(December 14, 2024 at 2:22 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:(December 14, 2024 at 2:10 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Some feminists contend that rape is an act of control, rather than sex. One example that seems to fit this conception is the rape of Butch and Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction. Regardless of whether the rapist's desires are motivated by a desire to control or a desire for delicious same-sex booty, the bible condemns both acts equally, regardless of the motivating cause. There's also the case of bicurious people who engage in same-sex acts despite not having a homosexual orientation. So, no, there is not a necessary implication there that the bible is condemning homosexual oriented persons for who they are. In the same vein, scholars have suggested that the objection to same-sex acts was less about any sexual orientation, as they had no words for such, but rather the destabilizing influence of people engaging in acts which lie outside their prescribed gender roles, similar to how people argue against both gay marriage and transgenderism.That really doesn't get around my point. If a man back then told another man he wanted to have sex with another man, I'm pretty sure that desire would be condemned under the same rules as the act of engaging in gay sex.
Well, if you're sure, then I guess that settles it!
(December 14, 2024 at 2:22 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Also, orientation and desire aren't the same thing bicurious people clearly have a desire to have sex with members of the same sex even if it not an orientation (it could be argued it is) that desire is still an attribute of the person and highly doubt the people who wrote the bible would make much distinction in condemning it.
No. Bicurious people are not necessarily attracted to people of the same sex. You're adding assumptions to the hypothetical without justification.