Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
Will...at some point, i can't really get very involved in debating the validity of this. My masters is based on the study of Paul in cultural context. Dale Martin teaches Paul at Yale University. What i've been posting comes out of his work, and notes on Greco-Roman culture from my classes with Prof. Diana Swancutt, also of Yale. What's your source material?
|
I've read a lot of books, do you really want me to list them all? Recently, I've read the History of the Decline and Fall series by Gibson. While not an analysis, it was quite revealing of intricite details of the Roman Empire. Of course this isn't the point at all. My point is that Stoicm has no effect on current Western society. If it did, wouldn't we see people trying to supress passion on a grand scale (like majority of Western society)?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
I don't think the chronological argument makes much sense...when paul talks about pornea, he doesn't really cite a lot of scripture. He uses Stoic language to talk about desire and the invasion of sin into the body of Christ. 1 cor 6 is a good example.
|
Well the chronological argument has to take into account that the old testemant was written before Stocim, so we have to take into account the old testimant quotations from the bible about homosexuality. These had to have SOME influence on Paul, as well as the words of Jesus Christ.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
Objections to queer sex doesn't exclusivly hang on religious objections, it's grounded in cultural discourses as well. There are plenty of irreligious folks out there who are still raving homophobes. Ever wonder how they got that way? Our ideas of the natural are still grounded in the inheritance of Stoic discourses. Even though we alledgedly believe in fixed gender, we use orientation to work out our fears of emasculation. Too much "soft" play will make a boy gay... Desire can still make a person, especially a woman, in to a slut who is stereotyped as having no control over her body.
|
Name one person you know of who is homophobic and an athiest. And then prove to me that their homophobia wasn't from some religious influence. Until you can do that, Stoicm is irrelevant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
Our ideas of natural law, and what is normative gender expression has a whole lot more content that simply the "puritan" religious impulse, as you so anachronistically like to call it. Those concepts will keep queer sexuality as culturally subordinated even if the religious fight is won. I dunno about you, but since my standing in this culture depends on how queer idenity is represented and recieved...i'd rather understand all the mechanisms by which they are coded as anti-normative.
|
Natural law? I'm going to let you in on a little secret...my first dog was gay. He was presented to planty of females for the purpous of mating, but he never showed any interest except to play. On the other hand when he was around other males, he went nuts. Sexuality does not have a singular goal of procreation. We know that sexuality has a lot to do with social connections, and strees releaving just to start. What about the 'gay gene'? It has never been established that homosexuality is contrary to natural law, that is unless you want to quote Pat Robertson.
One also has to consider that a vast majority of people in North America are Christian, not athiest. So even if some athiest people in North America are influenced by 'natural law', the vast majority will still be influenced by the Bible.