In honour of Saint Patrick's Day, I have this to say, "suck on this lollipop!" towards the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of all the West, in regards to his recent statements (CNN/NPN) on HIV/AIDS prevention while preparing to pontificate across Africa: "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms,....On the contrary, it increases the problem." This can no longer be an issue of birth control or the abstinence only education, let alone an issue from a civil matter of pre/extra-marital sex. This is an issue of medical safety and prevention of a deadly disease that ravages innocents and children. This archaic principled stand no longer applies and therefore either needs to be revised in its implications toward the normal believer and better explained to the non believer.
If condoms cant prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, then when someone has the audacity to cover the Chair of Saint Peter and the Throne at St. John Lateran Basilica in latex, or melted plastic, the Pope would still be able to speak "from the Chair", or Ex Cathedra, on faith and morals, and have it be infallible, even though his ass would be prevented from making the necessary contact pointe with the relics inside in order for his mouth to proclaim such ejaculations and declarations. If it is not the case then:
a. the teaching that condoms prevent the marriage covenant from being ritually entered into and perpetually consummated need to be revised
b. the Church needs to be responsible to the believers and allow them to make a fully formed choice of conscious decision
c. someone should ball gag the Pope, unless he is speaking within his role as the head of the College of all the Bishops, and not just the Roman ones either.
I am not going to say the overall teaching/advocacy is wrong, it is just incomplete, as it presumes no one has premarital sex, and everyone lives by the same standard of morals and ethics, and fails to account for the reality of human nature when offering instruction based on those teachings. It is time for the ideal to get serious about reality and provide a reputable answer not just a set of lofty dreams. The Roman Catholic Church's teaching against any sex outside of the marriage covenant as a violation or in error is the principle motivation behind all other doctrine and dogma. This is also why the Roman Catholic Church teaches against masturbation, anal sex, as deficient, and the obvious, homosexuality, as objectively disordered to the "ideal" of the marriage covenant. Even regardless of the fact that there is a long history even within Scripture of homosexuality not being demonized by God, just the politicians and religious leaders who later translated Scripture twenty times over to their own desires.
EDITORIAL ADVISORY: Before you read any further, please understand that, anal sex, while enjoyable when done correctly (Gay Tel Aviv), is still technically at its psychological base an act primarily of domination; and medically speaking, when done without extra care and condoms, medically dangerous to the human body. Unlike most in the GLBT Community would declare today, anal sex, as part of male same gender intimacy, was not always the reason for the achieved climax in every culture. I have previously spoken about frottage on F6, and provided those anthropological resources in the original publication medium, regarding the larger Male With Male Intimacy group members, whom don't necessarily always define as part of the GLBTIQAS Community, but still love men romantically and sexually. QUICK LINKS: [G0Y] [M2MA]
THE STORIES OF DAVID AND JONATHAN
We know without a doubt, by King Saul's own words, that King David and Prince Jonathan were bound lovers in some capacity and formula. The sexual acts recorded between them is questionable, all we know from Scripture is that they were naked, embraced, crying, and kissed at three separate times, which is descriptive of mutual masturbation or frottage in one account of record alone.
Censored Sex Scene: Sordid Lives: Jason Dottley & Ted Detwiler
Scripture never says they had anal intercourse, if they did or did not, the intimacy that is recorded in Scripture, would have looked something closer to this video segment above with Jason Dottley and Ted Detwiler in Sordid Lives The Series (F6 Previous Posts), except that it was out in the open in a field, or the equivalent of a public park today. But while the actual depth or detail of expression can be held in question, the intimacies and formation of the covenant between them can not and the fulfillment of said covenant after Jonathan's death in battle is undeniable in Scripture.
RITUAL PURITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS REGARDING ANAL SEX
The issue to keep in mind is the actual formation of the covenant and what is required: a mutual and equal tearing of flesh, shedding of blood, and exchanging of privileges and rights. This technically could happen during direct phallic to phallic touching or mutual masturbation. The penis is made up of blood and tissue which expands and pushes outward, thereby tearing in minuscule fashion the flesh, and shedding the blood through the skin, followed by the exchanging and intermingling of fluids, during the ritual magic of sexual intercourse. There are three things considered missing from a religious perspective during the formation of the ritual act when anal sex is used solely:
1. It is not typically mutual and equal unless a conscious effort has been made to maintain an equal respect between partners during the acts and there is a longer term association that bonds the friendship to brotherly love. This doesn't require a flip fuck every time but a reach around & switch up once in awhile would not hurt.
2. The ritual act itself cannot be memorialized during anal sex within effect because everything is removed afterward. In essence there is no lasting presence of action and it is not between seed or provides for an intermingling of life bearing fluids. That does exist when happening from the pointe of mutual masturbation specifically during close touch phalli to phalli frottage or dry humping, unless you're really flexible or have studied ballet and gymnastics.
3. For lack of a better phrase, the anus is not a source of life but the end of life, and therefore anal sex represents a "filthy covenant bond" not the beginning of a new bond or the continual celebration of that bond. It is similar to the idea within the Jewish Dietary Laws of not just of the prohibition in consuming bottom feeders or scavengers but in relationship to certain types of meat in clean animals eg: Kosher versus Non Kosher Beef, which is not allowed -Sirloin, Rump Roast, and Flank Steaks- to be consumed because they come after the digestive system and are therefore littered with toxins and diseases. (Source: Hebrew National)
4. The covenant must form between each party and their seed and their children. These are two separate clarifications they are and are not pseudonymous with each other in the text as a whole.
Even if I don't agree with their platform completely, the men over @ G0Y, detail this part in more simple statements so I will use their words, albeit modified slightly from the original with no threat intended:
So what if two men of legal age fell in love & want to merge their lives?
Due to the Hebrew man's right to contract at his coming of age - there was nothing to stop 2 Hebrew men from making covenant with each other & within those covenants expressing love & mutual care for each others family. They have the fundamental right to self determination & the mingling of their affairs with whom they choose. Unless a 3rd party has a legal interest (as would be the case of the father of a BRIDE) nobody has authority to encumber a contract made in good faith between 2 men.
It is all in King David's love-covenant with Prince Jonathan!
Two self-determining beings made in God's image wouldn't ask for permission for what is a fundamental right of contract! This is precisely what David & Jonathan illustrated with their love & subsequent covenants which is how, (from a legal standpoint,) the kingdom of Saul became David's; why David was able to probate it to Jonathan's son Meribbaal/Mephibosheth; and was the legal basis for David's adoption of Meribbaal/Mephibosheth & his family into David's
ALL THIS TALK @ KOSHER KINGDOMS LEADS TO OUR NEXT BITT OF BLARNEY!
The reason I bring this all up is because of the molten lava flow that has erupted like spurts of man jiz on the Gay blogosphere over the new show KINGS @ NBC on Sunday nights which is an alternative universe retelling of the Story of David from the Christian BIBLE. Surprisingly the Conservative Blogs are not upset about the inclusion of the interpretation that Jonathan was gay, or the Gays In The Military theme either, or they haven't figured out yet that it is a retelling of the story of King David.
Within the premiere 2 hour episode we specifically see the son confront his Father and King Silas affirming the sons sexuality as God given but in order for him to pass the throne to his son "Jack", pictured in the background below, played by Sebastian Stan (Covenant 2006), his son must "control it, press it to the ground, numb it with ice, but you cannot be what God made you, not if you mean to take my place" (54:30-56:30 mark). Here is the clip from NBC.
But no worries, because hell hath no furry like a Queen with a heel up her ass and a screwdriver in her hand. Gay bloggers went on the offensive though, because as Brent Hartinger @ After Elton put it, as a clear offense to the original story and the GLBT Community:
"Despite Kings’ claims that it is a “retelling” of David’s story, a gay love story is clearly not the direction the show is going. In other words, Michael Green, the creator of Kings, has chosen to keep the Bible’s likely-gay aspect of the character of Jonathan, but then turned him into a scheming villain, while at the same time, completely eliminating any “gay” element to the story’s primary hero, David."His review of the Jonathan character Jack can be synopsis with this text:
"....But in Kings, Jack is mostly a villain and a pretty stereotypically gay one at that: pretty and perfectly groomed, self-centered and vain, bitter and entitled, scheming, yet ultimately cowardly....He’s a rich, complicated character, but he’s still a bad guy,...competing for the affections of (his Father) the current King....there are several hints that Jack might be attracted to David, he seems to be motivated not by love, but by jealousy because David loves his sister, the princess, and not him."Michael Green the show's Creator had this to say in response to Mr. Hartinger's essay during an interview with Michael Jensen, After Elton's Editor:
“I think what you might be concerned about, or what your readership might be concerned about is that we’re playing into the cliché that the straight guy is great and the gay guy is evil, I don’t think we fall into that cliché at all. I think if you give us your time and attention, you’ll be very surprised at what both of those characters are capable of in the positive and in the negative sense. No one in our show is clearly good. No one in our show is clearly evil. They have far, far different journeys to go on."This is the pointe where the Queens come out to play and the rest of us sit back and go read the whole original story over again, starting at the end of the 17th chapter of 1st Samuel all the way through to the end of the 9th chapter of 2nd Samuel. Here is an excerpt of all the respective passages on F6's Feeds & Jump Page.
My goals are to take my characters and put them in the most interesting situation and then see how they behave, so I can’t give Jack any special protection because he’s gay or straight, I think that would be the more backwards way of looking at it....I am much more interested in Jack as a character who, if he had been brought up in a kinder family, might have been a kinder person. He might have been a happier person. But he was born into a family where the presumption is that power is an inherent good that you must want more of, and that colors his personality far more than his preferences.
LEARN SOME HISTORY @ THESE GAY LOVERS AND BLOOD BROTHERS
While still not denying the fact that David and Jonathan were bound lovers, the fact of the matter is that Jonathan fell in love with David, who is played by Chris Egan in the show, first. David also later married into the family with not one, but two of his sisters, so they were bound brothers by covenants of love to each other and in-laws by marriage. We know directly from sacred text, from King Saul's own mouth, that they were each others companions (1st Samuel 20:30-31). We also know from history that it is common in Mediterranean cultures for men who marry into a family to be considered brothers and not brothers in law of existing siblings. It is also normal practice in Mediterranean cultures for all the brothers to have a sexually intimate bond with each other, without necessarily being an engagement of anal intercourse.
If anything, what the show KINGS will do, is tell the story in, albeit more agonizing for certain Queer and Conservative commentators, an accurate time line of events and the scope of modern reality for many GLBT Youth and Young Adults, who struggle with coming out, only to find that everyone you were hiding it from already knew. Within the first episode you witness a Father agonize over his son and at the same pointe sacrifice in battle his other son who is gay and trying to hide such from himself, the world, and especially because of fear of and shame from his own Father.
FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO!
The BIBLE text as we know it lasted through ten major rewritings throughout the six thousand year history of the recorded history of humanity. Seven things to remember about Scripture are:
1. it is neither scientific nor historically accurate;Even with all of that, this unambiguous text regarding the bond of covenant love between a Crown Prince and his future King remains, along with the clarification by all the Major Prophets, and LORD Joshua-Emmanuel of Nazareth himself, that homosexuality didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
2. it was written by the victors of wars, by the leaders of people;
3. it is not linear in its time line or production;
4. it is a theological document which assumes GODs existence not trying to prove such;
5. it was written in the time of Kings Saul, David and Solomon etc. 1250-950 BCE;
6. it begins with segments in Exodus, at the Praise and Thanksgiving for Deliverance;
7. it underwent a major rewrite again while the Hebrews were in captivity in Babylon;
THE PROMISE OF THE RAINBOW
That is where the rainbow as a sign of the promise comes to intersect the lives of Gays and Lesbians and those of varied Faiths. May we one day both embrace not just our respective ends of the rainbow but recognize each other as equals worthy of love and being loved by others within its rays.
The story of David and Jonathan is not just an issue just of gay lovers or blood brothers, by a long shot, but of two young men who formed a bond so intense and passionate with each other, that the average mind cant contain it and the elite theologian reminisces to try to explain it away. The fact that we're still debating the full ramifications of their undeniable bonds of love, three thousand years later, that is a love that is eternal.