g0ys promote that it would be suitable for men and womento have sex with one another outside of marriage..." Your statement isincorrect. Oh, I forgot...you only visited the g0y website to "check itout", but you didn't spend 6+ years exploring and studying it. I doubt you,sir, have spent the length of time studying the original Hebrew texts thatthe later translations and revisions of "The Bible" were based on, as thefounder(s) of the G0y Movement and Philosophy have. I suspect you have notstudied the g0y material. Indeed, we believe, whether male/male ormale/female...any intimacy must have a solid core foundation upon which itis built. I guess the heterosexual community missed that important basis,judging from the 50% divorce rate across the USA (75% in California), to saynothing of the rate of infidelity across the board. I'm sure in manysocieties, globally, I'd find little difference in the infidelities,regardless of sexual orientation or gender.You are correct, "Sex that is in response to lust is not something that Godapproves of" and this IS the stance of g0ys as well. With male/male we pushthe premise of Friendship First, with NO expectation of any intimateprogression. G0y friendships are encouraged to begin on a NON-sexual level,period. After this initial stage, we promote strengthening Bonds ofBrotherhood; this progression comes about as a result of Masculine Respectand Trust, STILL at this stage with NO expectation of any intimacy. This maygo on for months or years, and certainly, as a man has a core group of malefriends/brothers/compadres...some of these alignments may NEVER progressbeyond friendship or platonic brotherhood. If, and only IF, there happens tobe an intimate progression...g0ys make it clear it must proceed in themanner that we believe is pleasing to God (ref. back to David &Jonathan)...Love Works No ILL; no prohibited behavior (anal); a union basedon love - whether platonic, agape, or intimate - and based on faith.Painting all males whom experience feelings of same-gender-affection withthe stink and stain of anal sex and rampant lustful, multiple animalpairings as if we simply can't help ourselves...and married man/womansomehow has the moral high ground...is extremely damaging to men who alreadyhave had their psyche damaged (and spirituality twisted) by thefundamentalist and feminist extremists that dominate the landscape. It's nowonder why so many men - heterosexual; bisexual; homosexual; single ormarried (especially the married man trapped in a marriage with a domineeringwife) are so painfully lonely and dysfunctional. Then yet another self-helporganization comes along and tells them how sick they are - characterizingtheir emotional feelings and thoughts as defined by the stigma ofanal-focused, lust-bound gayness - and that they can simply be cured, ifthey only replace the first LIE with another.It comes down to each of us, as individuals. I can only present what g0ysstate as their philosophy, and what I believe and use as a tool to guide myown life and intimate behavior (single and celibate, for the last decade).Surely, yes, there can be guys that claim to be 'goy', but they are no moreg0y than blue is yellow. What it all comes down to is how each man conductshis own life. When a young man is confronted with his own conflicted ideasof what defines his feelings of affection for others, you would steer themdown a path of self-loathing and confusion, rather than make distinctionbetween prohibited behavior and clearly defined 'love that found favor inGod's eyes'.This is precisely another affront to our Heavenly Father we soundly speakout against, as your beliefs clearly mimic many of the hypocriticalfundamentalist factions who spread their mis-translated and misrepresentedwords of "Gawd". Because we make see no difference between the LIES of gAysand the LIES of false preachers is why we are so equally hated by the gAyson one side - for speaking the truth about their life-threatening fetishes -and on the other side, by the fundamentalist Christians and other religions,whom do not base their teachings on the original Hebrew texts, but rather onself-serving mutations which only aim, over the centuries, was to keeppeople 'in line', not spread Jesus' Message of Love.http://www.g0ys.org/newthang.htmIn your closing line, you give those men who might be interested, buthaven't visited and explored the g0y philosophy in depth for themselves afalse impression, that g0ys present a view that sex - even oral sex (ormutual masturbation, since it was mentioned previously by another poster) -is a wide open frontier and anything goes is the buzzword of the day. Sorry,that's the GAY mantra...G0ys present, and promote a far more clearly-defined paradigm ofself-control and responsibility when it comes to sex than a majority of theheterosexual, bisexual and homosexual factions combined. The fact that youmake claims, but appear to have not studiously explored the material ong0ys, to deflect a discussion about your organization, is reprehensible. Itmakes me wonder what other hypocrisies - all in the name of the "LawdGeeesus" - you have lurking just under the surface...:-DRespectfully,Patrick Dennisonwww.g0ys.org ----------------------------------------------------------- Original Message -----From: Thom HunterTo: Jesusemail@example.comSent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:21 AMSubject: Re: [Jesus-is-our-victory] Is it ok to have sex with men if youdon't have anal?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>