Yes, I finally came to realize this afternoon that those pesky definitions are getting in the way again. I’d like to discuss “improper” instead of “proper,” since that’s where my thoughts have been.

I think I’m using “improper” to mean “wrong” (see #3 in this thread), since it is soon followed by “misplacement” in the article you linked to. I think BillT and Victoria view “improper” in this context to mean something like “non-standard” or perhaps “abnormal.” Looking back, yeah, I missed that.

I would not typically use the words “improper” or “wrong” to describe the use of a book as a door stop. I doubt any books were designed to be door stops, but most can certainly serve that purpose. I would have no problem calling that a non-standard use of a book, only treading into “wrong” territory if it were a book that in my opinion should not be put on the floor and used as a door stop. (Bibles and wedding albums quickly come to mind.)

So, if “improper” is a synonym for “non-standard” in the article, I’m fine with that and I can move on and ask my next question about the article. If, on the other hand, “improper” is a synonym for “wrong” in the article, I’d still like to know why.

You might be interested in this:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/advertising-standards-authority.html

Do you think same-sex acts are proper, and what does that word mean?

You keep pressing on the question of “improper,” and I suspect the impasse you feel here has to do with lack of definition of terms. I’d like to know what “proper” means to you so I can get a sense of what its negation means to you.

The Biblical position on this is categorically and unequivocally that sexual intimacy is designed by God to be between a man and a woman (and consenting adults at that), in the context of a monogamous lifelong committed union. The design intent is (and this is made clear in Scripture) for his and her mutual pleasure, a physical expression of the love they have for each other, and to potentially produce children (under the appropriate conditions, obviously).

How would your criterion deal with an infertile married couple, for example? Nobody (not even in the Bible) would consider their intimate acts improper.
What about extramarital sex (adultery, for example), or rape? Why do we frown on the former, and prosecute the latter?

Man and woman are deliberately designed for each other in this way (see Genesis 1 and 2) – this is God’s design ideal for us; because of the Fall (see Genesis 3), this design ideal has been corrupted, which is something we all have to deal with in one way or another. However, the way to deal with any sin is to take hold of God’s offer of redemption and restoration, not to redefine it as OK.

Did you miss “(And I think “improper” in this case can be understood as not in keeping with the original intent of Act A.)”?

When you compare the significance of the child producing effect of Act A and compare to the other uses it becomes apparent that the practice of the other uses exclusively, without the child producing effect, are outside of the original intent as those other uses were only secondary to the child producing effect. It promotes the secondary use to primary status.

It’s one of the problems with all extra marital “Act As”. It puts the secondary uses in a primary position. It also removes the context of commitment with an act of ultimate intimacy. When intimacy exceeds commitment it’s called “using someone”.

When the community realized that Act A produced children it enlightened the community to the reality and importance of Act A. Thus, male-male or female-female Act A was shown to be “improper”.

I can definitely understand that Act A is important because it produces children. No disagreement there. I’ll even grant that Act A between members of the same sex is not important at all, since it only produces pleasure, not children. But I don’t see how it follows that Act A between members of the same sex is improper, simply because it doesn’t fulfill the admittedly all-important child producing requirement.

Victoria, I agree with your statement on the design norm. Are you suggesting that sexual activities outside that design norm are improper, and if so, why?

I am trying to determine if the assertion is something other than “sexual acts that don’t produce babies are improper.”

No. I already explained that. But you seem to be intent on putting the most tortured explanation possible to this and ignoring both what the author and I have said so, have at it.

Aren’t you leaving out the entire point of the thought experiment and viewing the above in isolation.

Yes.

So, is the argument for the author’s fourth point that sex acts which cannot result in children are improper? If so, let’s take a thought experiment where there are males and females, and they only pleasure each other in male-female pairs. Somehow they’ve only learned to do this in ways that do not result in children, such as inserting the male organ in slot A or B of the female (but not slot C), or by the male manually stimulating slot C of the female.

Assuming they eventually figure out how to produce children, would they then realize those previously used methods of pleasuring their partner are improper? Would you prefer they stop using those other methods, or does putting them in the category of foreplay make them ok?

Aren’t you leaving out the entire point of the thought experiment and viewing the above in isolation. When Act A was simply a pleasurable exchange it was not especially significant to the community nor did exclusivity or nonexclusively of those performing Act A change the dynamics of the community. When Act A produced children it radically changed the community dynamics and the perception of Act A. When the community realized that Act A produced children it enlightened the community to the reality and importance of Act A. Thus, male-male or female-female Act A was shown to be “improper”.

(And I think “improper” in this case can be understood as not in keeping with the original intent of Act A.)

It makes me think that perhaps the timing of the incarnation, in the grand scheme of things, was perfect. Just musing here…

Well, Paul did say in Galatians 4:4-5NASB that “when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law…”

I think the analogy would be better if it was more than “a death”. Jesus was publically put to death in a state-sanctioned execution. I think for the analogy to work, that would have to be part of it.

But I wonder, with all of our abilities to fake things these days (special effects, stunts, hoaxes), and the level of cinicism and distrust that pervades at least western society, whether anyone today would raise an eyebrow. It makes me think that perhaps the timing of the incarnation, in the grand scheme of things, was perfect. Just musing here…

The other criticism I have heard is “If the police were faced with a similar situation today: a death, a missing body, and people adamantly claiming to have seen the person again, the police would not say ‘Oh, in that case, God must resurrected him’. They’d be ridiculed for saying it, so why is it different in the case of Jesus?”

Fourth, now that they see what their bodies and urges are for, the members of the community understand that their earlier acts were in fact an improper use of their bodies and a misplacement of their longings.

Can someone present the argument in support of that fourth point? I assume I’m not being generous when I present it like this:

– Act A, when performed by people A (male-male or female-female), does not make babies.
– Act A’, when performed by people B (male-female), makes babies (at least sometimes).
– Therefore, Act A performed by people A is wrong, or “improper.”

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing