|
|
|
|
|
|
|
darkphoenix1247 Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:54 pm
Quoted from Divash:
Basic Overview-The Torah and Homosexuality
The Torah mentions in Leviticus 18, "You shall not lie with a man in the same manner as with a woman." Stricter interpretations can mean "No man-man sexual acts at all, end of story." More liberal interpretations can mean, "No face-to-face penetrative sex between men; the rest is fair game."
More Detail
The Talmud is full of interpretations of both man-man activity and male solo activity. Some authorities forbid and some permit, but no decision is ever actually reached, which means that interpretation is still valid on all sides of the argument. Strictly speaking, only the face-to-face penetrative act between men is specifically forbidden.
Woman-woman acts, and solo female acts, are not mentioned at all in the Torah or in the rest of the Tanach. The Talmud contains basically one paragraph about woman-woman sexual acts: M'solel (literally, "scratching") is considered lewd by some authorities, not by others. It is not considered to be equivalent to sex, and therefore a m'solelet ("woman who 'scratches'" herself or another woman) may marry even a kohein (priest), even the kohein gadol (high priest), because she is still a virgin. Even the Talmud doesn't forbid a single sexual act; those who call it lewd still state that it is permitted.
BEING a homosexual is not the same as HAVING homosexual sex. It's a state of being, not a verb. BEING gay is forbidden nowhere. Not in Torah, not in the rest of Tanach, not in Mishnah, not in Gemara, not in responsa.
If you're disgusted by homosexuality, don't have homosexual sex. Asking or telling about ANY sexual act is very non-tzanuah (immodest) anyway, so let's all keep our personal details to ourselves. If you wouldn't ask a straight couple what they do in the bedroom (or kitchen, or living room, or basement), keep your nose out of what gay people do, too.
Other Info
By the way, Torah also forbids eating non-kosher animals, eating kosher animals that have not been slaughtered in kosher fashion, mixing meat with dairy or even benefiting from such, eating shellfish, eating bottom-feeding fish, eating or even touching reptiles, and eating or possessing any form of leavening, no matter how small, during Passover. It forbids the blending of wool with linen in any way, in any garment, even just by sewing a linen tag into a woolen garment, or even wearing both wool and linen at the same time in different garments.
Oh, and Torah also forbids man and wife from having relations, or even touching one another or passing one another items, while the woman is menstruating, or even during the seven clean days following menstruation, until she has immersed in the mikvah. In fact, there are over 200 commandments and Talmudic laws which relate to exactly how a married (heterosexual) couple are meant to be sexual together. ONE law related to male homosexuals, and NONE related to female homosexuals. It's not that G*D hates heterosexuals or finds them disgusting; he just must feel that they need more restrictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:06 pm
Quote: The Torah mentions in Leviticus 18, "You shall not lie with a man in the same manner as with a woman." Stricter interpretations can mean "No man-man sexual acts at all, end of story." More liberal interpretations can mean, "No face-to-face penetrative sex between men; the rest is fair game." Funny how, if you take this interpretation, HaShem doesn't seem to know the dynamics of the male anatomy. Face to face penetration is physically improbable between men and certainly not preferred. Now, here's the verse in Hebrew: וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תֹּועֵבָה הִוא׃ Now, what's all this mean~? It's a grammatical monster with no punctuation and irregular grammar. A word-for-word translation would be something like this: Do not lie to rest with (shakab) mankind (zakar) as you'd have sex with (mishkab) women (ishshah) because it is disgusting (tow'ebah) Now why would any right-minded homosexual lie with a man as one would have sex with a woman~? Male bodies are nothing like female bodies. Perhaps it means that if a woman IDENTIFIES as a man, she is to be treated exactly like a man and therefore "laying to rest" with her as though she was a woman is an abomination unto HaShem. Back in the old days in the Middle East, people of the "Third Nature" were either hated, feared and rejected or considered sacred. Perhaps this law was to protect Hebrews of the Third Nature without idolizing them. However, over time and with the influence of other religions, perhaps this verse got distorted and turned into a means to persecute people of the Third Nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:57 pm
Sorry its a late comment and this conversation is probably long dead but I'll put in my two sense. If you study the old testament you will quickly learn that many things are written in a very distant or "clean" terminologies. Remember, modern Hebrew isn't the language of the old testament, rather a new version based on it. Take the wording as its intended "A man shall not lie with a man as he would lie with a woman" please tell me your not trying to make a halachic argument that oral between guys is fine too (Shifchas Zerah aside) Personally, its not my business or problem, just don't pretend its ok. Oh and about the girl-girl non-mentioning bit, keep in mind monogamy is a relatively recent invention as men tended to have multiple wives it would make sense for him fool around with more then one at a time. Dr. Awkward Quote: The Torah mentions in Leviticus 18, "You shall not lie with a man in the same manner as with a woman." Stricter interpretations can mean "No man-man sexual acts at all, end of story." More liberal interpretations can mean, "No face-to-face penetrative sex between men; the rest is fair game." Funny how, if you take this interpretation, HaShem doesn't seem to know the dynamics of the male anatomy. Face to face penetration is physically improbable between men and certainly not preferred. Now, here's the verse in Hebrew: וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תֹּועֵבָה הִוא׃ Now, what's all this mean~? It's a grammatical monster with no punctuation and irregular grammar. A word-for-word translation would be something like this: Do not lie to rest with (shakab) mankind (zakar) as you'd have sex with (mishkab) women (ishshah) because it is disgusting (tow'ebah) Now why would any right-minded homosexual lie with a man as one would have sex with a woman~? Male bodies are nothing like female bodies. Perhaps it means that if a woman IDENTIFIES as a man, she is to be treated exactly like a man and therefore "laying to rest" with her as though she was a woman is an abomination unto HaShem. Back in the old days in the Middle East, people of the "Third Nature" were either hated, feared and rejected or considered sacred. Perhaps this law was to protect Hebrews of the Third Nature without idolizing them. However, over time and with the influence of other religions, perhaps this verse got distorted and turned into a means to persecute people of the Third Nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:27 pm
Quote: Other Info By the way, Torah also forbids eating non-kosher animals, eating kosher animals that have not been slaughtered in kosher fashion, mixing meat with dairy or even benefiting from such, eating shellfish, eating bottom-feeding fish, eating or even touching reptiles, and eating or possessing any form of leavening, no matter how small, during Passover. It forbids the blending of wool with linen in any way, in any garment, even just by sewing a linen tag into a woolen garment, or even wearing both wool and linen at the same time in different garments. There is one garment in which wool and linen are allowed to be mixed actually. Men's Tallit Katan are commonly made of a linen top and have the fringes made of wool, or the opposite.(Correct me if I'm wrong.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:38 pm
ScionoftheBlade Sorry its a late comment and this conversation is probably long dead but I'll put in my two sense. If you study the old testament you will quickly learn that many things are written in a very distant or "clean" terminologies. Remember, modern Hebrew isn't the language of the old testament, rather a new version based on it. Take the wording as its intended "A man shall not lie with a man as he would lie with a woman" please tell me your not trying to make a halachic argument that oral between guys is fine too (Shifchas Zerah aside) Personally, its not my business or problem, just don't pretend its ok. Oh and about the girl-girl non-mentioning bit, keep in mind monogamy is a relatively recent invention as men tended to have multiple wives it would make sense for him fool around with more then one at a time. Dr. Awkward Quote: The Torah mentions in Leviticus 18, "You shall not lie with a man in the same manner as with a woman." Stricter interpretations can mean "No man-man sexual acts at all, end of story." More liberal interpretations can mean, "No face-to-face penetrative sex between men; the rest is fair game." Funny how, if you take this interpretation, HaShem doesn't seem to know the dynamics of the male anatomy. Face to face penetration is physically improbable between men and certainly not preferred. Now, here's the verse in Hebrew: וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תֹּועֵבָה הִוא׃ Now, what's all this mean~? It's a grammatical monster with no punctuation and irregular grammar. A word-for-word translation would be something like this: Do not lie to rest with (shakab) mankind (zakar) as you'd have sex with (mishkab) women (ishshah) because it is disgusting (tow'ebah) Now why would any right-minded homosexual lie with a man as one would have sex with a woman~? Male bodies are nothing like female bodies. Perhaps it means that if a woman IDENTIFIES as a man, she is to be treated exactly like a man and therefore "laying to rest" with her as though she was a woman is an abomination unto HaShem. Back in the old days in the Middle East, people of the "Third Nature" were either hated, feared and rejected or considered sacred. Perhaps this law was to protect Hebrews of the Third Nature without idolizing them. However, over time and with the influence of other religions, perhaps this verse got distorted and turned into a means to persecute people of the Third Nature. Your argument falls apart in that it's ultimately an argumentum ad ignorantiam. To follow your line of logic, this is ancient Hebrew rather than modern Hebrew, we don't speak Hebrew as Moshe did, therefore, we must take the antiquated interpretations for granted. This Catholic reasoning runs counter to Maimonides' law, which is that if science and our five senses contradict scripture, then it's only our understanding of scripture that's at fault. HaShem knows His people need to eat. That's why he never made any commandments against eating -- only eating certain foods. Similarly, HaShem never forbade having sex -- only having a three-way between your niece and a goat. Now, following Maimonide's law, if a certain act which is traditionally seen as a desecration is actually vital to some people, we need to take a second look at that text. Argument in a nutshell: If the Halakha forbids homosexuality and homosexuality is ingrained and pervasive to some Jews, then Halakha is imperfect. If Halakha is imperfect, then HaShem, who gave us the Halakha, must not be imperfect. HaShem is perfect, therefore, Halakha must be perfect, ergo, Halakha must not condemn homosexuality and therefore it's only our ignorance of ancient Hebrew that makes us think that way. Don't like it, there's always Chasid Lubavitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:50 pm
What about the fact that in context the law probably is referring to Canaanite temple prostitution. The context of Leviticus 18:22: This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn all sexual behavior between two men. Although it obviously refers to male-male sex, it is sometimes also used to condemn lesbian activity. The chapters before and after chapter 18 deal extensively with idolatry. We can therefore expect that much of chapter 18 will deal with the same topic. Leviticus 18, verses 6 to 21, contain a whole series of forbidden forms of incest with one's: Verse 6: relatives that are "near of kin." Verse 7: father or mother. Verse 8: father's wife. Verse 9: sister or step sister. Verse 10: granddaughter. Verse 11: sister or step sister. Verse 12: aunt on the father's side of the family. Verse 13: aunt on the mother's side of the family. Verse 14: uncle or aunt. Verse 15: daughter-in-law. Verse 16: sister-in-law. Verse 17: female friend together with a close female relative of the friend. Verse 18: wife's sister. Verses 19 and 20 leave the topic of incest but continue the theme of forbidden sexual activity: Verse 19 forbids sexual activity with a menstruating woman. Verse 20 forbids adultery with a neighbor's wife. At this point, there is a break in topic being discussed. The chapter switches to a condemnation of false forms of worship in general, and the worship of the Pagan god Molech in particular. Like many other Pagan temples, those dedicated to Molech had temple prostitutes. His followers believed that engaging in sexual activity with these prostitutes would please Molech and "... increase the fertility of themselves, their spouses, their livestock and their fields." 1 Verse 21 forbids ritual child sacrifice and names a Pagan god Molech to whom children were believed to have been sacrificed. The verse also forbids blasphemy against Yahweh. Verse 22 is translated in the King James Version as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns all sexual activity between two males. If Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htmSince a toeyvah usually refers to idolatry, I think this is most plausible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:21 pm
Dr. Awkward ScionoftheBlade Sorry its a late comment and this conversation is probably long dead but I'll put in my two sense. If you study the old testament you will quickly learn that many things are written in a very distant or "clean" terminologies. Remember, modern Hebrew isn't the language of the old testament, rather a new version based on it. Take the wording as its intended "A man shall not lie with a man as he would lie with a woman" please tell me your not trying to make a halachic argument that oral between guys is fine too (Shifchas Zerah aside) Personally, its not my business or problem, just don't pretend its ok. Oh and about the girl-girl non-mentioning bit, keep in mind monogamy is a relatively recent invention as men tended to have multiple wives it would make sense for him fool around with more then one at a time. Dr. Awkward Quote: The Torah mentions in Leviticus 18, "You shall not lie with a man in the same manner as with a woman." Stricter interpretations can mean "No man-man sexual acts at all, end of story." More liberal interpretations can mean, "No face-to-face penetrative sex between men; the rest is fair game." Funny how, if you take this interpretation, HaShem doesn't seem to know the dynamics of the male anatomy. Face to face penetration is physically improbable between men and certainly not preferred. Now, here's the verse in Hebrew: וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תֹּועֵבָה הִוא׃ Now, what's all this mean~? It's a grammatical monster with no punctuation and irregular grammar. A word-for-word translation would be something like this: Do not lie to rest with (shakab) mankind (zakar) as you'd have sex with (mishkab) women (ishshah) because it is disgusting (tow'ebah) Now why would any right-minded homosexual lie with a man as one would have sex with a woman~? Male bodies are nothing like female bodies. Perhaps it means that if a woman IDENTIFIES as a man, she is to be treated exactly like a man and therefore "laying to rest" with her as though she was a woman is an abomination unto HaShem. Back in the old days in the Middle East, people of the "Third Nature" were either hated, feared and rejected or considered sacred. Perhaps this law was to protect Hebrews of the Third Nature without idolizing them. However, over time and with the influence of other religions, perhaps this verse got distorted and turned into a means to persecute people of the Third Nature. Your argument falls apart in that it's ultimately an argumentum ad ignorantiam. To follow your line of logic, this is ancient Hebrew rather than modern Hebrew, we don't speak Hebrew as Moshe did, therefore, we must take the antiquated interpretations for granted. This Catholic reasoning runs counter to Maimonides' law, which is that if science and our five senses contradict scripture, then it's only our understanding of scripture that's at fault. HaShem knows His people need to eat. That's why he never made any commandments against eating -- only eating certain foods. Similarly, HaShem never forbade having sex -- only having a three-way between your niece and a goat. Now, following Maimonide's law, if a certain act which is traditionally seen as a desecration is actually vital to some people, we need to take a second look at that text. Argument in a nutshell: If the Halakha forbids homosexuality and homosexuality is ingrained and pervasive to some Jews, then Halakha is imperfect. If Halakha is imperfect, then HaShem, who gave us the Halakha, must not be imperfect. HaShem is perfect, therefore, Halakha must be perfect, ergo, Halakha must not condemn homosexuality and therefore it's only our ignorance of ancient Hebrew that makes us think that way. Don't like it, there's always Chasid Lubavitch. First off I love how you throw around big words, its lots of fun. You actually completely ignored my argument as over the generations since its original writing jews have had constant commentators over the years to translate the old testament for us. Further the concept of modern hebrew is just that, modern, as in less then 70 years old. Ergo our translations of the text are in fact accurate as we know the correct original translation. Your argument in a nutshell died before you started if you read my last comment about Shichas Zerah aka no orgasm for men if its not intended for procreation (yes the rabbis over the years have given some leeway but in geenral it would stand) Ergo your argument of homosexuality being ingrained to the point of the impossibility to not actually have sex with men falls against the additional point that something even more basely ingrained in humanity is outlawed. The logical conclusion is one of several answers: A) Humanity has the ability to overcome base urges like sex and live a life of abstinence, sadly the Bible seems to beleive gays should lead these lives. B) As Jews believe we are actually on a different spiritual level there can be an argument that those who are truly gay are actually non-jews who beleive they are jewish through a mixup in there family tree. (I know its a stretch) C) (my preferred argument) We don't live in a time of Bes Din that has power for a reason, we believe the world is arguably approaching the 49 gate of tumah and as such the nature of the world becomes changed. If the nature of the world is changed and only god can judge us, then it is up to god and not man to determine weather or not someone can overcome there own impulses. If this offends anyone my apologies I have that effect on people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:01 pm
Scion, I wasn't ignoring your arguments so much as reading very generous assumptions into them. Quote: over the generations since its original writing jews have had constant commentators over the years to translate the old testament for us. Further the concept of modern hebrew is just that, modern, as in less then 70 years old. Ergo our translations of the text are in fact accurate as we know the correct original translation. Now you're turning this into an argumentum ad antiquitatem. How old the commentary is and who made it ultimately affirm the validity of the interpretation. These commentaries, as you point out, do give us insight into the ancient language. However, Maimonides' law still applies. Quote: A) Humanity has the ability to overcome base urges like sex and live a life of abstinence, sadly the Bible seems to beleive gays should lead these lives. In Hebrew society, only the priest class was ever encouraged explicitly to remain celibate. For everyone else, sex was a mitzvah. Let's just face it, after the priest class went extinct, Jews had no concept of celibacy, except as a barbaric goyish practice. The great Jewish philosopher Lenny Bruce explained that that's why ******** is no worse a word to a Jew than s**t is. Here's my challenge: how can you reconcile your supposed traditionalism with abstinence~? Quote: B) As Jews believe we are actually on a different spiritual level there can be an argument that those who are truly gay are actually non-jews who beleive they are jewish through a mixup in there family tree. (I know its a stretch) I'm starting to take offense at an obvious schkutz like you telling me what Jews believe. However, I'll humor you. To say that a level of spirituality can override a physical condition goes WAY against Maimonides' law. By this same logic, a Jewish man with diabetes, if he was truly Jewish, would never have to give himself a blood test on the Shabbes. After all, what's a little thing like medical necessity against the will of HaShem~? Now that I know you're probably another Christian troll, I'll explain to you that medical necessity trumps Jewish law. If you have to ride in an ambulance, you ride it. If you have to sign hospital papers, you sign them. It doesn't make you any less of a Jew. It only means you might live a long, honorable Jewish life. Homosexuality is not an illness, but it is a physical condition. If I felt like doing all your research for you, I'd show you all the recent scientific studies which pretty much bring the debate to a logical halt. Quote: C) (my preferred argument) We don't live in a time of Bes Din that has power for a reason, we believe the world is arguably approaching the 49 gate of tumah and as such the nature of the world becomes changed. If the nature of the world is changed and only god can judge us, then it is up to god and not man to determine weather or not someone can overcome there own impulses. Figures your preferred argument would be batshit. Let me run you through that sex education you missed while you were listening to your pastor. The post-pubescent male body creates sperm on a monthly basis. As the semen ages and goes bad, the male reproductive system becomes sore and the hormones become unbalanced, making the male irritable. The only solution is to discharge the semen before the male system overflows with rotting semen. The male may discharge said semen by either masturbating or getting laid. The body may even spontaneously orgasm in what's called a "wet dream" if the male in question does neither. Science and Judaism cannot be divorced. The day science and Judaism get divorced is the day all sane and reasonable people will leave the faith and the world will be stuck with Chasid Lubavitch. That's why we have Maimonides' law, which is taught in every reputable Yeshivah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:47 pm
Firstly I apologize all the quotes in quotes is confusing as hell for me.
Once again you mention my argument is "argumentum ad antiquitatem" without explaining why. You mentioned that the text could be translated against modern Hebrew I gave a basis for how we have a truer definition based on a more time appropriate understanding. How is this illogical?
1) Although you raise a great point with the "prew orivew (be fruitful and multiply)" halachah you are wrong in that there is no class told not to procreate, in fact woman have the right to demand sex from her husband on a semi regular basis (for more info ask your rabbi, but yes in jewdiasm women have complete control of sex and halachically always have)
Abstinence exists in absolutely zero forms throughout jewdiasm, I layed the claim if someone was disgusted by women and was only attracted to men they could chose sex with neither (arguably, I'm not saying this as fact I was raising the argument for conjecture as I care little of the outcome of the conversation)
2) I love the term Shkutz, I've honestly never been called that. Actually, I'm ffb raised frum but again I enjoy your assumptions. You raised a list here for me to respond I will attempt each point in order.
a)To say that a level of spirituality can override a physical condition goes WAY against Maimonides' law. By this same logic, a Jewish man with diabetes, if he was trul If you have to sign hospital papers, you sign them. It doesn't make you any less of a Jew. It only means you might live a long, honorable Jewish life.
I'm very familiar with the concept that life threatening situations override all halachos except the big three. However if your gay and don't sleep with men is your life somehow endangered? Straw men only get you so far.
b) Homosexuality is not an illness, but it is a physical condition. If I felt like doing all your research for you, I'd show you all the recent scientific studies which pretty much bring the debate to a logical halt.
Again, I'm not arguing the science of it I'm saying if someone was gay they could chose to be abstinent if they were trying to keep the torah. They could argue that science protects them and as I said in comment #3 of my previous post its for god to judge not me.
3) Some wonderful ideas you push forward. I would truly love to see this scientific study as I am loving the idea of scientific proof that masturbation is healthy. Meanwhile over on reality's side of the fence I will maintain that not jacking off will not cause any lasting harm nor will it automatically produce a wet dream.
Science and the Torah do not argue as jews we simply believe further question mean we need to examine all sides more carefully. However, as a rule whenever someone says to ignore something straight out of the Kitzer Sholchon Orech we say they overstepped their bounds. You mean well but you have to realize you have a long way to go.
Oh regarding my reference to what I was referring to of different spiritual levels brush up on your Ramban and Rashi its a pretty common concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:56 am
Quote: I would truly love to see this scientific study as I am loving the idea of scientific proof that masturbation is healthy. It's not just masturbation but sex in general. Imagine if the male reproductive system never discharged its semen. Note that semen is mostly comprised of sugar, no matter how bitter it may taste to you. Now, what does sugar do in a place that's dark and often rather warm when it's left there for long periods of time~? Don't worry, I won't keep you guessing -- it ferments. Just imagine what would happen to the entire male body of there was this bit of sugar sitting there, fermenting in his lower body. Needless to say, he'd get REALLY sick. Now, what would you do about it~? Of course, you'd get all that rotten semen out in the least invasive way. Hm. . . the only thing to figure out is how to get semen of a man. Well, obviously, it would be a sexual act and in this case, it would be very inconsiderate for the sexual act to be done with a woman. Now, with all this in mind, why would scientists need to waste and funding on a study to prove that sex (including masturbation) is healthy~? Because of the jerk wads who think that semen is made out of some kind of magic. Semen is NOT made out of magic. It's mostly ******** SUGAR, damn it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:15 am
Wow, that analogy was wonderfully inaccurate. Aside from the fact that living sugars don't decompose while the host is alive without an outside agent semen is also made of many vitamins and amino acids. Of course with your argument humans should turn brown and squishy in a matter of hours but seriously. Living anything don't decompose unless that is part of their design. Does bark decompose? Its cell wall is made from cellulose, an undigestable and relatively solid sugar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:02 pm
MrPeriwinkle Wow, that analogy was wonderfully inaccurate. Aside from the fact that living sugars don't decompose while the host is alive without an outside agent semen is also made of many vitamins and amino acids. Of course with your argument humans should turn brown and squishy in a matter of hours but seriously. Living anything don't decompose unless that is part of their design. Does bark decompose? Its cell wall is made from cellulose, an undigestable and relatively solid sugar. I think I just got a bit dumber from reading your s**t. Of course semen has amino acids. So does hair but hair is still mostly protein. Oy gevault. Furthermore, you think that the sugar in the living body just MAGICALLY acts different from the sugar in, say, your tea~? It's actually enzymes that keep the sugar in our blood from decomposing. Since enzymes also decompose, our circulatory system has to constantly make new enzymes to make up for that. The human body CONSTANTLY decomposes and revitalizes itself, as do all living bodies. Semen, however, is not blood. It's isolated from the circulatory system in the male reproductive system. This means that, in order for it not to just rot in you, it has to circulate somehow. The only way for it to circulate is for it to be discharged in what we call an orgasm. If you don't like that, take it up with HaShem. I'm sure He doesn't quite have enough bible thumpers complaining to Him about how He does things. Now please, please, please learn your science before trying to argue science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:40 pm
Dr. Awkward MrPeriwinkle Wow, that analogy was wonderfully inaccurate. Aside from the fact that living sugars don't decompose while the host is alive without an outside agent semen is also made of many vitamins and amino acids. Of course with your argument humans should turn brown and squishy in a matter of hours but seriously. Living anything don't decompose unless that is part of their design. Does bark decompose? Its cell wall is made from cellulose, an undigestable and relatively solid sugar. I think I just got a bit dumber from reading your s**t. Of course semen has amino acids. So does hair but hair is still mostly protein. Oy gevault. Furthermore, you think that the sugar in the living body just MAGICALLY acts different from the sugar in, say, your tea~? It's actually enzymes that keep the sugar in our blood from decomposing. Since enzymes also decompose, our circulatory system has to constantly make new enzymes to make up for that. The human body CONSTANTLY decomposes and revitalizes itself, as do all living bodies. Semen, however, is not blood. It's isolated from the circulatory system in the male reproductive system. This means that, in order for it not to just rot in you, it has to circulate somehow. The only way for it to circulate is for it to be discharged in what we call an orgasm. If you don't like that, take it up with HaShem. I'm sure He doesn't quite have enough bible thumpers complaining to Him about how He does things. Now please, please, please learn your science before trying to argue science. In this world of your does hair decompose too? And why can't the human body either a) let the sperm that are currently created become weak until they are replaced (much like the blood in our body) or simply become useless over time? How long does it take exactly before your body "forces" a wet dream? I'm not pretending to speak for anyone here but it is possible to go a rather extended period of time (unless of course I am some freak of nature) Gen 38:8-10 Read Rashi, your clearly right because masturbation is a new invention and people wouldn't realize when they had wet dreams. (btw you can reference a special tefillah your supposed to say should that happen) Again please reference me some real scientific article because I find this theory of yours amazing. Oh if you didn't realize Mr Periwinkle is my old mule from before I gave away all my items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:36 pm
Yes, hair and skin follicles decompose, which accounts for the existence of most dust. I cannot believe I had to tell you that.
Now, for your questions about why the semen can't just sit and "weaken", here's one answer:
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA297851
This, though not a study in and of itself, elaborates further on the points I've been trying to make:
http://www.collectivewizdom.com/BenefitsofMasturbation.html
And finally, the New Scientist Magazine article on the Australian study:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3942-masturbating-may-protect-against-prostate-cancer.html
Don't blame me if you can't understand all of this. You asked for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:02 pm
Dr. Awkward Yes, hair and skin follicles decompose, which accounts for the existence of most dust. I cannot believe I had to tell you that. Now, for your questions about why the semen can't just sit and "weaken", here's one answer: http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA297851 This, though not a study in and of itself, elaborates further on the points I've been trying to make: http://www.collectivewizdom.com/BenefitsofMasturbation.html And finally, the New Scientist Magazine article on the Australian study: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3942-masturbating-may-protect-against-prostate-cancer.html Don't blame me if you can't understand all of this. You asked for it. Study #1 shows masturbation decreases odds of prostate cancer. I'm sure a wonderful study and I can find six more showing how everything from squid to pineapples to the same thing. Doesn't say a thing about how it will happen automatically. In fact the basis for the study is that masturbation is required because the body doesn't do it naturally. Study #2 more wonderful benefits of masturbation. Once again, masturbation is something that must be actively performed or horrible things will happen to you. Your body doesn't so it on its own. Study #3 more of the same, but this time in Australia! yay! Once again you ignored my argument and brought in facts that are irrelevant to the argument or lightly support my side of the argument... Are you sure you heard that your body MUST ejaculate regularly or will do so without external stimulus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
