They NEED to demonstrate their hypocrisy in order to signal to their supporters that the nasty shit they promise to do to The Other (immigrants, gays, whatever) won't be done to their supporters.
And it's a way to show how powerful you are. Breaking the law with impunity while others get punished for less shows that you shouldn't mess with the leader.
Bingo
Never thought about it this way - appreciate the share
Utterly devious!
Aren't all threesomes bisexual or homosexual? By definition? What does that word mean here?
No, not inherently. If the two same sex people dont engage in any sexual contact directly, its just a heteosexual threesome.
Bisexual threesome is when everyone is having sex with everyone else.
But I mean, for one person it’s not bisexual. Isn’t that just bisexual sex with a plus one?
Would you consider and Eiffle Tower during a spit roast a bisexual act?
If the dudes high five it's like 1% gay
Doing forget socks on and saying no homo makes it 100% closeted gay.
I'm straight and have done a fuckton of those
Isn’t that just bisexual sex with a plus one?
Only if the bisexuals same sex partner is the their primary partner, and not the plus one.
If not, I would call it a threesome, or to be more specific, a bisexual threesome.
Are you going by “it’s not gay if it’s a three way” rules?
Either all people are of one gender, in which case it’s homosexual. Or there’s some combination of genders. So for someone in a MFF or FFM threesome, there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.
Straight guy in an open marriage here. Have never engaged in sex with another man, have had plenty of mfm threesomes. Two men fucking the same woman at the same time are not fucking each other.
The transitive property does not apply to intercourse.
The transitive property does not apply to intercourse.
Tell me you are not an incubus without telling me.
there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.
Element of multi-gender participation, but if say two guys are both wishing the other guy wasn’t there, they never look at each other or come into contact… it’s not very bisexual, no?
Wonder how much has been written about this…
I’m not going to assume your experiences, but I’m a mostly straight guy who’s had both FFM and MMF threesomes while I experimented with polyamory.
I vastly preferred the FFM stuff, because boobies, but I did learn that I can find effeminate men attractive, if I couldn’t it would have never worked. If you’re really a person who can’t interact with someone of the same sex, then I really don’t think a threesome is viable.
I’ve had threesomes end where the other dude just really wasn’t into it, and we all decided to call it off. If everyone isn’t having fun, then no one is.
So for someone in a MFF or FFM threesome, there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.
What if you keep your eyes closed the whole time though?
Im just getting specific in a reply to the commentor above.
A bisexual + "plus one" implies that the plus one is not the regular partner, and that if the "plus one" is not bisexual, i.e in this context engaging in sex with the same gender, then that implies the original couple is instead.
So a threesomes is not a "bisexual, plus one" unless the couple is in a same sex relationship, i.e 2 men or 2 women who invite a 3rd of the opposite sex to bed.
A threesome with an otherwise hetro couple who invites a 3rd of either gender to all have sex with is a bisexual threesome, but not a "bisexual, plus 1" situation. The same threesome where everyone engaged in only hetrosexual contact would just be a hetrosexual threesome.
😂 😂 😂
The convoluted techincal logicistics of why it's not gay and precisely when it does become so is silly. The answer is that yes, doing sexual acts with someone of the same sex/gender meets the common definition of being gay. But gay and straight are just words used to self identify. Humans are way dynamic than trying to cling to these arbitrary labels. Having a threesome has zero impact on you telling a potential partner that you are gay/straight because you're interested in them.
Labels are important and helpful, but we gotta remember they are just words that can't define the sum of a human not accurately catch the essential essence of any single person. So it's healthy to recognize their limitations, trying to precisely define what is and isn't gay just feels like cope so you can keep calling yourself straight. Just do it, this doesn't matter.
The real point here the people discussing this seem to be missing is that it doesn't matter what any of us consider to be gay. The members of Moms for Liberty would definitely not call this "normal" in terms of sexuality and would be against it if it were any other three people.
Well, that is is true. This sort of nuance, understanding and acceptance would absolutely be lost on someone so outwardly bigoted. Everyone, and especially MoL essentialism about what IS and isn't normal is just so sad and misguided.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that it isn't worth saying whether it's gay or not because it ultimately doesn't matter. It's not even worth debating on an academic level. Sexuality is a spectrum and this is just one part of the spectrum.
Im not concerned about "gay or not." I personally think you have to physically interact with someone to have sex with them, but honestly dont care if someone considers all threesomes gay. "Be gay, do threesomes" would be a fine credo for the world.
Im just making a pedantic comment in reply to a pedantic comment.
You're missing the point. That specific threesome can't be 100% heterosexual. By definition.
No offense to anyone's preference, assignment, or kinks... but yes. You have to at least be a little bit gay to bang someone with another of your same gender.
You forgot about the golden rule.. it's not gay if it's in a three way
Maybe, but pointing out that it isn't heterosexual makes it look worse for those hypocritical puritanical fucks, so I'm fine with it.
Yeah the pigeonhole principle here would seem to dictate that, or some principle involving holes anyways.
Her robust and consensual sex life is perhaps the only thing I don't find despicable about her.
Edit: yes, y'all, the hypocrisy and allegations of non-consensual sex and the book burning and the attempt to takeover the k-12 system with Christian nationalism, etc, etc, etc is the stuff I do find despicable. Sheesh.
BISEXUAL THREESOMES are NOT against the Bible! Only Gay People are!
The original translation of "men are prohibited to lay down with man" is more akin to "men are prohibited from laying down with boys"
So the only real verse in the Bible that mentions homosexuality is actually telling people to not be pedos
angry Catholic priest noises
No.
First off there are two passages in the O.T. that directly prescribe the death penalty for male homosexuality, not one like you said.
Second neither one of which contain the Hebrew word for "boy". Both use the words to describe a man.
Third even if they somehow meant to write boy but didn't in context it would still work out to mean man.
Fourth the rest of the bible is completely consistent on this which is almost shocking given that it is consistent on so little. From Leviticus all the way to Paul, we got about a thousand years of different writers all saying the same thing on this one issue.
Fifth even texts that didn't make it it in the Bible (at least directly) like Enoth still go after it.
Sixth the oldest commentaries all agree what the rules were about this.
The abhramic faiths are on the text level homophobic. No amount of apologetics, or crappy translations, or recontextual work will change what they contain. When people or religions tell you what they are about believe them. And stop following these shit tier religions.
What is your source for this? Sounds like something my religious grandma drops to justify all of the bad in that book.
I am betting the are misremembering a thing that was making the rounds claiming that Paul meant in one of his letters Romans chapter 1.
It isn't correct because
A. He had a perfectly good Greek word for being a pedo and didn't use it
B. The passage is clear that it was consensual act he was condemning
C. Who cares? We have two other letters (one granted is a forgery) where it is condemned
Why can't people just accept that these people were homophobic? They were. If you are from an Abrahamic faith your skydaddy is a homophobic piece of shit and so we're the people who claim to speak for him. Stop praying to it.
Technically the meaning behind the word sodomy was never recorded consistently through the ages so you can basically say it's whatever you want and therefor the bible is against it. For example, maybe Felatio is Sodomy. Maybe non-metaphorically eating corndogs is Sodomy. Or both or neither.
The only thing we can say for sure is that daughters getting their father drunk and raping him to get pregnant probably didn't happen in Sodom. It happened directly after by the only "good" people allowed to survive.
That's your reward for being good! You get to rape your dad and have his kid!
Ok but that word isn't in the Bible.
It evolved from peccatum Sodomiticum which is latin for the Sin of Sodom.
Sure. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew with some loan words from Aramaic and like 9 words or so, not related to this, from Latin.
You're now arguing that the bible in Hebrew doesn't mention sinning taking place in Sodom?
No. I am pointing out the word Sodomy isn't in there.
Then by your argument, the bible contains no English words because it was written in hebrew and therefore any quotes from the bible not made directly in hebrew are false. Sodomy is directly the same in meaning as the Sin of Sodom as it has evolved from exactly that phrase and has kept it's meaning consistently.
I don't know what you want from me. You mention sodomy in context of the bible and I pointed out that word isn't in it. It also isn't in it in Hebrew. Yes there is a passage that refers to the sins of Sodom but not sodomy. If you know Biblical Hebrew it would be easier to explain. Basically the difference between saying X is tall and saying X-like as a means of saying tall. One is a property of something and the other that something has that property so much it is basically a way of saying that property.
Not sure why this matters. Even if you are a believer you don't have to go by some vague gestures of Ezekiel. You want to be homophobic, there are better passages to argue your disgusting point
Now Bridget, let’s be clear: you’re not being called out for being bi. That would be hypocritical. You’re being called out for being a hypocritical cunt yourself.
Now kindly fuck off :3
I'm reminded of Congressman Henry Hyde wrapping up the day's House hearing on Presidental Blowjobs a bit early so he could run across town a boink his mistress.
How is it that these people are almost always involved in things that they publicly shame
People obsessed with power will do power-obsessed shit like this.
They get off on it
Makes it more exciting?
hmm quite possible, doubly wrapped in delicious taboo
It's some kind of cosmic law.
All those anti gay asshats are as gay as everyone else.
Haggard's Law
Imagine the alternative timeline when she isn’t a hypocrite and just has a tinder account to get some strange pussy?
They do realize they'd be able to have a lot more gay sex if they'd stop criminalizing gay sex right?
Their kink is punishing people for doing the things they enjoy. Legalization makes it feel like they're not above the poors - taking all the fun and adrenaline out of it.
Remember in Fallout New Vegas when the White Glove Society specifically wnats a meat shortage so eating beef can stay a "Luxury"?
Christian Ziegler’s iPhone in the investigation and found 30,000 videos on it.
Jesus. How does a phone even have that much storage? Cloud shit? Seriously though, God damn that's a lot
short tik tok clips?
Moms for Liberty. That's funny.
Anyone have a link to the actual police report? Asking for a friend.
A small part of me feels bad for Christian Ziegler. Guy is 41 years old with no career whatsoever outside of politics and now he can't do that. Most politicians have law degrees but he doesn't.
It's a small part. He is at best a sex pest and piece of crap homophobic self serving shitstain. At worst he is all that and a rapist.
Maybe a much better person than I am can start some sorta program to help people who ruined their life with the alt-right rejoin society.
Don’t feel too bad; He’ll inevitably get a cushy job as a lobbyist, where he can leverage his existing connections to further influence politics while staying out of the spotlight. The politician>lobbyist pipeline is extremely apparent, and it’s basically a revolving door where politicians exit, throw on a “lobbyist” hat, and walk right back inside.
I don't give a shit that she's having threesomes. I've had threesomes. I hate her because she's a sanctimonious power hungry hippocrite.
Ok pal, and I have a girlfriend in Canada
Would we know her or does she go to a different school?
Yeah, it's an expensive private school. You wouldn't know about it
I'm sorry that your life has been so sheltered and boring that you can't imagine that other people have had different experiences than you have but that's really a you problem, not a me problem.
Anybody that says they don't care about downvotes absolutely cares.
If i cared I would remove my comment instead of taunting the people who are downvoting.
You could also just ignore the posts, but instead you're responding to each one talking about how much you don't care.
Aren't FFM and FMF the same?
Two females, one male. What's the difference?
He gets to brag about two different things this way
Bragging involves embellishment. I just stated facts that were relevant to my point. Your envy does not make my simple statement of the facts bragging.
Bragging doesn't need embellishment. You CAN embellish, but you don't have to.
I was not excessively proud or boastful. I simply stated facts.
As I said, the readers jealousy of my lived experience does not make what I said bragging. That's a you problem, not a me problem.
I think generally the order implies who is in the middle. I think. So FFM would imply a male and female servicing a female while FMF is two females servicing a male.
FFM is two women who are into each other and a man. In the first case it was my girlfriend, Heather, and another girl named Helen when we were 16. The girls were really into each other and I was there playing along. Much later, like 30 years later an old (20 years before) fuck friend named Terry reached out and asked if she could have a threesomes with my wife and I. We had offered in the past but she declined. In that case Terry was there for my wife and I just grabbed whatever hole was exposed at the outside of the pile. After a few visits she said that she would like to continue just with my wife. I said that that was ok but my wife declined.
FMF is two women who aren't into each other but are there for the man. I had a longtime girlfriend that my wife knew about named Heather, a different Heather. We were coworkers. When I left that job we were in a state of turmoil, I had been diagnosed as having Asperger's and being a sex addict. My wife suggested that I invite Heather over for a threesome. She came but she wasn't into my wife so we did things FMF (Heather on my face and my wife riding me sort if thing.) My wife put a lot of effort into breaking down barriers and made a lot of progress and everyone had a lot of fun. Heather lost her father and stopped coming to visit.
The MFM thing is a married woman that I've had a crush on for about 15 years who has also crushed on me. We've talked a lot but she wasn't willing to risk her marriage despite the fact that it was very stale. She sent me a note a about a month ago asking if she could ask me a question. The question was had I ever had a threesome? Two women and a man or two men and a woman? I told her what I wrote above. She said that she had talked to her husband and that he wanted to watch another man have sex with his wife. Would I consider being that man? We talked and I said that I was interested. We met (at Starbucks) and talked as a group about rules and agreed to go forward. He's not interested in having sex with me and I'm not interested in having sex with him. Is just two guys with his wife. They are about to move into a home that they have built and once they are in they will invite me over. After talking with them I got the impression that it wasn't his idea and that she pushed for it because she wanted to have me and this was a way to do it that she was comfortable with. Either way she's tall and pretty and I'm looking forward to a playdate. I told them a lot about my relationship with my wife that she could use as ammunition to argue that she should be able to have me on the side between threeway playdates.
He's not interested in having sex with me and I'm not interested in having sex with him. Is just two guys with his wife.
Back in 2000 when I was 16, I had a video camera, and made the equivilant of youtube videos, on vhs tape years before youtube existed. That quote of yours reminds me of a scene I shot in a hotel. We rented a porn juat so we could have this distracting thing in the background.
The line I remember most is "We want to SCREW the wife. And we want YOU to do it."
I thought our acting, and premise of this scene was shotty at best, but it always makes me laugh because of that one line I could recording our scene.
Nice.
The first porn movie I ever watched was Debbie Does Dallas. The one I telemedicine most was a parody called Debbie Does Dishes. I think Nina Hartley was in that one. It was stupid.
Oh Jesus fuck that’s so much worse than I’d heard before
Stepford gonna stepford
im so shocked oh no wow how could this be
I'm quite sure we've heard this before.
Yeah the threesome part itself is not new. The “how they arranged it” details are
Shitty title. They are being accused of rape.
Is she hot?
So what? We don't judge people for their sexuality. Challenges of hypocrisy are ad hominem.
Their views and politics are trash no matter what they like to do in the bedroom. If we can't be better...
The issue is not the appeal to hypocrisy, it is discriminating against the rights of others while giving yourself those same rights. For a party that runs on a illogical foundation, having your leaders be shown to be doing what they preach against is powerful enough for people to emotionally disconnect and actually think through the information they have been given. Yes an appeal to hypocracy is a fallacy, but "you can't logically argue someone out of a position they didn't logically obtain", it is better to use a fallacy to force them to think logically, then use logic first and be ignored.
Your first sentence, you state it's not an appeal to hypocrisy, then you define hypocrisy in the same sentence.
The issue is not discriminating against the rights of others while giving yourself those same rights. The issue is discriminating. Period. There's no other caveots there.
If you're going to sex shame them, you're just as bad as them. Let's celebrate their sexuality instead.
Then your last sentence, "it is better to use a fallacy to force them to think logically". C'mon what the fuck are you even saying? It's self defeating since you're already not thinking logically if you're using fallacies. You're talking about FORCING SOMEONE TO THINK? You are just as bad as them.
If you're going to sex shame them
Where did the person that you respond to do this? You've claimed this in a few comments, but people aren't doing what your think is being done.
People are attacking her for having bisexual threesoms. That's a shitty thing to do. Let her have all the sex she wants with whoever she wants, it's none of our business.
She made it our business when she decided to try and control what others do in their bedroom.
People are attacking her for having bisexual threesoms
People are attacking her for being a hypocrite. "Rules for thee and not for me" is worth pointing out.
The legal investigation started because their +1 partner accused the husband of raping her. Not because of the consensual play. She is only getting roasted for being hypocritical, not for having a girlfriend. And the legal investigation is about the rape, not the consensual sex.
Okay, please tell me do I convince an anti-intellectual logic that they refuse to use? I have tried to with no success.
I do not want my gay friends imprisoned for wanting to be happy, I do not want my trans friends lynched for being able to look at themselves in the mirror. How do you propose I convince those that do through logic alone, when these people are only willing to consider emotional/illogical arguments?
I don't care about arguing, I care about solutions, what are your solutions to this discrimination we both hate?
You're talking sheer pregmatics here? Awesome, now you're speaking my language.
Celebrate her relationship. Turn her into a gay folk hero for hooking up with women despite the upbringing / programming.
Such a solution could actually work (the example of a Republican finding no controversial stuff in her school's curriculum comes to mind), however the problem is it would require the person involved to disassociate with there (presumably anti-gay) friends and family and be accepted by her former "enemies", which would be especially hard if they had a public facing role. They possibly may even have to reject a emotionally driven worldview/ideology they may have adopted, which is quite difficult.
You don't have to consent to becoming a gay folk hero.
#HimToo became connected with rape allegations ... when a mother in the United States tweeted about her son with the #HimToo hashtag. She claimed that her son, Pieter Hanson, was afraid to go on dates because of false rape allegations. Hanson himself disavowed his mother's tweet, saying that ... he never has and never will support #HimToo.
For better or worse, past evidence suggests people can't be heroized against there will until they are dead (as was the case for the anti-nillist philosopher Nietzsche)
I don’t think it’s an ad hominem when you’re making/influencing legal policies and then violating those rules yourself.
You just defined ad hominem in the same sentence you said it's not.
If they are making bad policy, then focus on that because it's bad. Not because the individual doesn't actually follow it.
If they are making bad policy, then focus on that because it’s bad
People are and have been.
Not because the individual doesn’t actually follow it
When the individual is ignoring any arguments on the basis of an Appeal to Authority "Everyone knows this is wrong" then it's valid to point out "Then why are you doing it?"
No it's not valid. That's litterally the tu quoque fallacy a form of ad hominem.
None of this is an argument for Homosexuality being wrong or right. If people were saying "she's having sex with women so sex with women must be okay" then it would be a tu quoque fallacy.
People are pointing out that shes a huge fucking hypocrite. Hypocrisy by itself isn't an argument for or against anything, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth calling out.
Her entire argument is an appeal to morality. "Gay is bad because it's immoral." So when she is then engaging in this 'immoral' activity it is relevant: "Even you don't believe it's actually immoral, which is your entire argument."
That's a fallacy. If I say it's bad to kill people, then I kill someone, was I wrong when I said it's bad?
What someone does is separate from the validity of what they say.
If you say it’s bad to kill people, then kill someone, I'm not going to put you in charge of a group with the express purpose of preventing people getting killed. If you found such a group I am going to question their ethics.
This isn't a debate. Gloves are off.
I'm not saying it's a debate, just be the change you want to be. If we sex shame them, we're saying they're right to be doing the same.
Try being the change you want to see. Celebrate their relationship.
Decrying hypocrisy is not the same as decrying the behavior they're being hypocritical about.
So you're saying she should not be having bisexual threesomes? I think that's fucked up, let her have whatever adult sex she wants.
I'm not sure how I can be more clear. Keep banging that drum, but it has nothing to do with what I said.
To fascists, hypocrisy is a virtue:
https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/hypocrisy-and-fascism-2018-08-12
They NEED to demonstrate their hypocrisy in order to signal to their supporters that the nasty shit they promise to do to The Other (immigrants, gays, whatever) won't be done to their supporters.
And it's a way to show how powerful you are. Breaking the law with impunity while others get punished for less shows that you shouldn't mess with the leader.
Bingo
Never thought about it this way - appreciate the share
Utterly devious!
Aren't all threesomes bisexual or homosexual? By definition? What does that word mean here?
No, not inherently. If the two same sex people dont engage in any sexual contact directly, its just a heteosexual threesome.
Bisexual threesome is when everyone is having sex with everyone else.
But I mean, for one person it’s not bisexual. Isn’t that just bisexual sex with a plus one?
Would you consider and Eiffle Tower during a spit roast a bisexual act?
If the dudes high five it's like 1% gay
Doing forget socks on and saying no homo makes it 100% closeted gay.
I'm straight and have done a fuckton of those
Only if the bisexuals same sex partner is the their primary partner, and not the plus one.
If not, I would call it a threesome, or to be more specific, a bisexual threesome.
Are you going by “it’s not gay if it’s a three way” rules?
Either all people are of one gender, in which case it’s homosexual. Or there’s some combination of genders. So for someone in a MFF or FFM threesome, there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.
Straight guy in an open marriage here. Have never engaged in sex with another man, have had plenty of mfm threesomes. Two men fucking the same woman at the same time are not fucking each other.
The transitive property does not apply to intercourse.
Tell me you are not an incubus without telling me.
Element of multi-gender participation, but if say two guys are both wishing the other guy wasn’t there, they never look at each other or come into contact… it’s not very bisexual, no?
Wonder how much has been written about this…
I’m not going to assume your experiences, but I’m a mostly straight guy who’s had both FFM and MMF threesomes while I experimented with polyamory.
I vastly preferred the FFM stuff, because boobies, but I did learn that I can find effeminate men attractive, if I couldn’t it would have never worked. If you’re really a person who can’t interact with someone of the same sex, then I really don’t think a threesome is viable.
I’ve had threesomes end where the other dude just really wasn’t into it, and we all decided to call it off. If everyone isn’t having fun, then no one is.
What if you keep your eyes closed the whole time though?
Im just getting specific in a reply to the commentor above.
A bisexual + "plus one" implies that the plus one is not the regular partner, and that if the "plus one" is not bisexual, i.e in this context engaging in sex with the same gender, then that implies the original couple is instead.
So a threesomes is not a "bisexual, plus one" unless the couple is in a same sex relationship, i.e 2 men or 2 women who invite a 3rd of the opposite sex to bed.
A threesome with an otherwise hetro couple who invites a 3rd of either gender to all have sex with is a bisexual threesome, but not a "bisexual, plus 1" situation. The same threesome where everyone engaged in only hetrosexual contact would just be a hetrosexual threesome.
😂 😂 😂
The convoluted techincal logicistics of why it's not gay and precisely when it does become so is silly. The answer is that yes, doing sexual acts with someone of the same sex/gender meets the common definition of being gay. But gay and straight are just words used to self identify. Humans are way dynamic than trying to cling to these arbitrary labels. Having a threesome has zero impact on you telling a potential partner that you are gay/straight because you're interested in them.
Labels are important and helpful, but we gotta remember they are just words that can't define the sum of a human not accurately catch the essential essence of any single person. So it's healthy to recognize their limitations, trying to precisely define what is and isn't gay just feels like cope so you can keep calling yourself straight. Just do it, this doesn't matter.
The real point here the people discussing this seem to be missing is that it doesn't matter what any of us consider to be gay. The members of Moms for Liberty would definitely not call this "normal" in terms of sexuality and would be against it if it were any other three people.
Well, that is is true. This sort of nuance, understanding and acceptance would absolutely be lost on someone so outwardly bigoted. Everyone, and especially MoL essentialism about what IS and isn't normal is just so sad and misguided.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that it isn't worth saying whether it's gay or not because it ultimately doesn't matter. It's not even worth debating on an academic level. Sexuality is a spectrum and this is just one part of the spectrum.
Im not concerned about "gay or not." I personally think you have to physically interact with someone to have sex with them, but honestly dont care if someone considers all threesomes gay. "Be gay, do threesomes" would be a fine credo for the world.
Im just making a pedantic comment in reply to a pedantic comment.
You're missing the point. That specific threesome can't be 100% heterosexual. By definition.
No offense to anyone's preference, assignment, or kinks... but yes. You have to at least be a little bit gay to bang someone with another of your same gender.
You forgot about the golden rule.. it's not gay if it's in a three way
Maybe, but pointing out that it isn't heterosexual makes it look worse for those hypocritical puritanical fucks, so I'm fine with it.
Yeah the pigeonhole principle here would seem to dictate that, or some principle involving holes anyways.
I think they meant in the context of the founder
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7gwX7rjOw
I think it means bisexual for her.... As in FFM
Her robust and consensual sex life is perhaps the only thing I don't find despicable about her.
Edit: yes, y'all, the hypocrisy and allegations of non-consensual sex and the book burning and the attempt to takeover the k-12 system with Christian nationalism, etc, etc, etc is the stuff I do find despicable. Sheesh.
BISEXUAL THREESOMES are NOT against the Bible! Only Gay People are!
The original translation of "men are prohibited to lay down with man" is more akin to "men are prohibited from laying down with boys"
So the only real verse in the Bible that mentions homosexuality is actually telling people to not be pedos
angry Catholic priest noises
No.
First off there are two passages in the O.T. that directly prescribe the death penalty for male homosexuality, not one like you said.
Second neither one of which contain the Hebrew word for "boy". Both use the words to describe a man.
Third even if they somehow meant to write boy but didn't in context it would still work out to mean man.
Fourth the rest of the bible is completely consistent on this which is almost shocking given that it is consistent on so little. From Leviticus all the way to Paul, we got about a thousand years of different writers all saying the same thing on this one issue.
Fifth even texts that didn't make it it in the Bible (at least directly) like Enoth still go after it.
Sixth the oldest commentaries all agree what the rules were about this.
The abhramic faiths are on the text level homophobic. No amount of apologetics, or crappy translations, or recontextual work will change what they contain. When people or religions tell you what they are about believe them. And stop following these shit tier religions.
What is your source for this? Sounds like something my religious grandma drops to justify all of the bad in that book.
I am betting the are misremembering a thing that was making the rounds claiming that Paul meant in one of his letters Romans chapter 1.
It isn't correct because
A. He had a perfectly good Greek word for being a pedo and didn't use it
B. The passage is clear that it was consensual act he was condemning
C. Who cares? We have two other letters (one granted is a forgery) where it is condemned
Why can't people just accept that these people were homophobic? They were. If you are from an Abrahamic faith your skydaddy is a homophobic piece of shit and so we're the people who claim to speak for him. Stop praying to it.
Not really sure about that
https://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality
Technically the meaning behind the word sodomy was never recorded consistently through the ages so you can basically say it's whatever you want and therefor the bible is against it. For example, maybe Felatio is Sodomy. Maybe non-metaphorically eating corndogs is Sodomy. Or both or neither.
The only thing we can say for sure is that daughters getting their father drunk and raping him to get pregnant probably didn't happen in Sodom. It happened directly after by the only "good" people allowed to survive.
That's your reward for being good! You get to rape your dad and have his kid!
Ok but that word isn't in the Bible.
It evolved from peccatum Sodomiticum which is latin for the Sin of Sodom.
Sure. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew with some loan words from Aramaic and like 9 words or so, not related to this, from Latin.
You're now arguing that the bible in Hebrew doesn't mention sinning taking place in Sodom?
No. I am pointing out the word Sodomy isn't in there.
Then by your argument, the bible contains no English words because it was written in hebrew and therefore any quotes from the bible not made directly in hebrew are false. Sodomy is directly the same in meaning as the Sin of Sodom as it has evolved from exactly that phrase and has kept it's meaning consistently.
I don't know what you want from me. You mention sodomy in context of the bible and I pointed out that word isn't in it. It also isn't in it in Hebrew. Yes there is a passage that refers to the sins of Sodom but not sodomy. If you know Biblical Hebrew it would be easier to explain. Basically the difference between saying X is tall and saying X-like as a means of saying tall. One is a property of something and the other that something has that property so much it is basically a way of saying that property.
Not sure why this matters. Even if you are a believer you don't have to go by some vague gestures of Ezekiel. You want to be homophobic, there are better passages to argue your disgusting point
Now Bridget, let’s be clear: you’re not being called out for being bi. That would be hypocritical. You’re being called out for being a hypocritical cunt yourself.
Now kindly fuck off :3
I'm reminded of Congressman Henry Hyde wrapping up the day's House hearing on Presidental Blowjobs a bit early so he could run across town a boink his mistress.
How is it that these people are almost always involved in things that they publicly shame
People obsessed with power will do power-obsessed shit like this.
They get off on it
Makes it more exciting?
hmm quite possible, doubly wrapped in delicious taboo
It's some kind of cosmic law.
All those anti gay asshats are as gay as everyone else.
Haggard's Law
Imagine the alternative timeline when she isn’t a hypocrite and just has a tinder account to get some strange pussy?
They do realize they'd be able to have a lot more gay sex if they'd stop criminalizing gay sex right?
Their kink is punishing people for doing the things they enjoy. Legalization makes it feel like they're not above the poors - taking all the fun and adrenaline out of it.
Remember in Fallout New Vegas when the White Glove Society specifically wnats a meat shortage so eating beef can stay a "Luxury"?
Every.
Single.
Time.
https://mastodon.social/deck/@mtraven23/112464332105697122
Jesus. How does a phone even have that much storage? Cloud shit? Seriously though, God damn that's a lot
short tik tok clips?
Moms for Liberty. That's funny.
Anyone have a link to the actual police report? Asking for a friend.
A small part of me feels bad for Christian Ziegler. Guy is 41 years old with no career whatsoever outside of politics and now he can't do that. Most politicians have law degrees but he doesn't.
It's a small part. He is at best a sex pest and piece of crap homophobic self serving shitstain. At worst he is all that and a rapist.
Maybe a much better person than I am can start some sorta program to help people who ruined their life with the alt-right rejoin society.
Don’t feel too bad; He’ll inevitably get a cushy job as a lobbyist, where he can leverage his existing connections to further influence politics while staying out of the spotlight. The politician>lobbyist pipeline is extremely apparent, and it’s basically a revolving door where politicians exit, throw on a “lobbyist” hat, and walk right back inside.
I don't give a shit that she's having threesomes. I've had threesomes. I hate her because she's a sanctimonious power hungry hippocrite.
Ok pal, and I have a girlfriend in Canada
Would we know her or does she go to a different school?
Yeah, it's an expensive private school. You wouldn't know about it
I'm sorry that your life has been so sheltered and boring that you can't imagine that other people have had different experiences than you have but that's really a you problem, not a me problem.
Anybody that says they don't care about downvotes absolutely cares.
If i cared I would remove my comment instead of taunting the people who are downvoting.
You could also just ignore the posts, but instead you're responding to each one talking about how much you don't care.
Aren't FFM and FMF the same?
Two females, one male. What's the difference?
He gets to brag about two different things this way
Bragging involves embellishment. I just stated facts that were relevant to my point. Your envy does not make my simple statement of the facts bragging.
Bragging doesn't need embellishment. You CAN embellish, but you don't have to.
I was not excessively proud or boastful. I simply stated facts.
As I said, the readers jealousy of my lived experience does not make what I said bragging. That's a you problem, not a me problem.
I think generally the order implies who is in the middle. I think. So FFM would imply a male and female servicing a female while FMF is two females servicing a male.
FFM is two women who are into each other and a man. In the first case it was my girlfriend, Heather, and another girl named Helen when we were 16. The girls were really into each other and I was there playing along. Much later, like 30 years later an old (20 years before) fuck friend named Terry reached out and asked if she could have a threesomes with my wife and I. We had offered in the past but she declined. In that case Terry was there for my wife and I just grabbed whatever hole was exposed at the outside of the pile. After a few visits she said that she would like to continue just with my wife. I said that that was ok but my wife declined.
FMF is two women who aren't into each other but are there for the man. I had a longtime girlfriend that my wife knew about named Heather, a different Heather. We were coworkers. When I left that job we were in a state of turmoil, I had been diagnosed as having Asperger's and being a sex addict. My wife suggested that I invite Heather over for a threesome. She came but she wasn't into my wife so we did things FMF (Heather on my face and my wife riding me sort if thing.) My wife put a lot of effort into breaking down barriers and made a lot of progress and everyone had a lot of fun. Heather lost her father and stopped coming to visit.
The MFM thing is a married woman that I've had a crush on for about 15 years who has also crushed on me. We've talked a lot but she wasn't willing to risk her marriage despite the fact that it was very stale. She sent me a note a about a month ago asking if she could ask me a question. The question was had I ever had a threesome? Two women and a man or two men and a woman? I told her what I wrote above. She said that she had talked to her husband and that he wanted to watch another man have sex with his wife. Would I consider being that man? We talked and I said that I was interested. We met (at Starbucks) and talked as a group about rules and agreed to go forward. He's not interested in having sex with me and I'm not interested in having sex with him. Is just two guys with his wife. They are about to move into a home that they have built and once they are in they will invite me over. After talking with them I got the impression that it wasn't his idea and that she pushed for it because she wanted to have me and this was a way to do it that she was comfortable with. Either way she's tall and pretty and I'm looking forward to a playdate. I told them a lot about my relationship with my wife that she could use as ammunition to argue that she should be able to have me on the side between threeway playdates.
Back in 2000 when I was 16, I had a video camera, and made the equivilant of youtube videos, on vhs tape years before youtube existed. That quote of yours reminds me of a scene I shot in a hotel. We rented a porn juat so we could have this distracting thing in the background.
The line I remember most is "We want to SCREW the wife. And we want YOU to do it."
I thought our acting, and premise of this scene was shotty at best, but it always makes me laugh because of that one line I could recording our scene.
Nice.
The first porn movie I ever watched was Debbie Does Dallas. The one I telemedicine most was a parody called Debbie Does Dishes. I think Nina Hartley was in that one. It was stupid.
Oh Jesus fuck that’s so much worse than I’d heard before
Stepford gonna stepford
im so shocked oh no wow how could this be
I'm quite sure we've heard this before.
Yeah the threesome part itself is not new. The “how they arranged it” details are
Shitty title. They are being accused of rape.
Is she hot?
So what? We don't judge people for their sexuality. Challenges of hypocrisy are ad hominem.
Their views and politics are trash no matter what they like to do in the bedroom. If we can't be better...
The issue is not the appeal to hypocrisy, it is discriminating against the rights of others while giving yourself those same rights. For a party that runs on a illogical foundation, having your leaders be shown to be doing what they preach against is powerful enough for people to emotionally disconnect and actually think through the information they have been given. Yes an appeal to hypocracy is a fallacy, but "you can't logically argue someone out of a position they didn't logically obtain", it is better to use a fallacy to force them to think logically, then use logic first and be ignored.
Your first sentence, you state it's not an appeal to hypocrisy, then you define hypocrisy in the same sentence.
The issue is not discriminating against the rights of others while giving yourself those same rights. The issue is discriminating. Period. There's no other caveots there.
If you're going to sex shame them, you're just as bad as them. Let's celebrate their sexuality instead.
Then your last sentence, "it is better to use a fallacy to force them to think logically". C'mon what the fuck are you even saying? It's self defeating since you're already not thinking logically if you're using fallacies. You're talking about FORCING SOMEONE TO THINK? You are just as bad as them.
Where did the person that you respond to do this? You've claimed this in a few comments, but people aren't doing what your think is being done.
People are attacking her for having bisexual threesoms. That's a shitty thing to do. Let her have all the sex she wants with whoever she wants, it's none of our business.
She made it our business when she decided to try and control what others do in their bedroom.
People are attacking her for being a hypocrite. "Rules for thee and not for me" is worth pointing out.
The legal investigation started because their +1 partner accused the husband of raping her. Not because of the consensual play. She is only getting roasted for being hypocritical, not for having a girlfriend. And the legal investigation is about the rape, not the consensual sex.
Okay, please tell me do I convince an anti-intellectual logic that they refuse to use? I have tried to with no success.
I do not want my gay friends imprisoned for wanting to be happy, I do not want my trans friends lynched for being able to look at themselves in the mirror. How do you propose I convince those that do through logic alone, when these people are only willing to consider emotional/illogical arguments?
I don't care about arguing, I care about solutions, what are your solutions to this discrimination we both hate?
You're talking sheer pregmatics here? Awesome, now you're speaking my language.
Celebrate her relationship. Turn her into a gay folk hero for hooking up with women despite the upbringing / programming.
Such a solution could actually work (the example of a Republican finding no controversial stuff in her school's curriculum comes to mind), however the problem is it would require the person involved to disassociate with there (presumably anti-gay) friends and family and be accepted by her former "enemies", which would be especially hard if they had a public facing role. They possibly may even have to reject a emotionally driven worldview/ideology they may have adopted, which is quite difficult.
You don't have to consent to becoming a gay folk hero.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HimToo_movement
For better or worse, past evidence suggests people can't be heroized against there will until they are dead (as was the case for the anti-nillist philosopher Nietzsche)
I don’t think it’s an ad hominem when you’re making/influencing legal policies and then violating those rules yourself.
You just defined ad hominem in the same sentence you said it's not.
If they are making bad policy, then focus on that because it's bad. Not because the individual doesn't actually follow it.
People are and have been.
When the individual is ignoring any arguments on the basis of an Appeal to Authority "Everyone knows this is wrong" then it's valid to point out "Then why are you doing it?"
No it's not valid. That's litterally the tu quoque fallacy a form of ad hominem.
None of this is an argument for Homosexuality being wrong or right. If people were saying "she's having sex with women so sex with women must be okay" then it would be a tu quoque fallacy.
People are pointing out that shes a huge fucking hypocrite. Hypocrisy by itself isn't an argument for or against anything, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth calling out.
Her entire argument is an appeal to morality. "Gay is bad because it's immoral." So when she is then engaging in this 'immoral' activity it is relevant: "Even you don't believe it's actually immoral, which is your entire argument."
That's a fallacy. If I say it's bad to kill people, then I kill someone, was I wrong when I said it's bad?
What someone does is separate from the validity of what they say.
If you say it’s bad to kill people, then kill someone, I'm not going to put you in charge of a group with the express purpose of preventing people getting killed. If you found such a group I am going to question their ethics.
This isn't a debate. Gloves are off.
I'm not saying it's a debate, just be the change you want to be. If we sex shame them, we're saying they're right to be doing the same.
Try being the change you want to see. Celebrate their relationship.
Decrying hypocrisy is not the same as decrying the behavior they're being hypocritical about.
So you're saying she should not be having bisexual threesomes? I think that's fucked up, let her have whatever adult sex she wants.
I'm not sure how I can be more clear. Keep banging that drum, but it has nothing to do with what I said.