Comments on: Saddleback’s New Definition, Courtesy Of Dan Savage

By: Fred farmer

Fred farmer — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:43:03 +0000

So me getting saddlebacked by a friend isn’t real sex. Is it okay to tell my wife then?

By: marthafines

marthafines — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 05:09:18 +0000

Merry Christmas to all… and to all a good night.

By: Suricou Raven

Suricou Raven — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:22:07 +0000

I know the verse – it’s in Timothy – but it’s rather weak. For a start, it doesn’t have divine backing, like the words of Jesus – it’s just the personal oppinion of someone who was important enough to get included in the standard canon. It’s also very vague about just what it refers to – just says that women exchanged what is natural for what is unnatural, in a sexual context. Could mean they went lesbian, but it could just as easily mean they got into incest or bestiality, or just kinky sex. I’m sure even back then many kinks were known. Maybe it means they just became promiscuous. So it’s a tricky verse to interpret.

This argument only works on the scriptial geek type of christian though. It’ll be ineffective on the block-headed variety, who simply answer that their version is the obvious truth but that you can’t see it because you havn’t invited the holy spirit into your life, and without the holy spirit it’s impossible to understand the bible.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:04:13 +0000

Unfortunately, while MY Bible (the Tanakh ["old testament"]) doesn’t mention us, the Christian scriptures – specifically, the letters – do (kind of.) There’s that verse about women exchanging their “natural” lusts for unearthly lusts, or something….

By: Suricou Raven

Suricou Raven — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:13:46 +0000

But lesbians have one advantage where the fundys are concerned: The bible doesn’t mention them. If you consider what they do as not-sex, they are in the clear. No condemnation, no prohibition, no sin at all. They can go at it all they want, and if th fundys want to condemn they can’t just quote a verse. They have to spend a good thirty seconds imagining a reason for God to agree with them.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:22:08 +0000

Don’t be so sure, Yuki. Unfortunately, a lot of people consider everything two women will do together to be “not-sex.”

we’re “kinky” or “confused” or “practicing for boys.”

But I think that is even more sad.

By: Yuki Choe

Yuki Choe — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:05:42 +0000

I guess this leaves lesbians out of a sexual equation. Kinda sad, is it not?

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:52:39 +0000

I, for one, rather enjoy having “non-sex” in a very regular basis. Who knew it was “non-sex”. I’ve considered it “real sex” for years.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:31:10 +0000

Could it be the whole Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair? You know, where President Clinton claimed he never had sexual relations with “that woman”?

I doubt it. These kids today don’t even know who Monica Lewinsky is. That was so 1998.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:08:46 +0000

Timothy…. having “not-sex”? Hahaha I love it!