What is Reddit's opinion of The Latin Sexual Vocabulary?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I highly recommend The Latin Sexual Vocabulary by Adams. He gives a very thorough and academic review of everything "improper" in Latin. As an example, there's an entire chapter dedicated to the various words used for "butthole."

Truth! Although, you need to pick up this book. It's J. N. Adams' The Latin Sexual Vocabulary and it's pretty much all that we do know from dirty poetry, the words that have come down through various Romance languages, and graffiti. Although, according to Adams, breasts weren't quite so shocking and thus there aren't really any "naughty" terms for them. So, as you've already found, mamma and mamilla are the primary terms. Uber was the more "formal" term.

But yeah, also you were right. Ars Gratia Mammarum or Ars Gratia Mamillarum.

You will probably find everything you need right here: J.N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Or read some Catullus and Martial...

Ok this is LONG, and I am agnostic so please read this with that understood. Not all of the views are mine but I have attempted to understand the view points instead of trying to crush them with my own opinions.

>How can these people honestly say that they're being a force for good in this world?

Can you define "good" for me?

>they used the bible to support their cause, stating that their side is the "biblical" side of the issue. Looking back at those issues, we know these people had a severely distorted view of the bible. The same will be true with this issue.

Are you saying no "good" has ever been done in the name of the bible?

>I think because of the name, people simply associate homosexuality with sex

What is the definition your going off of? The dictionary defines it as: "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex." Seems to me its sort of right in the definition.

>Even if you are ashamed of how you feel, you are still homosexual. Even if you pretend to be straight your whole life, you are still homosexual.

Im not sure I agree fully with this but I understand the argument. Does that mean tho that if you were with only men as a man that is attracted to females that you are really straight? What about the people over at /r/pegging? They are men who are having anal penetrative sex from woman, are they gay? My point is your view on sexuality seems to still be a black and white spectrum and that just isnt the case. Source

>Sin is the word we use in religion for when somebody does something wrong.>

>sin/sin/ Noun:
An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. Verb:
Commit a sin.

Thats the definition that I am working on would you agree?

>Therefore, in order to sin, you must choose to do the wrong thing over the right thing.

Nope you can unknownly sin, choice factors no where into it. Choice only becomes involved once you understand the sin and choose to continue but does nothing to remove the sin.

>As we just established, homosexuality is not a choice. Therefore it can not be a sin.

See above. You established nothing, you provide no source, all you did was state an opinion. That is not establishing anything.

> An "act" of homosexuality is a way for a gay person to show their love to their partner, just as an "act" of heterosexuality is the way for a straight person to do the same. The difference between the two is simply their sexual orientation. So why is a straight "act" okay, but yet a gay "act" not okay?

Ok so lets change the word "homosexuality" with "beastiality" or "pedophiles". Does this mean that as long as the guy really loves his goat, or a 5 year old and cant help but love them we should allow them to be married? You cant propose in one breath that love isnt a choice and than decide that it is after it no longer meets your needs.

>As we just explained how sexual orientation can not possibly be viewed as a sin, your argument falls apart.

But as I explained how it can be does that mean yours falls apart? No, you still have some valid opinions but Im getting there.

>The key word here is "abomination". In the original language and context, the word that we have translated as "abomination" was referring to something that went against the traditions of the society, and as such was viewed as unacceptable, unclean, and shameful, and was therefore forbidden under the law, and in this case, a capital crime. The important thing to note, however, is that the word being translated to "abomination" in this context is not referring to morality. It does not mean sin. This is important. So while homosexuality was viewed as unacceptable in that culture, it was not defined as a sin.

The old saying is "Give a Man Enough Rope and He’ll Eventually Hang Himself" Im very interested in arguing this point but would like to know your source. With out that we are back to arguing what you feel, and as important as that is to you, its just a hill of beans to everyone else.

>These people did not have a modern definition of homosexuality. They didn't understand that it was possible for a person to love someone of the same sex.

This part was very interesting to me. Are you saying that people of that era (which you dont say but I am guessing means Jessus or before?) had 0 people world wide living in homosexual relationships? If thats the case when, in your expert opinion did homosexuality become a "thing"?

I agree they didnt have the term, but there are plenty of extra-biblical sources that discuss gay males. Are you saying you havent heard or seen any of them?

Source 1 Source 2

Give them a read.

>This is one of hundreds of traditional laws the early Israelites put in place that christians no longer follow. If christians are so willing to ignore the hundreds of other traditional laws, why not this one?

FYI most of the laws your talking about are from the OT and many Christans believe that Jesus's birth was a changing of directions as pointed out in Romans 7:6 "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Just an FYI.

>As you can see, Paul uses the term "shameful lusts"

"God gave them over to shameful lusts" I dont think Paul is talking about a lack of love, he is talking about a punishment God thought worthy of evil doers. Kind of like he made them have gay sex he was so mad at them, because its such a shameful act!

>the word sometimes translated as homosexuality in these passages is simply a generic Greek word for sexual sin [...] Greek culture of the time was far more accepting of homosexuality as being a natural phenomenon

Source?

>Some people also reference passages where examples are made of male and female marriages. These have nothing to do with homosexuality whatsoever. As male/female marriage was a social expectation, it would make no sense to refer to marriage in any other way, so the fact that they refer to marriage in the way they did is not in any way evidence against gay marriage. In fact, the bible gives many examples of types of marriages which would be illegal in much of the world today.

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Seems rather cut and dry to me? How are you interpreting that?

>The banning of homosexuality has no secular purpose. As such, it violates the establishment clause in the first amendment to the constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional.

There are benefits given to married men and woman that are given with the expectation that they are going to contribute to the future of the human race via reproduction (not the case 100% of the time but it was generally given to promote familys). To give those benefits to people unable to contribute in the same way is punishing the people that are receiving them and contributing.

>Never assume anything about the bible

Ahh the only part of your post I can agree with.

>You are celebrating that they don't have the freedom to marry the one they love, and as I said, how in the world can that possibly be considered "Christ like"?

No they are fighting to protect what they hold dear. This isnt a we hate you, so you cant get married. It is a "we" have been instructed by "our" deity that this is immoral, and against nature. Arent you attempting to "belittling others and making them feel inferior" with this post?