Norman Pittenger published his book, “Time for Consent- A Christian’s Approach to Homosexuality” in 1976. Historically, in this year, the United States repealed its sodomy laws in California. Although it is one state out of fifty, its effects were quite phenomenal. In the eighteenth century, certain sexual acts were deemed unnatural. According to Foster, “Puritans had viewed sexuality as potentially dangerous unless expressed within the confines of marriage and directed toward its proper ends the reproduction of Christian heirs and the strengthening of marriage bond”. At first, when analyzing the title, I immediately thought I would be reading about another negative approach or misconception about homosexuality or sodomy. However, to my
…show more content…
Qidd. 29b). I am not Jewish so I do not utterly understand their doctrine; however, to my standards of living, that doctrine is not a “sin”. Likewise, to Pittenger, a woman who is to be obligated to bear children and establish one’s femininity by marrying a man and devoting oneself to wifely duties and does not follow this norm is not …show more content…
But he still left the readers to answer whose problem is it? He asserts that, for homosexuals, there is nothing problematic about their own natural feelings, only about society’s attitude to them. For instance, he states that most heterosexuals are very ready to communize men who look for sexual encounters in public restrooms without stopping to thoroughly reflect that this medium is their only way of pleasure since society has made their other approaches difficult. Third, I found one of Pittenger’s attitudes about homosexual relationships soothing in a sense. In reference to the male lovers mentioned before, Pittenger was astounded whenever the male lovers would disappear from sight, people would give each other ‘knowing looks” (Pittenger 36). He despised this behavior exhibited by church goers. He seems to regard homosexual acts of promiscuity as indifferent from heterosexuals. He allows his audience to realize that permanent relationships are what everyone yearns for and homosexuals should not be deprived of this
Qidd. 29b). I am not Jewish so I do not utterly understand their doctrine; however, to my standards of living, that doctrine is not a “sin”. Likewise, to Pittenger, a woman who is to be obligated to bear children and establish one’s femininity by marrying a man and devoting oneself to wifely duties and does not follow this norm is not …show more content…
But he still left the readers to answer whose problem is it? He asserts that, for homosexuals, there is nothing problematic about their own natural feelings, only about society’s attitude to them. For instance, he states that most heterosexuals are very ready to communize men who look for sexual encounters in public restrooms without stopping to thoroughly reflect that this medium is their only way of pleasure since society has made their other approaches difficult. Third, I found one of Pittenger’s attitudes about homosexual relationships soothing in a sense. In reference to the male lovers mentioned before, Pittenger was astounded whenever the male lovers would disappear from sight, people would give each other ‘knowing looks” (Pittenger 36). He despised this behavior exhibited by church goers. He seems to regard homosexual acts of promiscuity as indifferent from heterosexuals. He allows his audience to realize that permanent relationships are what everyone yearns for and homosexuals should not be deprived of this