I used to take a very hard-line approach and say that homosexual acts were sinful, and that homosexual feelings were 'confused'. But after having listened in to a number of these debates I am firmly undecided!

What I know now is that Jesus died for all, not just the people that we like.

bb
 

how about condemning the real atrocities like marital rape or pedophilia, not, by the way, a homosexual problem as is commonly assumed, as any daughter who has been molested by a heterosexual relative will attest to.

like anything else, there's no easy way to categorize...you have to take each person individually, and hope they extend the same courtesy to you.

i think the issue is mostly a smokescreen...it's the finer details of interpersonal relationships that i imagine God is more concerned with...how much love did i offer? how much compassion did i extend?
 

quote:

---

BUT, where does he fit into Christ's church? Either he hides who he is and lives a closet life while in church or he just does not go to church.

---

This is the bit I never understand. I am heterosexual, but I don't consider it "Who I am". I don't feel any inclination to "come out" and tell everyone I'm heterosexual The thing is be the whole person that you are and don't fixate on that one part of you which is your sexuality.

I do believe homosexual activity is sinful, but I see a hundred other things that I do everyday as sinful too it's no more or less sinful than anything else and no less forgivable by Gods grace.

There is simply no point in shouting about homosexuality being sinful, as if we scare homosexuals away from the church then essentially it is US who have consigned them to hell.

In essence we should pardon the crime, as God does, we should forgive as Christ forgave, but surely the point is Christ forgave peoples sins? Not that he told them they hadn't actually sinned at all in the first place?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
The thing is be the whole person that you are and don't fixate on that one part of you which is your sexuality.

---

That is fine when things are going great. But when things are less than great then it can become the thing that defines you. The same is true for disabilities, skin colour etc.

Saying "don't fixate on one part of your life" just does not help! If that is the area that is causing grief then it needs to be addresssed. People need to find a way of living with themselves, otherwise it can cause massive problems for themselves and others.

bb

P.S. Matt, are you prepared to talk about anything other than sex and sexuality?
 

I'll be addressing the predestination thread at length at some point (You have been warned)
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I don't feel any inclination to "come out" and tell everyone

---

Maybe you're married(or will be one day) - strikes me as a pretty blatant way of telling people what one is. (Although, of course, not all married people are straight: it's a good cover!)

I have no desire to tell people what I am either (and, for what it's worth, I'm not sure I know!) but I do know that, whatever I am, and whatever sin it involves, God will be forgiving: good job, too. There are plenty of sinful married folk out there.
 

I was just reminded of a friend - a serious and capable theologian - who argued that God must have been gay, since no straight man could have thrown the sort of queeny fits evident throughout the Old Testament! All that smiting stuff is just too queeny for words, he insists!
 

Until she discovered the reason why she wasn't interested in men.

Well, she had been a hard-line anti-homosexual sort of Christian so this really devastated her. She tried hard not to be a lesbian, but that didn't work. So she tried hard not to be a Christian, and that didn't work either.

Eventually she gave up, and told God to sort it out. Which he did.

She is now a Christian and a lesbian. And she feels that God has accepted her as a Christian lesbian.
 

As homosexuality is so obviously against the teachings of the Bible, it is impossible to expect the church to condone it. That doesn't mean that on a pastoral level they shouldn't be accepted. "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone."
 

1) Fags are intrinsically evil and are all paedophiles anyway [I am a bigot]

2) Homosexuality is inconsistent with six passages in scripture [I am the Lambeth Conference]

3) Homosexuality is not part of God's ordained plan for loving relationships, which require the complementarity of male and female [I am a natural law nut]

4) Homosexuals in themselves are sinful [I am judgemental]

5) Homosexual feelings/people are not sinful, but homosexual acts are [I am a dualist]

6) Gays should not be ordained [I have no idea how many already are]

7) I think 2) really, but it isn't that big a deal [some of my best friends are gay]

8) It's all a gray area [I am David Hope]

9) The evidence for homosexuality being inconsistent with scripture is questionable [I have actually looked at context]

10) The argument for homosexuality being inconsistent with scripture is incorrect [I have a gloss and I know how to use it]

11) Male-female complementarity is not the only complementarity for relationships [I think natural law arguments are idiotic anyway]

12) Homosexuals are made that way [I have a clue]

13) Homosexuality is a choice [I've never talked to a gay person]

14) Homosexual people and homosexuality are as good or bad as hets and hettyness, and homosexuality as well as hettyness is to be celebrated as a gift from God [I am incarnationalist, hurrah]

15) Lets go shag whoever we want [I am a rebellious teenager]

===

On a slightly more serious note, please remember that you are talking about people and intimate parts of who they are. If you love someone, try and think about how you would feel if someone told you that your feelings for them were sinful or the result of a handicap, and were not proper love. This precious bond that you share with another person is being declared at best second-class. Be aware of this in your arguments; be sensitive to others' feelings.
 

Why is 4 judgemental?

If I add to it the statement "just the same as heterosexual people are sinful"?
 

18) The failure of the Church fully to engage with questions of homosexuality is really the failure the engage with issues of sexuality fullstop. Gays make useful scapegoats. [I've seen how uncomfortable people get debating this stuff].

FWIW, I'm 10, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 18.
 

Louise
 

Serious point: could Joan the Dwarf tell m e how context is supposed to show me that homosexuality may not be inconsistent with Biblical teaching ?
 

PaulTH is leading the pack at the moment, for classifying homosexuality as an 'incontrollable proclivity' akin to hypersexuality.

And I have to have a flouncy, queeny fight with Joan (by PM of course, so's not to titillate nasty hetty voyeuristic tendencies) because. Just because.

I do so hate being thought of as a primal creature directed by my native instincts. Celibacy, the ultimate demonstration against. Or is it just the catchphrase for peer rejection, undesirability and failure to get a pick-up on a Friday night?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sibling Coot:

PaulTH is leading the pack at the moment, for classifying homosexuality as an 'incontrollable proclivity' akin to hypersexuality.

---

Oh my, I missed that. Must be losing my touch

Mind you, that is a nice example of 18). I'm guessing the idea of "incontrollable [surely uncontrollable?] proclivity" comes from seeing all these homos banging on about wanting to be able to bang one another, and hets thinking "ooh, that's in such bad taste to talk about it". There is a failure to realise that if hets too were suddenly told it was sinful to have sex then it would sure as hell become important for them. A lot of the time gay people challenge straight ones because we are living proof of how important sexuality is for everyone - it's just that hets can get away with not thinking about it if they a) tie it up in 'acceptable' marriage, and b) cast gays into outer darkness.

quote:

---

And I have to have a flouncy, queeny fight with Joan (by PM of course, so's not to titillate nasty hetty voyeuristic tendencies) because. Just because.

---

Oh good grief no my dear, we're meant to be big butch dykes in biker jackets, don't you know. Nothing at all queeny, we leave that to the boys.
 

It's a sort of role-reversal thing like Violette le Duc dressing up in a male body stocking to come on to Jean Genet.

M'dear, I am of course, a dyke on a bike. (Do Vespa scooters qualify?) Excuse me, I have to apply some lippy. Where's my handbag?
 

Sieg

PS-darn it! Just broke a nail! Wouldn't you know?!
 

Where's that nice, young 'St. Whatisname' gentleman? We could parade around on the thread in a sort of online Mardi Gras.

(Come on, jemmi dear, all is forgiven... hop up onto the float... oh! and I see bicurious tedward in the distance)
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by calvin's granny:
Serious point: could Joan the Dwarf tell m e how context is supposed to show me that homosexuality may not be inconsistent with Biblical teaching ?

---

The Israelites were, at this point, a band of refugees wandering around the desert looking for a place to live. They were open to attack, and needed as many fighting men as possible. This meant they needed as many children as possible: men to fight, and women to bear children. So all men were to be encouraged to impregnate women.

This idea has merit, especially as it explains, for example, the existence of the cautionary tale of Onan, condemned for practising the withdrawal method. And given that soldiers tended to die relatively frequently, it would explain why polygamy was allowed, but not polyandry (one woman, many husbands), as well as the logic behind the Levirite marriage (if a man died childless, his brother was duty-bound to marry that man's widow).

So the context is a tribe in the desert, constantly under threat of attack. That context doesn't exist now, so (the argument goes) the ban on homosexuality is irrelevant.
 

quote:

---

This idea has merit, especially as it explains, for example, the existence of the cautionary tale of Onan, condemned for practising the withdrawal method.

---

To be fair, I don't think this story had any big social context. More simply Onan was dishonest to God. I think that's the sin that was committed surely?

Incidently, I have a friend who is bisexual..she has a boyfriend, but also simultaneously a sexual relationship with her best female friend. She insists both are essential and feel natural to her, and she could never possibly make up her mind which to choose if she had to choose between them.

What do people (particularly the "inclusives") think about this?

Matt
 

I would never ever under any circumstances have an intimate relationship with more than one other person. The emotional and sexual bond in what I feel to be the most intense and spiritual form would simply preclude that. Trust, openness and honesty could not survive for me in such a situation, which I feel are imperative in a relationship. I didn't think this in my hetero-repressed days (yes, I cheated on a boyf once), but having discovered what real, deep, spiritual and sexual love actually is this is now my opinion. Monogamy forever!
 

I should point out both the boyfriend her her female friend are aware of the situation, not only that, but my impression is the whole thing functions as a three-way relationship in fact. So there is not a question of "dishonesty" being at work here.

Incidently, no..I am not judgemental of her. As I said, this person is a friend, and I wasn't using the term with irony.
 

Sorry, Calvin's granny, the on-line Mardi Gras kind of obscured your qu.

There's much theological writing out there on the subject, so I'm only going to be able to summarize the arguments, rather than actually argue properly (that would take an even looooooonger post!). Further reading at the end.

The 'bible bullets' commonly used against gays are:

1) Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as you lie with a woman - that is detestable"

On a personal note, I have no problem with this. Lying with women is fine by me
More seriously, this is part of the Jewish Holiness Code. We are not Jews, we're Christians. As Paul says repeatedly, we don't follow Jewish Law (cf allowing in uncircumsised Gentiles as Christians in NT churches, Peter's dream about eating non-Kosher food "That which I have made clean you shall not call unclean", etc.).

2) Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestible."

Ditto as for 1). Also, look at verse 18:it prohibits sleeping with a woman during her period on the same terms. There's also prohibitions against wearing mixed fibre clothing. Anyone got a polycotton shirt on?

3)Genesis 18-19: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The sin isn't one of sodomy, it's about abuse of hospitality and gang-rape. If the men of Sodom were really raging raping pooftahs, would they have accepted Lot's daughter instead of his male guest and raped her until morning? Also, you have to talk very hard to try and get a prohibition against homosexuality out of a judgement against homosexual AND heterosexual gang rapes.

4) Deuteronomy 23:17: "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine-prostitute"
5) 1 Kings 14:24: "There were even male shrine-prostitutes in the landl the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites"
6) 1 Kings 15:12: "He expelled the male shrine-prostitutes from the land"

These all talk about prostitution rather than committed relationships, so say nothing about homosexuality per se.

7) Romans 1:26-17: "Even their women exhanged natural ralations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men"

Finally, something that talks about lesbians!
Paul in Romans is talking mainly to the Jews, and is showing how Christianity is a natural extension of Judaeism, and the law of love the successor to the law of Moses. He starts off by trying to puncture the Jews sense that they are justified by their works by showing that they don't follow even their own laws. Basically, he says: look at these nasty heathen who did all these things that Mosaic Law prohibits (that's the bit where the quote comes from), aren't they bad, oh by the way you're like that. He's using the Jews' ideas against themselves (remember, Paul was VERY well-trained theologically): it would need quite a lot of argument to show from this that he thought homosexuality was wrong.
Other points made are: Paul's talking about hets who do homo practices, ie go against their own natures. And he might be talking about the homosexual practices that went on in Pagan temples.

8) 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homsexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There is a translation problem here. The relevant bits are: male prostitutes, and homosexual offenders. The Greek is 'malakoi arsenokoitai'. 'Malakoi' means 'soft', but no-one knows what 'arsenokoitai' means - the meaning has been lost. 'Arsen' means 'male', and 'koites' means 'bed' or 'sexual intercourse', but there is no recorded use of 'arsenokoitai' before Paul, so we don't know to what it was referring - temple prostitutes, call-boys, child male prostitutes or what? Taking it to mean simply 'male homosexual' (again, there's nothing about lesbianism here) is a very large assumption. Here, the two words have been translated separately: malakoi as male prositiute, arsenokoitai as homosexual offender, but no-one really knows how to translate it.

9) 1 Timothy 1:9: "We know that law is made not for the righteous but for law-breakers and rebels... for adulterers and perverts,... and whatever else is contrary to sound the sound doctrine"

Again, this is the NIV translation. Again we have 'arsenokoita', translated in this passage as 'perverts'. See above.

10) Jude 7: "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion"

See 3). Also, Jude does not specify the perversion - it may be referring to the legend that the women of Sodom had sex with angels. Basically, Sodom became a byword for lust and perversion: how you can get from that to a prohibition on loving and monogomous homosexual relations where there is no compulsion or exploitation is beyond me.

AFAIK this is all the bible says that could possibly be interpreted as refering to homosexuality. Do let me know if I've missed anything.

FURTHER READING:
What the bible says about homosexuality

Difference is not a sin

Chapter 2 of 'Issues in Human Sexuality' by the House of Bishops, 1991.

Finally, here's a few other bible quotes to ponder:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." -- John 3:16

"God, who knows the heart, showed that He accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us." --Acts 15:8

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:28

"The voice spoke to him a second time, ' Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'" -- Acts 10: 15

"By your fruits will you know them" --- [can't remember]

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God." -- Romans 7:4

"The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery'...[etc]... and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: Love your neighbour as yourself."

And from the liturgy: "We are the Body of Christ; by one Spirit we were all baptised."
 

Matt, you seem to have a very naive view of liberalism. You're expecting a liberal to say "oh well, if she feels it's OK for her then that's all that matters", aren't you, and wave their limp wrists? That sort of a response is as much a cop-out as an evo response of "no, it's all wrong outside of marriage full stop" - they're the two extremes, whereas truth, as always, lies in the difficult middle ground.

How do we tell what's right? The best answer I've found (I can't off the top of my head remember where) is that we have to look at what forms of life lead to an increase in holiness and Christian living and love. In terms of relationships, do they bring people closer to God and an understanding of his love? Are they a blessing to the world around them?

I personally cannot imagine a relationship that is a blessing to the people involved and other people and is holy and God-centred but involves more than two people.
 

I have stayed out of these discussions before, being, I guess, a number 8!!

Review now underway.

I especially liked your gentle wrist-slap reminder at the end!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
If the men of Sodom were really raging raping pooftahs, would they have accepted Lot's daughter instead of his male guest and raped her until morning?

---

I think you are thinking of Judges 19, where an incident similar to Sodom occurs. In Sodom no daughters were raped - the men were struck with blindness. Both the Sodom and Gibeah stories seem to be meant to depict the absolute nadir of civilization.

And, Joan, I find it hard to accept your explanations of those various Bible verses. Whether or not you believe that homosexuality is wrong, attempting to reconcile it with the Bible is a fool's errand. It requires too many logical leaps and unorthodox assumptions to hang together.
 

As for a 'fools errand', well we disagree, fairly obviously. I think it's a fools errand to try and get a prohibition against loving, committed and monogomous homosexual relationships from the Bible as it doesn't talk about them anywhere. And BTW as I said these are not "my" arguments - I just summarised what many properly-trained theologians have argued in much greater detail.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

attempting to reconcile it with the Bible is a fool's errand. It requires too many logical leaps and unorthodox assumptions to hang together.

---

Unfortunately you have not backed this statement up. As I showed in my post, I think the unorthodox assumptions and logical leaps come in the attempt to prohibit homosexual relations from scripture. I'm now waiting for your refutation of these arguments...
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Unfortunately you have not backed this statement up... I'm now waiting for your refutation of these arguments...

---

Sorry. I tought they were obvious. This topic is just a little too scary for me. The anger is palpable.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Sorry. I tought they were obvious. This topic is just a little too scary for me. The anger is palpable.

---

Yes, I'm angry... sorry it showed. I'm angry that people dismiss biblical scholarship as "logical leaps and unorthodox assumptions". I'm angry that the arguments weren't taken seriously - do you really think I would have posted that long post if it was "obvious" that the arguments don't stand up? Freddy, I don't want to be angry over this, but I can't argue with non-arguments like "it's all silly and that's obvious". You may be a number 2, but that doesn't mean that's end of story, end of discussion. Back it up, and we can have a good, fruitful, non-angry discussion!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
why would Lot have offered his daughters in the first place if he knew the men only wanted other men?

---

just to throw in a classical perspective here...

the distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals was not one the Greeks found (i cannot speak for the Hebrews, but i thought an ancient viewpoint might throw some light on the matter). it was perfectly natural for middle-aged Greek men (with wives) to take young boys (just entering adulthood) for lovers in order to teach them. (unfortunately, we have very little evidence either way for women - sapho's poetry, but that's about it). as far as i am aware, the greeks did not believe that a person had a defined single sexuality. indeed, it seems to be a (relatively) modern construct.

the distinction the greeks made, in fact, was between (apologies for bad taste) penetrator and penetrated. the penetrated was always the "inferior" party.

if this kind of view was shared by the Hebrews, then there would be no problem with Lot offering his daughters instead - these men were perhaps not so much after sex with a particular sex, but rather just sex with whoever they could lay their hands on.

i dunno if that actually adds anything to the discussion or not, but hey-ho.
 

Sodom story has always interested me 'cos

1) God had decided to destroy the city before the inhabitants got round to wanting to 'know' Lot's guests

2) As angels do not have genitalia it's a dead end anyway

Right. Angry bit.

And just to whip back up the thread to the strange post

quote:

---

This is the bit I never understand. I am heterosexual, but I don't consider it "Who I am". I don't feel any inclination to "come out" and tell everyone I'm heterosexual

---

Shall we lay this one to rest now? It's heterosexuals, usually bigotted ones and sometimes well-meaning 'liberal' ones, who perpetuate the whole 'defining by sexuality' business. The responsibility for that waste of time is all with the breeders. I'm sure the gays of this world would be quite happy not to be defined by sexual orientation if only you lot would let them be. OK? To some, if sexual orientation is not hidden away safely in the closet it's being shouted from the rooftops. Perspective please!
 

Sorry should add an absence of digestive system to genitalia for angels as well.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Back it up, and we can have a good, fruitful, non-angry discussion!

---

Joan, I can understand your feelings. I would love to go through them point by point, but I'm afraid I haven't time right now. However, since these points have been dwelt on ad nauseum in other threads, it might be easy to just look them up. The assertions and counter-assertions about the Biblical view of homosexuality are fairly standardized at this point.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Rumwald:
angels do not have genitalia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Rumwald:
It's heterosexuals, usually bigotted ones and sometimes well-meaning 'liberal' ones, who perpetuate the whole 'defining by sexuality' business. The responsibility for that waste of time is all with the breeders. I'm sure the gays of this world would be quite happy not to be defined by sexual orientation if only you lot would let them be. OK? To some, if sexual orientation is not hidden away safely in the closet it's being shouted from the rooftops. Perspective please!

---

Emphasis added.

So are you painting all heterosexuals with the same brush or not? If you are, please don't. It's a violation of the Ship's third commandment.

RuthW
Purgatory host
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
So are you painting all heterosexuals with the same brush or not?

---

Erm, no. What a curious idea. I apologise unreservedly to the sane among the heterosexual community.

Angels & genitalia...

Surely you jest?

They would be entirely superfluous and redundant. God is not known for creating things with pointless parts to them (apart from the male part of humankind that is) Why one earth would they have them, having no need to reproduce? Are you arguing from not having specific references to them NOT having them?

I'm unaware of a single instance of their depiction or description with them or mention of them (though of course I can be- and usually am- proved wrong).
 

(that particular smiley means "my Bishop may be monitoring this site...)
 

Er, I'll go to bed now, shall I?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Rumwald:
Erm, no. What a curious idea. I apologise unreservedly to the sane among the heterosexual community.

---

In your extensive (and very helpful) list of biblical Homosexuality references, you missed Judges 19.

Which incidently wins my vote as one of the sickest passages of literature ever written..particularly as I'm not sure if the girl was dead or alive when she was cut into a dozen pieces....
 

Judges 19: It's Sodom revisited! Visitor in a town, whose people want to rape him. Visitor's host offers his concubine, they accept and rape her until morning and then killed her. Nice.

See comments on the Sodom story, it's the same thing again.

Also, one further comment to these stories: anyone who works with victims will tell you that rape is not about sex - it's about power and abuse. There are an awful lot of rape cases of men by heterosexual men.
 

Some rape is about sex. It's about sexual gratification from sadism.

Some is about power, as you say.

Some is almost political...like when soliders go raping and pillaging in wars.

Incidently, can you explain a little more fully your theory about Lot (and the judges thing) and what the sin being committed was? this whole hospitality thing?
 

Just when I thought the thread was getting fun again... St Sebastian. That's who I was thinking of. Last time he posted he was thinking of joining the Orthodox. Well there'll be no Mardi Gras there, let me tell you.

How resplendently butchy you look with the bowtie, JtD - just the thing to catch the Canon's eye.

Thankyou and Goodnight.
 

Why thankyou my dear Coot, I'm glad you like the tie *gives a distinctly unbutch blush* - do you really think she'll like it? And I must say your lipstick is looking perfectly wonderful today.

Oh my dear corpie, you shouldn't snap your handbag like that, you'll break a nail! Darling Sieg can tell you how utterly traumatic that is. But I must say you look divine in those heels (from a purely Platonic point of view, of course ).
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lizzabee:
where does he fit into Christ's church? Either he hides who he is and lives a closet life while in church or he just does not go to church. Should homosexuality and Christianity be that mutually exclusive?

---

I don't know what church you go to, but none of the services I've been to have required every member of the congregation to make public their sexual preferences.

"I shouldn't have to hide" isn't an excuse for shouting from the rooftops.

Not sure if this is on Joan's list of standard attitudes (?platitudes?) or not, but it seems to me not impossible to hold simultaneously the belief that God loves us all individually with the belief that homo and hetero are not equally valid "lifestyle choices".

Suppose I have sexual feelings for my sister. It doesn't mean that I'm bad, doesn't mean that I'm less moral than anybody else, doesn't mean that God rejects me, but also doesn't necessarily mean that I should try to force everybody else to accept that a sexual relationship between the two of us would necessarily be moral just because I want it.

If you're still not convinced, try substituting for "sister" any other inappropriate object of sexual feelings.

Russ
 

Thank you for your long and detailed replies to my questions on context. I'll try and post a reply in the next few days when I have time to consider your arguments thoughtfully

 

no comment on your message, but your signature was DEEPLY offensive. Everybody with a vaguest degree of insight knows that life is a game of cricket and God is an Englishman. After all, His Son played square leg for Lancashire.
 

"Hate the sin and love the sinner" is an excellent maxim, and I do indeed believe that this is what our attitude ought to be.

But I don't identify with your attitude #5, because it labels all homosexual acts as sinful, and this seems to me too simplistic.

I struggle with this, and don't have a fully-thought-out view, but it seems to me that it is choices rather than acts which are morally good or bad. It does not seem impossible that in some cases the best achievable outcome might be two people of the same gender setting up house together. Exactly what acts they get up to in the privacy of their own home is their business.

We're all broken people in our different ways. But let us not set up our brokenness as an ideal to which others should aspire.

It is the shouting about sexuality, the demands for equal status, the militancy which seems to me wrong, unloving, putting one's own feelings before the feelings of others. The Christian answer to persecution is not a counter-persecution. People with "old-fashioned" views are also to be loved and tolerated.

Babybear was right to say that "people need to find a way of living with themselves", but not at the expense of others. Becoming completely defined by some aspect of ourselves is something to be resisted.

Don't know if this answers Lizzabee's question...

Russ
 

quote:

---

What liberating words! NOTHING separates us from God. Not homosexuality, not disbelief in certain creeds, Bible passages, litanies or opinions of other believers. Not sin, not death, not anything. My fundamentalist friends, do you realize the freeing beauty of those words??? Nothing!! NOTHING! Will you take those words to heart? Will you believe the Holy Word Of God when it says NOTHING separates you from God??? Or will you continue to thump your Bible and point out all those who *you* believe have been separated from God?

---

The above is taken from the website whosoever.org that you linked to Joan, thanks for that.

A very good website it is too. Rational and balanced.

However, the above quote (which is her comment on the famous passage in Romans 8)seems to me to be performing a bit of slight of hand with the wording of the scripture.

Romans 8v39 says nothing can separate us from the love of God. This is a dramatically different thing to saying "nothing can separate us from God".

To use the parable of the lost son in Luke 15, the point is that the son was never separated from the father's love even thought he WAS separated from the father by his rebellion.

There is no contradiction at all, in saying "God loves homosexuals" and at the same time saying "homosexuals are in rebellion" than there is in saying "The Father loves his son" and at the same time saying "The son was in rebellion"

The writer ends up saying "Sin cannot separate us from God" but what is sin, but exactly that: "Separation from God"? Sin is the great devide between us and God which He bridges through Love he showed at the cross.

If Sin did not separate us from God then it would not matter. But Sin matters hugely. It matters enough for God to lay down the life of his own Son to defeat it.

The difference between saying "nothing can separate us from God" and "nothing can separate us from the love of God" is enormous and has far reaching implications.
 

quote:

---

They would be entirely superfluous and redundant. God is not known for creating things with pointless parts to them

---

I don't know about that. The male human body is fairly extravagant for what is essentially just a life support system for a penis.
 

As there is some experience of these things on this board I have a genuine question:

Why do some gay blokes camp it up?

That is a serious question.

My only conclusion is that for the same reason that some lads, for want of a better expression, lad it up. Loudness, competitiveness etc etc.

My only experience of a gay friend was that he was a lad but just had male partners, although he found the 'scene' very destructive on him emmotionally and I think spiritually. But he has moved away from where I live now and I no longer see him, so any questions I may have once been able to ask I can no longer do so.

cheers
 

Matt - your penultimate posting saddened me. While you may be making a reasonable exigetical point, please remember that this is not an abstract issue for many. There are real people involved in all of this who can only be hurt by statements such as "Homosexuals are in rebellion [against God]", however you intended it. I have known peopel who have attempted suicide because they are both gay and christian, when other christians have expressed what they see as an objective view of "what the Bible teaches". These others were not intending to be destructive - but when you're in a vulnerable position you can get hurt very easily indeed. I know you don't intend to cause offence, but please take care how you make your points. (The other post - about the penis - I found hilarious!)
 

23) I'd be fine with homosexuals if they would just shut up about being gay. They're doing more harm than good trying to shove it down other peoples' throats, I mean why do people insist on being camp in public, can't they just do it in the privacy of their own homes, rather than in front of ordinary decent people? [I am an ostrich]

I find this perhaps the most depressing view - certainly, that's why I was depressed last night. It's the view that we'd be acceptable so long we kept quiet, so long as people could blank it out of their minds that we were gay and not have to deal with it. That "what you do is your own business", which means: "it's shameful but I'm not going to get into an argument with you". But what if we don't think it's shameful? What if we want to bring the whole of who we are into our Eucharistic community? If we want to celebrate our love and all the ways in our lives in which God works?

Of course we have to treat other people lovingly - that's why I do not advocate Peter Tatchell-style campagning However I do not think that the ideas of stumbling block and loving extend to retreating into silence and shadows and acting ashamed of part of who and what we are, just to pander to other people's prejudices. Personally, I find public displays of heterosexual love (kissing, cuddling etc) disgusting: but I don't try and make them hide because of what I feel, however much I wish they would!

There are the two extremes that we have to be warey of: hiding so that no-one sees us, and getting up on a soapbox all the time. In the middle lies the openness in love that everyone can learn from. That's where the challenges are on both sides: a lot of hets want us to shut up because any degree of visibility means they have to confront these issues and that makes them uncomfortable, so they blame gays for making them feel bad. A lot of the time 23) can be a cover for "if you shut up I won't have to think about it and won't find my world-view threatened". Similarly, gays can react to the threatening nature of the argument by being over-agressive, un-loving and not engaging in dialogue.

I know I keep on getting it wrong, being too soap-boxy, and for a variety of reasons tend to get over-angry in these discussions. This is something I've got to learn - you lot are helping, and I'm sorry for those who got on the wrong end of it. But I'm not going to go to the other extreme and become invisible.
 

Pyx_e
 

These days, I'm not sure where on Joan's list I come. I would have to say that having read and read the Sodom and Gomorrah Story, I would never have realised that it was useable as an argument against homosexuality if I hadn't been told. I thought it was about a City in which there was not one righteous man to be found - this being the final implication of gen Ch 18, v 16-33 - and an illustration of quite how unrighteous it all was, is a particularly nasty gang rape. It never occured to me that the point of the passage was in any way homosexuality.

In terms of the passages in Leviticus, I think Joan is correct to point out some of the other commandments in the same part of Leviticus - which we now ignore as we think them totally irrelevant. A lot of OT laws relate to hygiene - things like the laws about spots and blemishes and nasty skin diseases - and just aren't relevant in our society, although they were very important to keep a nomadic tribe alive. Bear with me - I am not about to say that homosexuality is unhygienic. However, anal sex is a pretty good way of spreading nasty STDs - as is heterosexual sex. I read somewhere, however, that without lubricants etc (which they didn't have then) the more forceful nature of anal sex, makes bleediing and hence the spread of infection more likely. This is not really relevant now, but in a society with no KY jelly (or whatever) and no condoms, an act which has no procreative purpose, but which easily spreads infection, could easily be forbidden on grounds of hygiene. But, we don't keep the Jewish hygiene laws today. So basically, if you want to ban homosexuality on this basis, I reckon we'd also better reinstitute burning mildewed clothes and sending people out of the town if they have particularly bad acne. Any takers?

However, the passages in Paul writings, I struggle more with. Having said that I struggle with a lot of things in Paul. Joan's right in saying that the translation is difficult, and frequently inconsistent. Those of us who are women here have to figure out whether to cover our heads in church and remove oursleves from any positions of authority in the church, before we start casting stones at homosexuals. Cultural context is important, and should be considered before we start leaping into condemnation of people on the grounds of biblical statements.

In the end the 2 greatest commandments are ...

1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength
2) Love your neighbour as yourself.

I can see no way that being gay or performing gay sex acts in the context of a loving relationship can prevent you from keeping the second of these. As for the first - even if we interpret those bible passages conservatively and homosexuals are disobedient to God, they can still be doing the best they can to love him as much as they can. Maybe the rest of us should start loving them more - they are our neighbour as much as the next person.

All the best,

Rachel.
 

I am no Falwell or Phelps. I don't hate gays. But the Bible says, and life proves, that male/female relationships are the natural thing.

The most simple look at physiology makes it clear that homosexual conduct is not natural to the human design.

Having said that, I harbor no hate or fear of gays or lesbians. I believe they should be reached out to. But I also believe that a truly repentant homosexual can be brought to celibacy OR heterosexual relationships (and yes, I allow that the homosexual inclinations may never cease, and celibacy is the moral option.) Just as one can be have bigotry, addictions, and hate removed by the power of Christ, so can the homosexual. They're no worse than anyone else who is not living by God's standard, and they need our compassion, but also in being compassionate, we should not go through gymnastics to come up with a supposedly "Biblical" excuse for things that are obviously not in God's plan/will for human relations.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen:
17.Another thread on sexuality.Arrrrrrgh.....[I am Stephen]

---

Fortunately, this discussion isn’t about sexuality: it’s about justice. And how we interpret God's love. And how one should be faithful to God when the chips are down. And I don’t see how any thinking Christian can ignore it.

It was partly my response to this issue (along with such old chestnuts as the doctrine of hell) which defines the Christian I now am – the type of church I go to, the way I approach the Bible, the way I think or talk (on the rare occasions I’m brave enough to do so) about my faith.

It is an important issue for me (and I see for others who have posted on this thread) because I am faced with a particularly intense conflict between my ordinary sense of justice and the views which appear to be held by some writers of the Bible.

There is no moral reason (convincing to me) outside the Bible why gay couples cannot have a committed sexual relationship recognised and blessed by the surrounding community in the way that straight couples can. I see great suffering caused to gay Christians by the church’s refusal to accept that a gay relationship can be ‘a valid lifestyle choice’.

So, do I accept the prohibition of homosexual acts because I see it condemned in the Bible, despite every protest of my rebellious conscience?

Erm… well, I’ve never been much of a rebel, but…

No, I jolly well don’t. Am I by doing this following my own conscience rather than what I understand in the Bible? Well, yes. In this instance. And from that point there really is no turning back. In fear and trembling, the whole development of my faith then differs substantially from someone who comes to a different conclusion.

Now I read Joan’s summary of alternative interpretations of the troublesome passages with interest. So Paul was not necessarily a gay-basher? I’m very pleased for him.

 

Part of the reason you probably struggle with is that pure reason and conscience tells you that homosexuality is not standard for humanity.

If I were an atheist, I would still have serious philosophical differences with homosexuality. The fact that I am a Christian only provides a definite moral law.

As to celibacy, I'd hold homosexuals to the same standard I do unmarried straight couples. Abstinance. The only thing is, in this case, I can find nothing in the Bible that would accept anything less than total abstinance from homosexual acts.

Oh some try to rationalize it because of what they "feel" or what God supposedly tells them, but God didn't write the Bible to go around and provide exception clauses to everyone that had attractions to goats, relatives,or members of the same sex. Nature is nature, right is right.

I am what some consider a "aberrant" Christian, and I admit there are many misinterpretations of Scripture in the church, but prayer, study, and research have led me to my current and assured position on this issue.

I harbor no hate or fear for the homosexual, any more than I fear or hate those in adultery, abuse, or any other lifestyle contrary to God's standard.

Like I say, I'd love to believe that our behaviour really didn't matter. But God has set things up, and His system is the one we are called as Christians to follow. Homosexuality is simply not in that plan according to any measured and accurate reading of the Scriptures, nor is it scientifically or physiologically correct.

Doesn't ANYONE understand what I am trying to say here?
 

quote:

---

Matt - your penultimate posting saddened me. While you may be making a reasonable exigetical point, please remember that this is not an abstract issue for many. There are real people involved in all of this who can only be hurt by statements such as "Homosexuals are in rebellion [against God]", however you intended it.

---

I stand by my statement. With the additional statement:
"heterosexuals are equally in rebellion".

I am sure I made this point in an earlier post that I am not in anyway marking out homosexuals as "especially bad". Just that they are bad, exactly like the rest of us. Myself included. Including every human being from Mother Teresa to Charles Manson. With the one exception of Jesus Christ.

In any discussion on anything to do with sin...including homosexuality, I always approach it with the assumption that we are all sinners and there are NO "better sinners" or "worse sinners". (although you'd have to go a long way to be better at sinning than me!)

It seems to me not that we are SINNERS because we SIN, but in fact the other way around: We SIN because we are SINNERS!

The manifestation of actual Sin...of any type...is a symptom of the disease.

When I say that homosexuality is sinful what I mean is that for that particular individual, the disease which we ALL suffer from (Sin) has chosen to mainfest itself in that particular behavioural symptom.

For me, I have the same disease, but different symptoms. Greed, pride, arrogance, lust. They are all on my list of symptoms.

The truth is, that regardless of the symptoms, the consequence of the disease is always the same if left untreated...death.

Fortunately, God has provided a medicine that cures the disease, in Jesus Christ. But just like a medical disease may leave a permenant scar, in the same way, even though we are healed, we are (for the present moment in this life) still suffering residual symptoms of the disease of Sin.

It is like the chickenpox scar I have on my neck. Harmless to me, but a reminder of what I was before I was healed.

So in this sense the sin we commit now as Christians is harmless to ourselves. The only danger of it...like my chickenpox scar...is that it makes us ugly to others.
 

why are you so hung up on this single issue that you have to go looking so deeply for references to it, and ignore all the other wealth of interesting subjects this board has to offer? why are you so fascinated by what consenting adults do in bed, to exclusion of any other subject (except for one post on the "pinups" thread, i think it was...)
 

quote:

---

I know I keep on getting it wrong, being too soap-boxy, and for a variety of reasons tend to get over-angry in these discussions.

---

No, no, no. It's only soap boxy and over-angry for people for whom ANY display or open acknowledgement of homosexuality is 'ramming it down our throats'. Some people will never be satisfied.

DrakeDetective...
I'd be interested to know why a

quote:

---

The most simple look at physiology makes it clear that homosexual conduct is not natural to the human design.

---

rachel_o

quote:

---

I read somewhere, however, that without lubricants etc (which they didn't have then)

---

Without wishing to elaborate too much, lubricants of animal, plant or human origin would have been then available. But more to the point, the assumption is that sexual relations between two men are usually of a particular kind which, statistically, in fact, comes a poor third.
 

In my years as a priest, I have not yet been able to find an answer to this dilema. My advice to everyone is to come and participate in Church, no matter what else might be happening in their lives.

Abouna
 

Lets not kid ourselves. My heterosexuality is corrupt and sinful anyway. Everything I do is corrupt and sinful. Even when I'm being nice, I'm usually doing it for my own ends ultimately.

Regardless of whether homosexuality is intrinsically sinful or not, it seems to me a slightly irrelevant question. Your homosexuality is as corrupt as my heterosexuality.

Vehmently trying to resist this seems to me to be trying to argue out a little corner of our lives which we can say "this is NOT sinful! Jesus, I don't need YOU in THIS bit of my life, I've already got THIS little bit of my house in order by myself thankyou! I don't need your forgiveness for this bit."

It strikes me as being the last vestiages of our pride taking their stand. This isn't about homsexuality. It's about human nature.

Saying homosexuality (or anything else)isn't sinful
For example, it's like me trying to argue that my giving money to a homeless person yesterday was not sinful. I could show you a thousand bible verses which show how rightous it is.

It doesn't change the fact that the reason I did it was because I was with a girl who I was trying to impress with what a nice guy I am.....

My attempting to argue the points of law on it not being sinful is like the pharasee and misses the point completely. We are so sinful everything we get our grubby hands on..be it sexuality or charity...gets mucked up too.
 

Nicole, I have been browsing these boards at random as a new member. I happen to have some beliefs on this issue, so those were the threads I've responded to thusfar. I'm sure you'll see me in many other threads over the course of my time here. It's just the odds. And yes, I will reply to "dead" threads if I feel I have something to say. Who when first coming to a message board doesn't??

St--Please, read some biology and then try to tell me that the human body was designed to be sexually interchangeable..far from even the morality of it, homosexual acts are obviously not "in the flow" of natural actions.

All, I cannot believe that I am the only one here who understands what I'm saying in my posts. What a welcome. *sigh* It's as if I offered someone wine at an anti-drinking league. At any rate, if you're tired of this subject but just want to lend a little *gasp* agreement or something, feel free to email.

And REALLY, I'm not hateful and I DON'T BITE.

Hi gang!
 

The Coot.
 

I refer you to my earlier exchange with Freddy for an answer to your particular expression of your number 2 views.

Also, people don't struggle with this because they know in their hearts that fundamentalist teaching is right and they're trying to escape it. People struggle with it because extreme and simplistic views are rarely correct, however emotionally tempting they are.

Oh, and your 'biology' argument deserves its own number, thankyou, I forgot about it:

25) A man's penis fits in a woman's vagina. Therefore by natural law homosexual sex is unnatural [I am another type of natural law nut who only thinks about blokes]
 

Moreover I have (woe unto me!) taken unnatural medicines to curb my natural illness. Indeed I verily repent.

As for those spawns of Satan, tampons, I have inserted them where only a manly member should go, ah ah ah I put on dust and ashes.

Ever so slightly more seriously, if you want to go down the line of the 'natural' argument, you're going to have to do it a bit more rigorously. 'Natural' is a very slippery word, as is acknowledged in the literature on the subject; most authors start by defining what they mean by it. 'Natural' as normally used in theological discourse is to do with God's ordained purpose in making something the way it is. So what's God's ordained purpose for sex? Looking at biology, we see its purpose there is for reproduction - penis fits in vagina for the purpose of producing babies. However we are not just biological creatures: as humans we are also emotional and spiritual beings. The Anglican Church at least has long recognised these aspects to sexual relations: intimacy and bonding, personal and spiritual (see eg the 1662 marriage service for couples who can't have children, and the 1958(?) pronouncements on contraception). The 1991 House of Bishops report states that "The potential blessing of this bonding are such that a theology of creation will very properly see them as also 'natural', that is, within the purposes of God."

I cannot see the end of the 'what fits where' argument as anything other than: all sex must be for the purposes of procreation. This is because it ignores the emotional and spiritual side of sex.

Personally, I think this is one of the most beautiful things about homosexual sex: it points to an understanding of sexuality that is unavoidably spiritual, because we cannot pretend that it is about biology and procreation. Love is the most important thing - real, deep, spiritual love and bonding body and soul with another human. It's taking us beyond mere biological necessity, showing that sexuality and sexual bonding can be good things in themselves at their best, and in good circumstances lead to our growth as human beings in our relationships with one another and with God. It shows just how important it is to be fully human: integrated body with soul, not to carry our body around like a sinful lump but to be our bodies. Ultimately, for me, this is incarnational: Christ became fully human and fully divine, each part in harmony, to help us reclaim every part of who we are.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Rumwald:

Without wishing to elaborate too much, lubricants of animal, plant or human origin would have been then available. But more to the point, the assumption is that sexual relations between two men are usually of a particular kind which, statistically, in fact, comes a poor third.

---

Please remember I'm a GLE, and therefore don't necessarily have the knowledge about sex to figure out things people don't elaborate on.

Having siad that...

In reference to lubricants..... these people were wandering in the desert, and being fed manna and quail from heaven, they probably didn't have much around by way of animal or vegetable anything.

With reference to your 2nd point - I'm not sure I understand, but I'm assuming you mean anal sex is not the prevalent form of sexual activity between gay men? If so, then the verse we are talking about in Leviticus strikes me as irelevant anyway.

All the best,

Rachel.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
PS Dear Sibling Drake, it is biologically unnatural to put a headphone earpiece in my ear. I have sinned against the natural flow of my body, I repent before thee, in the absence of Rev Gez.

Moreover I have (woe unto me!) taken unnatural medicines to curb my natural illness. Indeed I verily repent.

As for those spawns of Satan, tampons, I have inserted them where only a manly member should go, ah ah ah I put on dust and ashes.

---

Hurrah for Joan. I was just in the middle of composing an angry post when I read yours.

See Drake - I respect the conclusions you've come to from scripture. Sometimes I agree with them too. But I can't agree with the 'natural' stuff. Just doesn't seem right or fair.
 

quote:

---

All, I cannot believe that I am the only one here who understands what I'm saying in my posts.

---

Dear Drake's Detective,
I think most of us here understand your posts very well.

They seem to indicate that there is only one right view - yours - and that you are not very open to the views of others (on the Falwell thread in Hell, you actually said that you found the differing views of others on this issue 'disturbing')

You also seem to be pushing a simplistic natural law argument which is, literally, medieval and which probably qualifies by now as a PRATT - point refuted a thousand times.
Yet you seem to think it offers some kind of irrefutable insight.

In fact this argument has been around in its developed form since the days of St Thomas Aquinas, and its flaws have been pointed out ad nauseam long before now. I'll give just one example.

If I walk on my hands then I am using a part of my body for something it wasn't 'designed' for and which 'naturally' I should be doing with my feet.

So let's ban gymnastics - totally unnatural if you ask me.

Also you seem to think there's only one possible way of interpreting scripture - yours again.

I'm sure you are not hateful, but your posts come across as, well, somewhat lacking in charity and respect for others, to put it mildly.

This issue has been discussed many times on these boards, but here you come, barging in, spouting off a commonplace argument as though none of us will ever have heard it before and we'll all go 'Duh! why didn't we ever think of THAT before?'

Try pondering the concept that it's a good bet that many of us here have heard that sort of argument before and rejected it.

Louise
 

quote:

---

The most simple look at physiology makes it clear that homosexual conduct is not natural to the human design.

---

I don't wish to make this board X-rated with too many details, but as a medical student, I can tell you research shows that the type of conduct you are referring to is suprisingly common among at least a fair percentage of heterosexual couples on at least one encounter.

Surveys also suggest that a fair number of those who havn't had a heterosexual encounter of this nature would like to at some point in the future.

Did I put that delicately enough everyone?

(Incidently, most people will notice that this post goes against my side of the argument in anyways, which only goes to show I'm just looking to tell it like it is, not how I want it to be.)
 

But I also respect what God says about sex and the boundaries He placed on it.

That's all. No hate, just my simple convictions, and I'm sorry if they are not welcome here.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrakeDetective:
For the record, I'm far from anti-sex. I think a good Christian marriage, (egalitarian no less) should be a lovely, very vibrant sexual relationship.

---

So maybe you are experienced in sex aids?
 

quote:

---

Medic, thank you for your reasoned responses. Though not directly for me, I appreciate your feedback here.

---

I would just like to take this opportunity to distance myself from anything drakedetective says. My "fundaMENTAList" alarm bells are ringing where our new friend is concerned.....

I hope he reads my posts...about us all being equally sinners. He says homosexuality is "unnatural", but hey...get this...God thinks we are ALL unnatural! imagine that! Any sin is completely alien to God's nature and therefore unnatural to him. drake, every time you are angry, or hurt someone you are being as "unnatural" to God as those "repulsive faggots" imagine that drake!!! Uncomfortable thought huh? Good job we've all got Grace then isn't it?.

(DISCLAIMER: previous "foggot"phrase was deliberate sarcasm use of language...quote marks do not represent quote by specific individual)

quote:

---

Personally, I think this is one of the most beautiful things about homosexual sex: it points to an understanding of sexuality that is unavoidably spiritual, because we cannot pretend that it is about biology and procreation.

---

Joan, you've come up with some good stuff on this thread, then you go and spoil it with this...errmmm...ok. Sorry, I've offended you before but I won't again.

Coz there is no procreation involved, the sex is automatically superspirtual?! ha!

Well, if I go out to euston station pick up half a dozen rent boys and stick my big end *ahem* "where the sun don't shine" to each one in turn would that be spiritual just coz they aren't gonna get pregnant?

No, it would be sordid and repulsive to God. Homosexual sex can be every bit as sordid too, and you know it. It doesn't strike me as "unavoidably spiritual" in the least. (sorry...that was extremely crude...had to be to make the point methinks)

quote:

---

Ultimately, for me, this is incarnational: Christ became fully human and fully divine, each part in harmony, to help us reclaim every part of who we are.

---

We don't reclaim anything. Christ reclaims us...all of us. God reclaims us for himself.

quote:

---

They seem to indicate that there is only one right view - yours - and that you are not very open to the views of others

---

Louise, I kind of know what you are getting at here, but you state it like it's an intrinsically bad thing.

I believe that 1+1=2. I think that is right, I think it is the only right view. I an not very open to the views of others on this issue. So if you think 1+1=3, I am very sorry, but I do not accord your view any weight.

Clearly, drake believes (possibly incorrectly) that this issue is an issue of this type. Given that he thinks that, it is not suprising he responds in this way. It doesn't neccessarily mean he is wishing to be opinionated and judgemental. He just happens to see this issue in a black and white way. Critisising the manner in which this makes him respond is a pointless exersise.

You should address the assumptions he is making which lead him to stop considering the issue in the same light you or I would consider "1+1=2".

quote:

---

If I walk on my hands then I am using a part of my body for something it wasn't 'designed' for and which 'naturally' I should be doing with my feet.

So let's ban gymnastics - totally unnatural if you ask me.

---

If you are going to use analogies you should use them in a consistent way.

The consistent application of the analogy for someone who lives a lifetime of homosexual activity would be if someone tried to walk on their hands their whole life and never used their feet.

Gymnastics in the analogy would be the equivilent of having a few homosexual encounters, as opposed to being a homosexual.

Also, no one is suggesting that homosexuality be "banned" (as in your analogy gymnastics is). They are simply saying it is not what God intended and harmful to us.

And we all know that gymnastics can be extremely harmful and result in an increased risk of injuries, precisely because we are using our bodies in unnatural ways.

If you are using the analogy to prove your point then it is a flawed argument. I'm not saying your wrong...but your particular argument is not a convincing one.
 

Oh dear daisymay you are naughty - LOL!

And Matt - I'm impressed. Even GLE Rachel should not be blushing from that description
 

Instead of constantly telling us "what God says", as if you are a prophet with a direct line to the Almighty and the only possibly correct interpetation, how about if you tried saying

"What I think God says is..."

or

"What I think the Bible says is..."

or even

"My interpretation of x verse in scripture is y" (whatever that might be).

Then you might not sound as if you believed you were the only person in the world who had a valid opinion on this matter.

Just a suggestion.
Louise
 

I said:

quote:

---

Personally, I think this is one of the most beautiful things about homosexual sex: it points to an understanding of sexuality that is unavoidably spiritual, because we cannot pretend that it is about biology and procreation.

---

Matt replied:

quote:

---

Joan, you've come up with some good stuff on this thread, then you go and spoil it with this...errmmm...ok. Sorry, I've offended you before but I won't again.

Coz there is no procreation involved, the sex is automatically superspirtual?! ha!

---

I echo your 'ha' a hundred times. However that wasn't what I said I said homosexuality points to an intrinsically spiritual understanding of sexuality (that is, gay or straight). The difference is, for example as Christians we have a spiritual understanding of life. That doesn't mean that every event in life is experienced as spiritual!

The beauty of homosexual sex that I was pointing out was the spiritual nature that it flags up of ALL sex - het and gay. IMHO sex as it should be is spiritual, because sexuality is spiritual. Of course a lot of the time sex isn't - one doesn't have to go banging rent boys to see that That doesn't divorce our sexual nature from our spiritual, it's just an example of sinning.
 

quote:

---

Louise, I kind of know what you are getting at here, but you state it like it's an intrinsically bad thing.

I believe that 1+1=2. I think that is right, I think it is the only right view. I an not very open to the views of others on this issue. So if you think 1+1=3, I am very sorry, but I do not accord your view any weight.

Clearly, drake believes (possibly incorrectly) that this issue is an issue of this type. Given that he thinks that, it is not suprising he responds in this way. It doesn't neccessarily mean he is wishing to be opinionated and judgemental. He just happens to see this issue in a black and white way. Critisising the manner in which this makes him respond is a pointless exersise.

You should address the assumptions he is making which lead him to stop considering the issue in the same light you or I would consider "1+1=2".

---

Matt, I don't see
"Criticising the manner in which this makes him respond" as "a pointless exercise. "

I see it as an important one. There are issues on which I hold extremely strong views but if I simply declare 'I'm right and you're all wrong' that is not discussing the matter constructively or helpfully.

In my opinion stating 'God says' rather than 'I think' or 'my view of scripture is' or 'my argument is' is simply another way of stating 'I am right and you are all wrong' and that doesn't seem (to me) to be leaving room for constructive debate.

To go back to the analogy thing, if i decided to walk on my hands for the whole of my life, that would be odd, but I doubt if anyone would consider it to be deeply sinful.

I didn't spell it out but my point was not the physical effects thereof, but that walking on our hands is not something most of us would consider to be earth-shatteringly sinful.

To pick up your point that it's not something we'd do for life.

Right now, as a lifestyle, I am spending hours in front of a computer monitor, an exercise (or should I say lack of it!) which is not exactly good for my body, but which has many other benefits.

It's not using my body for what it was originally designed for, as I'm not a hunter-gatherer in Africa, but I wouldn't say that the only possible life-style for humans is hunter-gathering and that anything else, outside of hunter-gathering, is to be abhorred.

You made some very interesting points earlier about the nature of sinfulness, but I'm too tired to give them the exploration they deserve. Just want to say I'm not lumping you in with DD either.

cheers

Louise
 

I am sorry for being irritating.

Matt, I truly am not a real funda MENTAL ist. LOL. Unless you mean I think alot. Heh.

Anyhow, I agree with your point about the extreme sinfulness of us all. I know I am.

I would counter with my opinion, as I understand the Bible, that a sin such as homosexuality or fornication or adultery is usually (not always) perpetually lived in as a lifestyle, continued on a daily basis.

The Bible, to me, expresses that we should turn from our old lifestyles and aim to live a more holy life. That doesn't mean we'll always tell the truth, abstain from sex, or always love our neighbor. But it means overall, that is what we do and we avoid sin in its forms as much as possible. I simply don't see where daily living in a homosexual lifestyle is compatible with that.

And very funny about the "aids" BTW. I can't be TOO tight, I did like the joke.

Well, I hope I haven't ruined my chances of making friends on here. Even if I disagree with this, you are all certainly an interesting group.
 

Why do some gay blokes camp it up so much?

Please see my previous question for the my tiny little toughts on this.

thanks
Simon
 

Why do some gay men act differently from het men? Well, um, because they're not hets? Why should they be expected to act the same? To save the feelings of tight hets? Welcome back to 23!

Why do some fewer gay men go overboard on the screaming queen routine? Off the top of my head... desire to belong in a community (especially acute for those rejected by most other communities), bonding by shared behaviour (pretty ubiquitious in humanity), defensive persona (again, common amongst the rejected), emphasis of self and difference to overcome repression...
 

quote:

---

In reference to lubricants..... <snip>

With reference to your 2nd point - I'm not sure I understand, but I'm assuming you mean anal sex is not the prevalent form of sexual activity between gay men?

---

Point one- saliva or quail grease would do.

Point two- quite correct. 3rd on the range of the activities but first in everybody's minds. As to whether this would make Leviticus irrelevant, I don't know. I mean, if we follow Drake's arguments (more below) it would be impossible for man to lie with man as with woman, as at least one of them is missing the requisite bit of anatomy. In fact, this appears to be prohibiting the impossible, which is fine by me. Or is Leviticus suggesting that man and woman have non-vaginal sex? Perish the thought!

DrakeDetective...

quote:

---

St--Please, read some biology and then try to tell me that the human body was designed to be sexually interchangeable..far from even the morality of it, homosexual acts are obviously not "in the flow" of natural actions.

---

As has been said subsequently, this argument is reallly rather PRATT. I don't need to read biology, I'm trained in medicine, thanks all the same.

I can, however, suggest you read some zoology and / or anthropology to see homosexuality occurring, perfectly 'naturally' 'in the wild' so to speak. I suggest you read some history and see that homosexuality has been there in every society in every age.

Would you class heterosexual non-reproductive or non-vaginal sex as 'unnatural'?
 

So..I suppose my "nature" argument would fail there.
 

However, while some animals will engage in homosexual activity in unusual circumstances, exclusive homosexuality in animals is virtually unheard of, and even preferential homosexual activity rarely takes place in animals except in those with specific neurological functions impaired, or in lower species, where they are confused by masked phermones.

So IF you were assuming humans were animals then I believe your natural law argument would be highly valid.

The debate is that we are not animals...are not entirely anyway. So do the same rules apply? This is a difficult question because in different cases different trends apply.

For example, as a basic rule, Christianity usually tells us to suppress our animal instincts...or at least have them under control and use them in appropriate time and place. Complete obedience to our instincts would make us animals. The ability to surpass merely instinctive behaviour is one of the defining points of Human nature.

On the other hand, what you so rightly say is that homosexuality does not appear to be an animal instinct in the strict sense as it does not occur in other animals. It seems rather unique to humanity.

This raises a diffcult question, because humanity is a double edge sword. some aspects of it are good, some are bad.

Is homosexuality simply part of the joys of the additional choice, freedom and expression available to us that is not available to animals?

Or is it the fact that our humanity gives us the opportunity to be far more bad than a lower organisim?

A worm can be neither very good or very bad, a dog can be much better or much worse, a man can be better or worse still, a genius man can be a monster or a hero. This continues all the way up the hirachy of existing beings right up to satan himself...a super-human being.

As it stands, the natural law argument does not help us to discover which of these two alternatives is the true state of affairs.
 

i was hoping not to have to do this again, and maybe i won't but...

matt, if i tell you that the last time we had this debate on this site i pulled out quite a few links to prove that same-sex sexual activity occurs with great frequency in animals in natual settings, will you take my word for it? or will i have to search them out again?

alternatly, they might be on one of the threads in the archive....
 

quote:

---

Point one- saliva or quail grease would do.

---

This whole "medical hygine" argument relating to anal sex seems to me to be spurious.

If this was the reasoning the bible would simply say "do not have anal sex". However, there is no mention specifically of anal sex (correct me if I'm wrong people) so presumably it is ok for heterosexuals. (although my guess is you are not gonna hear that preached from the average pulpit!!!)

And don't kid yourselves that the innocent little people back then didn't know boys and girls could do that kind of thing together. Classic literature is full of it.

quote:

---

I mean, if we follow Drake's arguments (more below) it would be impossible for man to lie with man as with woman, as at least one of them is missing the requisite bit of anatomy. In fact, this appears to be prohibiting the impossible, which is fine by me. Or is Leviticus suggesting that man and woman have non-vaginal sex? Perish the thought!

---

I'm saying the following simply exploring the original meaning and purpose of the Leviticus law...not whether we are bound to that law today:

To your comment about non-vaginal sex, It's quite possible I should think, it was a fairly common practice in the ancient world.

However, what is more relevant is that the wording in leviticus is as you say, vague: "lie with a man as a woman" seems to be referring to broad sexual activity than specific act.

I think this is intentional. This is a book of law, and in any legal document, wording is important. I don't think it is mere shyness because the subject happens to be sex which causes the vague wording. As proof of this, check out laws on checking whether or not a girl is a virgin, laws about women grabbing mens balls etc...leviticus is quite direct and clinical about human anatomy and physiology in these cases.

It seems to be vague because it is an inclusive law.

For whatever reason, at that time, in that place, the jewish people believed God did not want them to have sexual relations with men and it was not specifically about anal sex hygine.

quote:

---

I can, however, suggest you read some zoology and / or anthropology to see homosexuality occurring, perfectly 'naturally' 'in the wild' so to speak.

---

This is a myth. homosexual acts occur in nature, agreed. However, the animals involved are virtually always bisexual. They just happen to be the randy kind of animals which will shag their way. There is no recorded example in nature of an animal showing intentional, purposeful and persistent homosexual preference.
 

quote:

---

matt, if i tell you that the last time we had this debate on this site i pulled out quite a few links to prove that same-sex sexual activity occurs with great frequency in animals in natual settings, will you take my word for it? or will i have to search them out again?

---

You had better, because you are making assumptions way beyong the evidence.

What the zoological evidence tells us is that homosexual activity occurs in animals. agreed. HOWEVER:

1. These animals are usually, to put it bluntly, randy species which are highly promiscuous in their normal heterosexual behaviour. These animals are not the best examples. male dogs will mount other dogs when they get randy...agreed. However, they will also mount peoples legs, tree stumps..soft toys etc. It prooves nothing.

2. very rarely occurring in preference to heterosexual activity. Give two male dogs a bitch to play with and the only "mounting" they will do of each other is having a fight over who can get to mate with her first!

3. To my knowledge never occurring as the exclusive sexual preference of any other animal. That is to say, there is not any animal anywhere in the world which turns it's nose up at heterosexual sex if given the opportunity without the opportunity of homosexual activity.

The only exception to that is some research done into specific nuro-transmitters and their genetic controls in mice which enabled them to produce exclusively gay mice in the lab.

Incidently, to reiterate what I said. The natural law argument is in itself only a single piece of evidence anyway...I'm not actually sure which side of the arugment it benefits to be honest. Read the whole of my previous post.
 

Take for example "smoking". Nobody gets upset if the church talking about smoking says "Hate the Sin Love the Sinner".
There are no proposals put forward in synod that smokers should not be allowed to be priests.
On first becoming a christian (except in a few fundie churches) a smoker is not expected to give up smoking immediately.
Smokers don't get all offended and say that it is to do with their identity.

Sorry, I may have offended some people with this, but I wanted to give examples of how both sides react (rightly or wrongly).

Still if smoking caused the same upsets it would give a whole new meaning to sites like "We Hate fags"
 

gay sheep

book review

Salon article

another article

zoo exhibit

hope these all work ok.

[URLs fixed, subsequent posts correcting them deleted]

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

Seems like threads on sex always lead to everyone vougeing and looking over shoulders. I think it has something to do with the intenseness of the human body and the gift of sex from God.

Has anyone heard of the Theology of the Body (TOB). Indirectly it has something to do with this thread. The TOB suprised me and made some things like Sex, the Trinity, the Body and our ultimate destiny in heaven stick together. Talking about strange bed-fellows. Caramba!

Here are 6 one page articles by Christopher West who gives conferences on the significance of the Theology of the Body (TOB).

Basically these articles try to show that our religions should not be going around saying "Spirit good. Body Bad!". The body is very good because it symbolizes the essence of the Trinity. The TOB is much more complex than that and I am sure I am butchering the ideas and making your skin rumple. So just check out the articles.

Here are the articles:
1. Naked Without Shame: Behind the Fig Leaves
2. Naked Without Shame: The Scandal of the Body
3. Naked Without Shame: The Great Divorce
4. Naked Without Shame: Epiphany of the Body
5. Naked Without Shame: Karol Wojtyla's Cure for Cancer
6. Naked Without Shame: God, Sex, and the Meaning of Life

This is what I get out of the articles: the male and female body when loving fully are physical symbols of God's life giving esssence. This idea is not a club to beat over anyone's head. This is a proposal of what love and sex originally were meant in God's original plan before original sin.

[UBB fixed]

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

Re: homosexuality in other animals - I'm not sure that's either here or there. A human understanding of sex is more than the understanding of other animals - there are the emotional and spiritual elements as well. Biology only becomes important if you take it as pre-eminent, in which case you need a concept of all sex being purely procreative, so as I said you need to be anti-contraception (including rhythm method) and ignore the emotional and spiritual aspects of sex. If you won't go there then you can't use biology as an argument against homosexuality because it won't hold together.

However, don't despair Drake - there is a 'natural' argument out there that you can use. Basically, the only 'natural' argument that's ever got anywhere is number 3). As far as I've seen it is along the lines that a natural (in the sense of in line with God's purposes) necessity in sexual relations is the 'complementarity' of male and female (this is not simply in terms of biology - it's more sophisticated than a 'what fits where' argument). Homosexual sexual relations are defined thus as unnatural because they do not incorporate the required complementarity.

IMNSVHO this falls down (primarily on the fact that I have not yet seen an argument for the uniqueness of this type of complementarity), but it's an argument I at least respect enough to engage with, rather than the 'what fits where' argument which one just has to stand back and watch trip over its own feet as soon as it's out of the starting blocks

I'm afraid I don't have any references for this natural law argument - if I find any within the natural (ho ho) lifetime of this thread then I'll post 'em.

Can we talk about body theology now? That's what I think one of the real issues is - as I posted before and Matt misunderstood, I think the phenomenon of homosexual sexual love at its best gives us a clear example of the spirtual and the physical inseparably linked. Basically, sexual love is an act of creation, in some cases of babies and in all cases of real love of creation of the bond between two people and a spiritual entity that is more than the individuals concerned. With het sex we can kid ourselves that the latter isn't there - "it's just for making babies, that's all" - but with gay sex we can see the latter creation uncluttered, and IMHO a part of God's creation and intention, for both gay and straight.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon 2:
Why do some gay blokes camp it up so much?

---

Joan the Dwarf:

quote:

---

" babies ... and ... love ...
With het sex we can kid ourselves that the latter isn't there - "it's just for making babies, that's all"

---

Please show me the robotic wanker in the 21st century who kids herself/himself into believing that sex does not feel good to herself and/or his/her partner?

The point that good sex deepens the bond between the two - even if the bond is non-existant before the act is known like the palm of my hand. Not knowing what sex was - was the problem before the sexual revolution. Right? People were so Victorian and uptight that they needed to be coerced into thinking about sex as fun and potentially full of love.

The Sexual Revolution (thank God) changed all that. June Cleaver is long gone. Ward Cleaver went before June. And Beaver Cleaver and Eddie Haskel are getting them some while Wally waits his turn in the hall.

Gay love is good for many things and is a beautiful human thing but I wouldn't say that it is by definition a higher spiritual love than het love. Because it cannot create a baby makes it more spiritual?

Honestly I strain and nothing comes out on this one.
 

As far as church matters are concerned, I wanted to climb up a Cathedral tower recently, and bought a ticket just as it had come to the end of the roll (where the coloured dye starts to show). The steward handed me my ticket and in his campest voice said 'ooooh, you've got a pretty pink one!' which sent my young son into stitches - it made his day as much as the tower climb.
 

Sniffy: "by definition a higher spiritual love than het love. Because it cannot create a baby makes it more spiritual?"

No, no no and no! Honestly, someone ought to invent telepathy then we wouldn't have these misunderstandings. Here's the hopefully unambigous version of what I was saying:

I place het and gay sex on an exact level emotionally and spiritually.

Het sex can also produce babies.

Some people can get hung up on a biological justification for sex (ie all sex must be about procreation).

Less extremely, some people can say that the primary function of het sex is to have babies, anything else is just a nice side-effect.

Both of these are ways in which people can chose to denigrate the emotional and spiritual aspects of sex.

Neither of these are available cop-outs when considering gay sex.

Gay sex is a plainer example of what all sex is. IMHO it shows that the emotional and spiritual parts of sex are valid ends in themselves, quite apart from the biological (but NOT apart from the physical). That is why I find it beautiful.

Gay sex is as spiritual or as unspiritual as making-baby sex. Gay sex helps us see this side to All sex, gay and straight.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:

I think the phenomenon of homosexual sexual love at its best gives us a clear example of the spirtual and the physical inseparably linked. Basically, sexual love is an act of creation, in some cases of babies and in all cases of real love of creation of the bond between two people and a spiritual entity that is more than the individuals concerned. With het sex we can kid ourselves that the latter isn't there - "it's just for making babies, that's all" - but with gay sex we can see the latter creation uncluttered, and IMHO a part of God's creation and intention, for both gay and straight.

---

Gay relationships (I am thinking of stable couples in their social context, not anonymous trips to Soho to find rent boys) are also a powerful statement about the magnificent arbitrariness and unnecessariness of love and desire – gay and straight. It shows us that the sexual love is not just an evolutionary imperative to ensure the survival of the species, or a mindless succumbing to your family’s expectations, or acquiring a status symbol or suitable parent for your children, a path to social acceptability or (getting all feminist now, are we?) an exercise of patriarchal power, but a gift from God.

If you’re gay, you can’t really demand that your partner stay chained to the kitchen sink where she belongs and give up her career to cook your dinners. You don’t find yourself making out with a same sex peer at a teenage disco because all your friends are doing it. You don’t move in with your gay lover because your parents are moaning at you to settle down. (Though it would certainly shut them up if you did.)

But the fact that gay people pursue relationships against all social expectation and sometimes in the face of extreme prejudice, is in itself a statement of the strength of a bond of sexual love, even when uncalled for and unsought for and unsupported by a social stamp of approval.

Of course, I’m not saying all straight relationships are full of gender stereotyping and nasty power games and that gay ones are always full of sweetness and sharing.

Only that it is generally an example of a type of relationship which can have no purpose or compensation except in the enjoyment of itself. Perhaps it is this which can embarrass people - a relationship with that degree of nakedness.

(I was wrong earlier – it looks as though this thread is about sex after all. Ulp.)
 

I'm not impressed. The books by Bruce Bagemihl and such are not research papers. You can write anything you like in a book. It makes some valid points, but at the end of the day it is not a scientific study.

In general, all the studies seem to be reiterating something we already knew; in some species (usually those which are promiscuous anyway) have sexual activity with the same sex. All these documents you listed make this point very well because it's well attested to, it's old news. What they then do is slide in the supposition this is exclusive based on far less compelling evidence.

And to return to my point, the nature argument is not valid for Christians anyway, since we are set apart from animals. What is right for them is not neccessarily right for us. What is right for us is not neccessarily right for them.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elaine from the bar:

But the fact that gay people pursue relationships against all social expectation and sometimes in the face of extreme prejudice, is in itself a statement of the strength of a bond of sexual love, even when uncalled for and unsought for and unsupported by a social stamp of approval.

(I was wrong earlier – it looks as though this thread is about sex after all. Ulp.)

---

Hey Elaine- well said. Very 'cue swelling quasi-romantic God-Bless-America' type music.

Of course the thread is about sex. When heterosexuals start discussing gay people sex is, depressingly, always top of the agenda (OK, there's an occasional 'who's the mand, who's the woman').

I must agree with Joan that the 'natural/unnatural' argument is a bit of a red herring 'cos we will never be able to know what is 'natural' for humankind, and of course this doesn't necessarily fit in with God's scheme of things.
 

Mad Medic

We agree on something at least, that you can't argue to humans from ethology (sorry Desmond Morris), even if I may have brought this into the discussion.

Still, considering how much writing there is in the Bible, and how much of it is genuinely concerned with homosexuality (statistically negligble), it's amazing how people get so hot under the collar about it. Methinks this is man's perennial habit of twisting religion to suit his own biases.
 

Still not sure where I stand in Joan's list, but I know I care more about my friend as a person than what he does in the bedroom. The rest is up for debate (as we have well seen) and really is up to God to figure it out. It just ain't my place to decide what is a sin and what is not.

Thanks one and all for giving me so much to consider. (Especially Joan for stretching what I think.) Also thanks for the encouragement that there are other Christians out there that aren't afraid to discuss sensitive issues.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Rumwald:
Point one- saliva or quail grease would do

---

OK, I take your point(s) and withdraw my earlier comments about hygiene, which were made in all innocence. I am finding all this very educational, and you will all be pleased to know that you have made me blush! !

Whatever we all think about this, I hope we are agreed that we'd like homosexual people to be welcome in the church. How they live out their Christian life can only, in the final analysis, be their choice. I believe that fs our moral choices are only made because they are forced upon us from outside, they become meaningless. All I can say, is that I am really glad that I have brothers ans sisters in Christ who are gay, and I'm pretty sure God's glad to have you with Him as well! I am also sure that you can all educate me a whole lot, but please only do it on the boards where you can't se me blushing!

All the best,

Rachel.
 

Oh, and note: SHIP OF FOOLS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF EXTERNAL SITES!!!!!!

Education's fun
 

quote:

---

matt, did you actually read the gay sheep article

---

As I said before (and I'll say again). It makes not one iota of difference to the debate where humans are concerned.

Yes. I did. I wasn't impressed. It appeared on the personal homepage of some guy. It was based on a "study" done by some postgrad student.

Come on! Post-grad students do "research studys" on some of the most bizzare things for their PHds. It prooves nothing whatsoever.

The student made several subjective comments, but the only statistic mentioned was "8% of sheep are gay" or something like that. To which I reply "92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot".

I wanna see the hard figures. Standard Deviations. P-values etc.

HOWEVER....to reiterate AGAIN. As people on both sides of the argument have said, I really couldn't care less if the whole of the rest of the mammalian Kingdom were subscribers to "We Hate Fags Monthly" or if they were buggering each other sideways.

It wouldn't make a jot of difference to us humans, because as all Christians know, Humans are not just animals right?

The rights and wrongs of the animal Kingdom are not directly referable to us.
 

The question was genuine, and your answer was pretty much the same as what I thought might be the case. It may seem very silly but I would not want to pressume any form of behaviour is driven by whatever motive if I don't do that. Just along the lines of nobody knows the heart of a person except that person themselves and God.

So it is essentially for the same reason that het blokes might act laddish and loutish. To fit in and belong. This might be another whole thread so sorry if it is, but with het blokes who 'lad it up' all I can see is really personal insecurity, some lack of real deep self worth and identity, and so a group is needed for personal identity. And so one might say the same for gay blokes I geuss. But then a personal insecurity is more understandable from a gay bloke who has had swim against the tide one way or another.

thanks again joan

Simon
 

I think that's right as far as the 'over the top' camping is concerned. Boys being camp (or girls being butch) at all is a different matter, and one I still haven't fully worked out. The stereotype of all gay boys wanting to be girls and all gay girls wanting to be boys is rubbish, but less extrememly and by no means pertaining to everyone, gay boys tend to be less laddish and gay girls less girlie. Being repelled by insensitive laddishness could, I guess, lead people to being attracted to a more feminine modus operandi. I don't know.

One thing I find interesting is a description of a camp man in 'The Well of Loneliness' (v. famous lesbian book). This was written early last century, before being camp was widely seen as a defining feature of gay men, before even there was a language to talk about this - it's quite amusing to read descriptions of small hand movements and high-pitched voices etc and then suddenly think 'oh yes, that character's being camp'. So it seems to be a part of a lot of mens' experience of being gay.

I don't know. I'm kind of groping in the dark as far as blokes are concerned. From the other direction, I know I'm less feminine than most straight women... I was a regular tomboy as a child, until I was developed enough that I couldn't be mistaken for a boy. Even then I just couldn't get into this girlie thing, despite trying for so many years because I was told by all and sundry and society that I ought to and I was warped because I wasn't happy with my femininity.

Rambling even further from the original point, I think this sort of assault on gender stereotypes that gays make by our existance is another thing that can get hets anxious or feel threatened. A female who feels uncomfortable wearing dresses and who does some things most commonly thought of as 'male' yet who has no desire to be male can be quite puzzling and disturbing to some people!
 

I see the laddish aggression and competitiveness and really quite bad.

Definitely another thread I know, But I really dont get on with competitiveness, and I hear so many christians proclaiming it as a virtue. I mean where in the bible does it say, beat everyone whenever you can. The race is personal, marked out for each indicidual. This is something I would love to explore further if anybody else wants to too.

I find this discussion on the right or wrongness of it all challenges my paradigm on sexuality. And that hurts me a bit. But almost all I believe is up for grabs. I don't want to join in right or wrongness as I know nothing (manuel style).

cheers
Si
 

Sorry everyone, I will try to read what I write, well I do, but never spot the mistakes till later.

Simon
 

quote:

---

Gay sex is a plainer example of what all sex is. IMHO it shows that the emotional and spiritual parts of sex are valid ends in themselves, quite apart from the biological (but NOT apart from the physical). That is why I find it beautiful.

Gay sex is as spiritual or as unspiritual as making-baby sex. Gay sex helps us see this side to All sex, gay and straight.

---

Nice. I agree that gay sex is a plainer example of what sex is because it shows sex to be firmly rooted in the physical and emotional world. It also shows that humans alone, when all is said and done, are in charge of their sexual realities and experiences. It shows that there does not have to be the possibility of a biological reason for sex.

I also would like to enhance that thought with the fact that contraception makes het love very close if not the same as gay love. It's our attempt to remove biological justification from het sex. So, het and gay sex both point out this beautiful clarity of sex for sex's sake.

At the same time this sex for sex's sake has been there for eons, regardless of gay or contraception sex. There have always been people who could not conceive. Gay sex and contraception sex do not alone make the point that sex is good just for sex's sake. There are many couples that cannot conceive and these people were born that way.

Is het-contraception sex, gay sex and cannot-conceive sex the same thing? Are they better or worse than plain ol' naked het sex?

Where does the Trinity fit in this? By the Trinity, I mean that The Father (representing the Creator) and the Son (representing the Incarnation) generated the Holy Spirit. That is the Father "knowing" (in the full biblical meaning of that word:rolleyes the Son generated the Holy Spirit (or Third Person of the Trinity). The fact that we are created in God's image and that God creates through intimate "knowledge" has me on the fence on this issue.

Is our love supposed to be open to life because it seems to be God's very essence to be a creator based on love? And I don't simply mean to create "love" but a person with a soul who is capable of union with God. And are gay couples, contracepting-het couples and cannot-conceive couples not fully imaging God's essence by their incomplete acts?

Huh? Not sure if I was able to get across my questions there. Hey, it's no fair when your brain smells of Vodka and Cranberry.
 

I really can't say anything more than repeat yet again:

quote:

---

Gay sex is as spiritual or as unspiritual as making-baby sex. Gay sex helps us see this side to ALL sex, gay and straight.

---

I would add: gay couples are a public statement of this side of sex - you don't have to know the details (ie whether they use contraception or are infertile) to know they aren't going to procreate biologically.

And no, sexuality as spiritual isn't modern - as I'm arguing that it's natural then I wouldn't be saying that, would I!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:

I don't know. I'm kind of groping in the dark as far as blokes are concerned.

---

Erm.....
 

As a former funda-definitelymental-ist, I've had to deal with the issues of sexuality as part of my own journey towards wholeness.

I came out as a lesbian ten years ago now, and had to leave the Church in order to do so. It felt like it was either the deepest instincual part of me, or my faith. And I couldn't believe in a God who would tell me that everything I was feeling (and I'd been a Christian for nine years or more) was wrong.

I've known God do an awful lot of healing in my life. I can point to ways in which I have been changed through prayer, some sudden, some more slowly.

And yet, despite many frantic, desparate, heart-felt pleas, God did not change my sexual orientation.

It took Metropolitan Community Church, and a lot of God-incidences to help me realise that I can integrate my faith and my sexuality - that they can even inspire and help eachother, as Joan has been saying.

I have a partner, also a Christian. We have a committed, monogomous relationship. And we have seen God working through us, ministering as a couple, to people around us. Our prayer has always been to have God at the centre of our relationship. And that we were - and are- willing to give up anything in our relationship that was displeasing to God.

All we have seen are blessings. And those around us who know us will add their support and testimony to this.

We try and live by the "meat before idols" principle - we are discreet when in church and do not "flaunt" our sexuality or our relationship. Because we don't want to cause offense to anyone who does believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful. And while there are times that we have cried, and longed for a "marriage-of-sorts" type ceremony to affirm our love and committment in the heart of the congregation where we worship, I think that realistically, this is a long way off.

I'm rambling a bit now, and congrats to anyone who's read this far...

Peace,

Kirsti
 

Won't be joining in this debate been here several times before on these boards.

Though it has to be said my opinion has changed as a result has any one elses?
 

.. the gay men=camp thing... my personal theory on that, and on the very "aggressive butch" attitude you see from some lesbians.. the whole "loud and proud, in yer face" attitude...

... I think comes from a deep sense of hurt at being left out of society, a feeling of rejection at some level.

And then it's all too easy for that hurt and rejection to swing into "Well, I'm going to be NOTHING like them! I'm going to be different! And I'm going to show just how different I can be!" - and thus you get the sort of behaviours mentioned above.

And sadly, the gay subculture seems to embody a lot of the worst of these. And, if you're feeling isolated and insecure, the subculture offers instant acceptance - and its own, easy to follow, rules of behaviour, dress, conduct, reading material, festivals ...

(and yes, someday I'm going to write an essay on the parallels between that and the evangelical Christian sub-culture)

Peace,

Kirsti
 

quote:

---

(and yes, someday I'm going to write an essay on the parallels between that and the evangelical Christian sub-culture)

---

Please do, as an evangelical christian who cannot stand the evangelical sub-culture I hope that it will be a best seller

LOL
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lizzabee:
It just ain't my place to decide what is a sin and what is not.

---

Lizzabee,

If you're a thinking human being then that's exactly what you have to decide. You're responsible for your own conduct. If you have children, you're going to have to teach them right from wrong to the best of your ability.

What it isn't our place to do is to impose our individual ideas of what's sinful or not sinful on other people (over and above that minimum consensus of values that is necessary for community life).

Both those who seek to use the Bible to impose their conservative views, and those who seek to use their victimhood to impose their right to do whatever feels good, are equally IMHO on the wrong path.

I'm very impressed with Inanna's post combining humility, self-acceptance, and concern for the feelings of others. Whatever inner resources or community situation make this sort of maturity possible, I pray that they may grow to be available to all.

Russ

(PS: sorry to quote my own post, but couldn't resist highlighting the contrast between the view that we're all "broken" and Matt's view that we're all "bad").
 

I can't imagine what it must've been like for an evo to come out - I'm finding it difficult enough as an anglo-catholic!
 

I've written more about my coming out journey hereif anyone wants to read.

And Joan - actually, converting to Catholicism has helped me grow more secure in my sexual identity as a part of my whole personhood. The Catholic teaching of "conscience" as your guide, and what you will be judged on when you stand before God is incredibly freeing, and a wonderful invitation to develop a mature adult faith. Yes, we have to inform our consciences by knowing what the Bible says, what the Church teaches, but also what psychology and science tells us, and, most importantly, what the voice of God-living-in-me, and my gut instincts tell me.

I'd disagree with the "we are inherantly sinful" theology. I much prefer Russ's brokenness. But, when I was baptized, I became a "new creation". God didn't just throw a white sheet over my old, sinful nature. Instead, I am now living from God's Spirit within me.

Anyway, before I get into rambling again.. thank you for the warm welcome. I spent most of today feeling incredibly vulnerable wondering if there were going to be any replies and if so, how people would react. I can breathe slightly easier now.

Peace,

Kirsti
 

Personally, it's really good hearing from someone who's further down the line from me and is female - a consequence of being AC is that all my 'role models' of gay christians are male ! Also someone who's reached an accommodation within themselves about their church - I've nearly left the Anglican church on many many occasions over the last months because I felt unable to reach a healthy one.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inanna:

.. the gay men=camp thing... my personal theory on that, and on the very "aggressive butch" attitude you see from some lesbians.. the whole "loud and proud, in yer face" attitude...

... I think comes from a deep sense of hurt at being left out of society, a feeling of rejection at some level.

And then it's all too easy for that hurt and rejection to swing into "Well, I'm going to be NOTHING like them! I'm going to be different! And I'm going to show just how different I can be!" - and thus you get the sort of behaviours mentioned above.

And sadly, the gay subculture seems to embody a lot of the worst of these. And, if you're feeling isolated and insecure, the subculture offers instant acceptance - and its own, easy to follow, rules of behaviour, dress, conduct, reading material, festivals ...

---

...which then leads to even more and stronger reactions from those who believe that homosexuality is not acceptable.

If the idea of peanut butter and banana sandwiches disgusts me, and that is OK, why is it not OK for the idea of homosexuality to disgust me? Others may like peanut butter and banana sandwiches - I'd just prefer if they did not put them on my plate or eat them in front of me.

(running quickly, because I expect to get jumped on for this...)
 

how has anyone ever attempted to force gayness on you? were you the victem of a rape attempt? thats the only possible comparison, and that not a good one, to someone trying to put a peanut butter and banana sandwich on your plate. as to eating one in front of you, i'm sure you would be annoyed if, as you were about to dig into your nice rare roast beef at a restaurant, someone came up to you and said "i'm a vegetarian and i find that disgusting, so you mustn't do it."
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inanna:
thank you for the warm welcome. I spent most of today feeling incredibly vulnerable wondering if there were going to be any replies and if so, how people would react. I can breathe slightly easier now.

---

Hi Inanna. As a fellow newbie I completely understand your anxiety - I have been feeling just the same over my computer-less weekend, having posted on this thread last week for my first venture into Purg (perhaps, for my own peace of mind, I should have worked up from a less controversial topic!) even though I'd not said anything as personal as you have.

I appreciated your posts and am glad you felt that you could share your experience here.

From what I've seen of Purgatory, most people do realise that it takes a lot of courage to share their personal experiences and they will respect that in their responses.

Dodgy arguments, on the other hand, may get ripped apart - but even then people don't tend to jump down your throat unless you're being insufferably arrogant.

I like to think that the Ship is a safe space for vulnerability and uncertainty.

So, welcome, and thank you for joining us.
 

Inanna - I second Elaine's comments, the Ship is a safe place. It's very safe to explore in as well: I've found people have been pretty patient with me, even when I go into one of my ultra-agressive moods

Elaine - I should've said, thanks for your posts, they both made valuable contributions.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

If the idea of peanut butter and banana sandwiches disgusts me, and that is OK, why is it not OK for the idea of homosexuality to disgust me? Others may like peanut butter and banana sandwiches - I'd just prefer if they did not put them on my plate or eat them in front of me.

---

I think that the main difference with this is that there are all sorts of other things to eat other than peanut butter and banana sandwiches (can I also add an 'ew' at the idea?). And even their most devoted advocate would not suggest a diet solely of such substance.

But, for those of us who are lesbian and gay, there really is no other alternative when it comes to relationships. We don't have the choice to "eat something else" (OK, I know there's an innuendo there, but I'll keep this PG for now )

So it's a case of trying to compare apples and oranges - the analogy doesn't really hold up....

And as for your other point about the cycle continuing - absolutely. I think it's such a real shame that the image most heterosexual Christians have of gays and lesbians is:

a) entirely focused on our sex lives
and b) based on the worst stereotypes from gay pride parades and the 'angry vocal' minority.

And likewise, I'm sure there are way too many gays and lesbians who sterotype Christians as narrow-minded and homophobic.

[I]Peace,[I]
Kirsti, who thinks that discussions like this are a great place to break past those stereotypes.
 

Welcome aboard. Yes, we are very glad to have your thoughtful and considerate responses on this thread. Homosexuality is a frequently recurring topic on the Ship, and we hope that we provide a safe place for people to explore ideas on the subject. As long as posters are obeying the Ship's Ten Commandments (most important ones in this context: Don't Be A Jerk and Attack The Issue, Not The Person), all views are welcome.

RuthW
Purgatory host
 

Inanna... you seem familiar... did you use to post here, way back in the beginning?

[/tangent]
 

.. and yes, I did. Way way way waaaaaaaaaaay back.

Kirsti, very impressed with your memory.
 

Hello matey, do you remember me? I met you at Holy Joes about 3 years ago and raved on about your website.. now if you do remember me from way back then I will be VERY impressed.

Welcome back,

...Lev
 

I'm interested to know how you went from fundamentalisim to Catholicsim though?

I guess you found catholic attitudes to homosexuality more in line with your own, but there must have been an awful lot of other issue's to weigh up on the other side of the scales?

Some of you may remember Ann Widdicombe becoming catholic over the issue of women priests?? (I think I am remembering that correctly?)

It struck me that whatever I felt about women priests a single issue wouldn't get me changing denominations like that.
 

Thanks for the kind words.

And actually, the official position/teaching of the Catholic church is about the same as evangelicals - they don't believe that the orientation is sin, but is "objectively disordered" (I think that's the phrase).

Most of this is based on Aquinas's natural law argument, which ends up saying that masturbation is a greater evil than rape or incest (*boggles quietly to herself*) and hence one I feel free to respectfully replace with a more up to date theology.

As far as my reasons for converting.. I'm not quite sure they belong in this thread, but are mainly to do with the sacramental view of life and faith as a Catholic. I no longer have to "work really hard" to try and believe or feel God's presence, or hope for an ecstatic worship experience ... the Eucharist promises that God will be present, whether I believe or not, whether the priest believes it, or not ... it's about God, not about me. Which I really really like.

Peace,

Kirsti
 

Thanks Erin for the welcome-back message... good to know that I'm still remembered.

And Lev, OK, I had to surf through your website looking at all the past piccies, but yes, I do indeed remember you being so nice about my webpages at HJs way back when.

[/random chatter]
 

I was talking with a good friend of mine last night who is doing his personal journey with his sexuality. One of the things that was poigniant in our conversation was that he hoped that we could go beyond the support stuff and start of really talk about the issue and to work through this part of our relationship.

My friend said that this journey is dangerous particularly in the church world and some have already felt that the friendship is too much to take on emotionally and so do not make the necessary time for various reasons

The challenge for me as a friend is issues around accompaniment. For me - it is my friend who has the integrity to be working through the truth of his sexuality in his life and my integrity is working through what it means to be a friend in spaces that are hostile to my friends situation.

For some who I worship and work with this can either a) question me and my judgement or
b) alienate me for stuff that I wish to do because of association issues
c) Respect the fact that this person is first and foremost a friend prior to disclosure. I wish it were c) all the time but it is not a perfect world!!

I am not sure whether we have engaged with the accompanying part of this issue especially for friends who might be people who have a higher profile.

Be interesting to hear some more views on accompaniment in church life.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
It does not, however, give me any sort of moral etc right to tell hets to stop what they're doing or even to call it sinful.

---

Quite so, and whilst we're at it, can't we come up with a better word than "hets"? Apart from anything else, it's so naff. We have to be so careful about what we call others. Well, FWIT, I am offended by the word "hets" simply because it's such an ugly abuse of the English language. Much worse than those "odd" boys who've hijacked that lovely English word "gay".

OK, the last sentence was ironic (in the sense of "some people won't get the humour") but please! "HETS"???? "Homos" went out even when I was a lad so "hets" can't be any better.

Where are the shipmates with imagination who can come up with some terminology (if we must have it) that neither offends anybody nor is an abuse of the language?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corpus cani:
Where are the shipmates with imagination who can come up with some terminology (if we must have it) that neither offends anybody nor is an abuse of the language?

---

unfortunately, i don't think it's gonna happen. no-one likes to be defined by what they do, and the only words that can define these two groups of people obviously centre in on the differences. someone is gonna be offended by whatever is written... unless we can come up with some unloaded, completely unrelated terms picked at random from the dictionary...

um: "kidney-machines" and "swiggletrees"???

(mind u... i'm sure we could find someone who found those offensive, if we searched hard enough!)
 

Joan the Dwarf's use of that word immediately turns me off anything else she has to say, especially when coupled with her quite aggressive style (IMO).

Thankfully we have, by contrast, Inanna, who puts her case very reasonably and has probably got the attention and respect of the likes of myself and Matt the M.M. (who I believe share a similar starting point of view on the subject).
 

I've appreciated and enjoyed reading Joan's comments, and - IMHO - if she's sounded agressive, that's probably because she's felt like she has to defend her corner in the face of attacks.

When you're just coming out, and just dealing with all this, and the attitudes of the established church, and your own feelings of "I've always thought this must be wrong, but help, it's me, and it doesn't feel wrong at all.." it's very easy to see rejection and shock everywhere. And get defensive as a result of that.

Me, I've lived with this for a while, I have an incredibly supportive Christian partner, we have a great church (they hired my partner as assistant music minister knowing she was lesbian, and the priest there gave the two of us a private 'engagement blessing' service..) and I've done an awful lot of reading, of thinking, and of praying to get to a point where I'm reasonably secure in my faith and my sexuality.

Joan - you're doing great. Keep listening to God, listening to your instincts, and email me if you want to talk off-board.

Peace

Kirsti
 

On this and so many other topics, I have many more questions than answers....
 

I don't like the word 'het', which I'd not come across before reading this thread - Joan's defence of it is rational, I see that, but there's no denying the ugliness of the word. And, although I have used the word in my previous posts as the lesser of the two evils, I don't particularly like being referred to as 'straight', either - it suggests I don't get to crack any gags, which is a shame.

Language, hey. Insoluble problems. We'll just have to make do.

On another note, I don't find the tone of Joan's posts aggressive. They come across to me as confident and intelligent. I hope I'm not just saying that because I pretty much agree with them... I don't think so.

I must admit I had doubts whether a thread on this topic could avoid becoming a storm thread, but, apart from a couple of hairy moments, I have been impressed by posters' restraint and courtesy.

And Inanna - I see I shouldn't have referred to you as a newbie!
 

One of my irritations after the claiming of the word gay by the homosexual community. Is the word 'partner' to mean some one we are having sexual relations with. Partner used to mean some one I did sketchs with the person i worked with.
 

Joan said:

quote:

---

I was wondering about taking back my comments that the Ship was a safe place after Alaric's comments, which I found pretty brutal and upsetting.

---

The Ship being a safe place does not mean that you (or your style) will be accepted without question, or that everyone will like you. I strongly encourage people here to take stock of what they say before they say it, particularly if it is on highly personal subject. Alaric had as much right to his comments as others had to object to them.

Community Editor hat OFF
 

quote:

---

Nightlamp wrote:
One of my irritations after the claiming of the word gay by the homosexual community. Is the word 'partner' to mean some one we are having sexual relations with. Partner used to mean some one I did sketchs with the person i worked with.

---

That's a tough one. Because what else can I use to describe the woman I love, who has been a part of my life for seven years, and who I hope will be with me until the end of it. Our relationship, our love, consists of an awful lot more than just "sexual relations" Nightlamp - just as any husband would say of his wife that their marriage is more than just what goes on in the bedroom.

I don't like to use "girlfriend" - we're both in our 30s, and it seems somewhat teenager-ish.

I don't really want to use "lover" because, as I said above, our relationship is about an awful lot more than sex. And "lover" seems to be heading for the "rubbing-it-in-people's-faces" which really isn't appropriate in my book.

And I can't use "wife" because we have no official marriage ceremony. (Though I have called her my fiancee on occasions.)

"Life-partner" is way too cumbersome and unwieldy, as is "significant other" (and that also implies that everyone else in my life is non-significant, which certainly isn't the case). "Companion" sounds like I'm an old lady being taken care of, which is also nowhere near the truth.

So any other suggestions as to a word which encompasses the depth of a loving committed relationship, while not offending anyone, or taking more than a few syllables to spell out would be very welcome.

Peace,
Kirsti
 

No, Alaric's comments do not constitute personal attack. It seems to me Erin's already made that clear.

Host hat off
 

I have always felt the need, however, to make sure that people don't equate safe with unchallenged or universally liked. It saves me from work in the end.
 

Some of the forms of work I have done have meant more than working togther it was an entire life style we were partners then and as far as i am concerned they are my ex partners.
 

And no, Alaric has not violated a 10c in his content. It was the nastiness in his tone I was objecting to, hence I didn't yell for the hosts. My last post about the 10c's was a cheap jibe at Erin because I was angry at being told off for being upset - I was trying to pick a fight with you, thankyou for not rising to the bait.

Erin: "I have always felt the need, however, to make sure that people don't equate safe with unchallenged or universally liked. It saves me from work in the end."

For me, safe=safe to challenge and be challenged. As shown by the first 3.5 pages of this thread

Peace? Or have I missed something?
 

Back to the thread: maybe it'd be useful to have 2 words, for writing and speaking. In speech I've often heard "other half" (only one more syllable than "partner"), and if thats too much to write then in text I've seen "SO" (for Significant Other). Just don't mix 'em up - calling t'other half your "Esso" in speech might get you a few wierd looks and petrol-station comments
 

I have to admit that I read this topic because I find it so mind-boggling that homosexuality is such a big issue for so many heterosexual people. I guess somehow I lucked out and didn't pick up any early indoctrination about it, so as I grew up and became sexually aware of people, I just gradually discovered that there were different sexual attractions and added it to the long list of attributes that people have in our minds which causes our brain to sort them into interesting/sexual, interesting/nonsexual, boring.

The much more challenging question to me is how to deal with the sexual urges of the adolescent and young adult (without pushing them into early marriage and children) while also creating a civil and religious system that creates and supports stable 'families' which DO provide the proper environment for raising children? And I put the emphasis on *stable*, which is why the 'families' is in quotes.

I realize that for good bible-based Christians, this is just blather, so don't bother arguing with me. But I had to say it.
 

quote:

---

Joan suggested:
In speech I've often heard "other half" (only one more syllable than "partner"), and if thats too much to write then in text I've seen "SO" (for Significant Other). Just don't mix 'em up - calling t'other half your "Esso" in speech might get you a few wierd looks and petrol-station comments

---

Yeah, I tend to use SO online a fair bit - problem is that very few non-net-literate folks have any clue what it stands for.

As for 'other half' this is a peeve of mine and probably belongs in a Hell-bend rant ... I really dislike the implications that I am somehow giving up half of myself by joining in a relationship. Also, for me at least, it has somewhat sexist connotations where it's used in a demeaning way.. "my better half", when in actual fact, he means "the little woman at home" kind of thing. [disclaimer]Please note, I don't mean this about all men, or all people who use that phrase. this is purely my own gut reaction to it.[/disclaimer]
 

And for a lot of what was written, I would have to say it was just that - depths of fear and angst which clouded rational thinking and gave rise to the same kind of adolescent "humour" with which so many of us try to hide our deep-seated uneasiness at anything remotely related to sex, especially its physical manifestations. I'm afraid I was less than impressed with a lot of the semi-flippant interchange, especially when it deviated into a kind of delighted recognition and greeting of old friends like that which you see at school reunions.

On the other hand I did appreciate the serious discussions by those who either attempted to exegete the biblical passages involved, or by talking openly of their own experiences gave me a fresh insight into what it's like to be homosexual in a heterosexually oriented Church. Thank you - there are too many of you to mention by name.

I should perhaps confess that I have never had any doubt that I am veryheterosexual, and that I have in fact had very little to do personally with homosexuals (or if I have I still don't know it!) But because the whole question has been very much a hot potato in our Uniting Church here in Australia I have had, like many others, to think deeply about issues which previously had never occurred to me as issues, and to try and arrive at some position which takes account of both God's purity and His love. Let me now try to wind up this thread, certainly my own contribution to it, by spelling out some conclusions which I have reached so far - "conclusions" not being the best word, since I don't pretend for one moment to have all the answers, and that the whole subject is too complex for there to be one final answer anyway:-

First, we should ask, "What is a homosexual?"(and for the purposes of this dissertation I take the word "homosexual" to embrace "lesbian"!):

Is a homosexual one who through no fault of their own finds themselves with the feelings for one or more of the same sex that one would usually expect to feel toward the opposite sex?

OR

Is a homosexual one who actually engages with another of the same sex in physical activities normally associated with physical "love-making" between a man and a woman?

All the biblical passages refer to the latter - overt physical sexual acts. Biblical writers were not in the habit of dissecting psychological motive and subconscious intention, as our society is. So let us be clear that the Bible speaks against physical acts within same-sex relationships - it has nothing to say against deep and abiding relationship between man and man(eg., David and Jonathan) which may well transcend even the relationship of husband and wife.

On the other hand, we cannot avoid the fact that the Bible makes it equally plain, especially in the example and teaching of Jesus, that while certain behaviours may well be labelled "sin against God", there can be no ostracism or rejection of those who perpetrate those behaviours. The story of John8:1-12: the woman taken in adultery, could I believe have equally well been told of two emn caught sodomising each other: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone at them . . . Men, has no one condemned you? . . . Then neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more!"

Surely it is possible for Christians, and the Church, to both declare that homosexuality has no place in God's purpose for humanity, and to demonstrate by word and deed God's self-giving love for all people, regardless of who they are or what they do. I really cannot see that this should be such a problem for so many. It is probably because of society's obsession with physical sex that the whole issue has got out of proportion - someone onthis thread rightly reminded us that sex involves awhole lot more than just this one thing.

Sure, this raises many questions over which there will always be differences of opinion, maybe even radically different answers for different situations. Questions like, What is our attitude to homosexal "marriages"? Should homosexuals be ordained or commissioned to spiritual ministry within the Church? What about the adoption of children by homosexual couples?

I could go on, but I think I've said more than enough already! Surprising how these trains of thought go onfrom point to point before one realizes it!

Over and out!!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elijah on Horeb:

And for a lot of what was written, I would have to say it was just that - depths of fear and angst which clouded rational thinking and gave rise to the same kind of adolescent "humour" with which so many of us try to hide our deep-seated uneasiness at anything remotely related to sex, especially its physical manifestations. I'm afraid I was less than impressed with a lot of the semi-flippant interchange, especially when it deviated into a kind of delighted recognition and greeting of old friends like that which you see at school reunions.

---

Hmm. I think that's a bit sweeping, and a bit harsh.

As I've said before, I've been pretty impressed with the level of debate on this thread, and the use of humour hasn't, to my mind, detracted from it, as it so easily could have. This is in contrast to the 'What is sex' thread which I understand has spiralled inexorably hell-wards because of its graphic content.

I also think the humour has served a useful, if not essential, purpose in diffusing tension when feelings have been running high. If cracking jokes had been a way of ducking the issues or taking the mick out of certain groups of people, yes, it would have been irritating, but on the whole I don't think it was.

I can do no better than echo good ol' Mr Lewis on this one, and point out that, 'We must not be totally serious about Venus. Indeed we can't be totally serious without doing violence to our humanity'.

As to why heterosexuals should get so het(!) up about the issue, I've already said my piece, as have others, and I won't get into it again. Suffice it to say that it's not always a prurient preoccupation with other people's personal lives. (Of course, I have that too, but I do try to keep it off this thread...)

Peace, folks, and well done, I say.
 

quote:

---

Elijah on Horeb pronounced:
Surely it is possible for Christians, and the Church, to both declare that homosexuality has no place in God's purpose for humanity, and to demonstrate by word and deed God's self-giving love for all people, regardless of who they are or what they do. I really cannot see that this should be such a problem for so many.

---

So, you're reducing it all back down to a "love the sinner, hate the sin" aspect; and using the grounds that the Bible only refers to homosexual actions to conclude that all homosexual behaviour is a sin?

Your comments made me wonder - how much of what gay and lesbian Christians have been saying did you really read? Take in? It's not as simple as your statement makes out.

You focus right back on the sex again, with your example of "two men sodomizing eachother" - and your very choice of verb is one that would offend and upset many gays and lesbians. The story of sodom is not about homosexuality. So using 'sodomize' in this context is inflamatory at best. (And, from what my friends tell me, anal sex is not necessarily a part of many gay men's sexual behaviour anyway.)

You are right in stating that the Bible in no way condemns - and actually in several places affirms male-male friendship ("More pleasing to me was your love than the love of women" as David said to Jonathan or vice versa), and the female bonding of Ruth to Naomi, where the words originally said from one woman to another are now often used in wedding services.

And I would say that from there is the place of acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships. Not focusing on what may or may not go on in anyone's bedroom. But meeting us as children of God, as equals, with a right to form monogomous faithful partnerships, just as heterosexuals have.

Peace,
Kirsti
 

Tirian
 

I am sorry, Joan the Dwarf, for any nastiness of tone -looking at my original post it could have been put nicer. It is remiss of me to criticise someone for 'aggressiveness' and do so in an unpleasant manner. I also aplogise for it seeming to you to be a 'personal attack'.
 

quote:

---

I have to admit that I read this topic because I find it so mind-boggling that homosexuality is such a big issue for so many heterosexual people. I guess somehow I lucked out and didn't pick up any early indoctrination about it, so as I grew up and became sexually aware of people, I just gradually discovered that there were different sexual attractions and added it to the long list of attributes that people have in our minds which causes our brain to sort them into interesting/sexual, interesting/nonsexual, boring.

---

I have the same feeling when I get into these threads -- even ones that are as well conducted as this one has been. We had so many gay friends around growing up that it never occurred to me that it was an issue. My parents did say that they'd rather I was straight because parents want their children to have a good life, and (especially at the time they were speaking) being homosexual could make life difficult.

I remember how astonished I was (as a child) when I first heard a serious argument, the implications of which were that many of my honorary uncles were apparently doomed to hellfire, a position not preached in my church, which generally taught on more pressing international issues, such as the obligation to work for justice and alleviate suffering, etcetera. As a result, I tend to regard extended public debate, and indeed, extended speaking from the pulpit in this regard an active distraction from our primary duties as Christians, in over-focusing on something that just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, using a convenient group to blame and hate, for no reason than to spotlight our own supposed holiness.

There are so many other things condemned in the scripture these same people aren't yammering on about. It's just extraordinary to pick this one thing and make it such a huge issue.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inanna:
As for 'other half' ... I really dislike the implications ...

---

I wouldn't describe my doulos David as my "other half" (though I don't think I'd call him my "partner" either) partly because he's not the only doulos in my life, though he is (at present) the most committed one.

I know some people, too, who are partners and yet are no longer lovers as such, and seem relatively content with their (sexually open) relationship.

This is probably going to confuse, baffle, and/or disturb some people...
 

Myself, I was just thinking I'd leave this thread alone now because I've pretty much said anything even semi-original I have to say, and was worrying that people might think I was unhealthily obsessed with homosexuality issues/sex/the conduct of this thread if I didn't go and post elsewhere!

Or that I might indeed become so, given time...

I must have a chat with you about C.S. Lewis (on another thread) at some point instead.

Yours affirmatively

Elaine
 

Getting back on topic, some good news from me on this whole subject. I had a visit from my parents (first time of seeing my mother since I'd told her I was gay), and not only did we end up going out for a meal in Soho (gay village bit of central London) but also mother told me she'd come a long way in her thinking, and now she hoped I would find someone to be with and she wanted me to be happy!!!!!! If you heard a distant thud on Friday night that was the sound of my jaw hitting the floor . It's nice not having the oppression of having to ignore her opinion, and I'm impressed with the amount of thinking she's obviously done.
 

quote:

---

i've never understood it either. it always seemed such an odd thing to care about. why would anyone care who someone else was having sex with, as long as it was consensual???

---

Gary
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Canucklehead:

Personally, I don't view homosexuality to be different from any other sin

---

As one who has, elsewhere on these boards, quite clearly stated my opinion that the bible prohibits homosexual practice, I must come in here (having restrained myself as much as possible to date).

Let me make this clear: Homosexuality is not repeat not a sin. This has been agreed even by Pope John-Paul II. All arguments on this and other threads revolve around homosexual practice, something that is a matter for debate, but has been done to death here and which I, for one, have no wish to rehearse again.

As I have said elsewhere on these boards, we cannot know God's mind but can only guess. I strongly suspect that when each of us has the opportunity to ask him in person for his views on sin in general and any particular ones that concern us, then we will all be quite surprised, some more than others!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Open relationships and all that's not particular to homosexuality

---

Sometimes I think my communities (mainly leather but I'm connected to the "bears" as well) are not well-liked by some others in the gay community who are fighting for acceptance, because the image they think will be most acceptable (two committed, exclusive partners, no more, no less) to outsiders who are dubious about gay relationships is far, far away from the way our own lives go. They don't like it when we march in gay pride parades in leather -- sometimes we are not even invited to, though we are often in attendance -- they think it gives the rest of them/us a bad name. Yet for me and for many others, the way we approach being gay is just as valid as theirs; all we want is to be accepted, or at least not persecuted, for not matching their model.

Some of us in the gay community are even dubious about legalised "gay marriage" (despite the obvious benefits to us) because it will still leave us out, or perhaps even pressure us to conform to that image. (Which may be part of the reason we accept "domestic partnership" more.)

Sorry for nattering on (and on) -- and I truly hope none of this is inflammatory to anyone.

David
 

ahem.

canucklehead... i'm straight.

and i don't think homosexual acts are sinful.
 

If you've read this thread you will realise that many people here do not consider someones' sexuality as unnatural. To say people are homosexual because it is simply something they enjoy fails to recognise the struggles many people have had coming to terms with their sexuality.

Second I find the use of speech marks in the phrase "christian" homosexuals implying that homosexuals are not Christians. On this Ship we do not take it upon ourselves to decide who is or is not a Christian.

Alan
Purgatory host
 

So, regardless of the rhetoric or who agrees with whom or who doesn't agree with whom, God will judge each of us justly. The justice may not have anything to do with anyone's rhetoric on this thread. Or it might. Regardless, our souls are in the balance.

If you aren't 1000% sure of how things will wash out, then change. Even if 95% of people think you're a kook for changing. If on the other hand, you are 1000% sure, then don't change. Even if 95% of people think you are a kook.

The bottom line is:
Kook is okay. Sin is not.

We should avoid sin. Since homosexuality seems to be in the gray area, then just watch it and stay in the white. People are obviously concerned for your everlasting souls.

But, Homosexuality definitely is not a reason to push someone out of the church. And it definitely isn't a reason to say "Oh gross, that must be crushed." And most definitely, homosexuality is not a reason to abandon God's grace or say someone has abandoned God's grace.

We shouldn't sin and we shouldn't judge like we are God.

Hit me please! And thanks in advance. I needed that.
 

Second I find the use of speech marks in the phrase "christian" homosexuals implying that homosexuals are not Christians. On this Ship we do not take it upon ourselves to decide who

Alan, I will in the future avoid the use of speech marks in the way that I did, thankyou for pointing this out to me. However, just because people struggle with a sexual issue doesn't mean it isn't unnatural, the fact is that homosexuality is not found in nature; hence it is "unnatural".

Joan, simply because I do not see eye-to-eye with you on this matter does not me that I am trolling. I have known several homosexual people, some of whom I have considered friends. That doesn't mean I accept what they do as being normal or in any way condone their actions. I DO NOT hate people - homosexual or otherwise. However, I do believe that ALL sin is an abomination to God, and I do believe that the bible treats homosexual activity as a sin. I know you will disagree with this and I don't write it simply to be unpleasant to you. It is simply what I believe in my heart to be true.
 

The problem with saying stay away from homosexual practice 'just to be on the safe side' is that there isn't a 'safe side'. There's no default practice that God's calling us to. It's flatly unnatural for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual practices, so steering clear of homosexual practice would mean celibacy. This isn't something to go for just because we can't do anything else - it should be a positive choice in its own right (ask any religious). There is no 'white' for a homosexual to stay in.

This actually ties up with what canuckle said, that we should "seek to break free of their unnatural lifestyle and turn their hearts toward God.". Putting aside the sanctimoniousness of his/her post, this is actually exactly what I have done by coming out. I've broken free of the unnatural lifestyle of first pretending to be straight, and then when that didn't work pretending that I was not a sexual being and not interacting with people sexually. My heart was turned towards God when I broke free of that pretense and oppression. Being homosexually active is something I see as a natural consequence of the way I am (not just as gay) - I am not called (at this time) to celibacy. Denying that side of a relationship would be denying what I feel God is leading me to, and has healed me enough to be able to do at some point. Avoiding sexual contact would be, I feel, wrong, and wronging God. For me, coming out was sacramental: it was a visible sign of God working within me. I mean more than that, but I don't have the words.

It feels like I've rambled in this post. I hope it makes some sense nevertheless.
 

please go back to the beginnning and take a look at my links on homosexual animals.

its perfectly natural.

which, as others have pointed out means nothing about its morality in the first place. but thats besides the point.
 

Anyways... if you had read the thread, you'll realise you're only the second time I've questioned if someone's a troll, out of all the people who've disagreed with me. It's a perfectly reasonable question on a thread such as this when someone comes in who looks as if they haven't read the thread, who hasn't posted anywhere else, and who says that anyone who disagrees with them is in denial because they want to carry on with something they like. I have to say I laughed out loud when I read that, it's not an argument that I find easy to take seriously

Read the exchanges with Drake, as this seems a bit familiar: his first posts were saying "come on guys you know I'm right". The point is we're debating - we're all entitled to our own views and to have those views taken seriously, rather than told we're trying to justify something that we know in our hearts is wrong because we enjoy it. It's common debating courtesy to engage with the issue, not try and psychoanalyse people. I've restrained myself a lot on that score

BTW, welcome aboard. Have a tramp around the boards, there's a lot more here than just homosexuality.
 

You say you've read this thread but then you raise exactly the same positions about homosexuality being unnatural or not occurring in nature which were responded to at length several pages ago here.

Similarly, the position that all homosexual activity is prohibited by scripture has also been argued against intelligently and in detail on this thread.

This is a debate board and not a place for you to simply announce, as if from on high, that you think something is 'unnatural' or not 'normal' or a 'sin' or 'abomination'.

If you want to debate, then please give original and cogent reasons why you find the previous rebuttals of your positions unsatisfactory.

If you don't want to debate, then why are you posting on this board?

Louise
 

Joan - thanks for the welcome. I have lurked the boards for some time now, and although this isn't the first one I have posted to it's true that i haven't been very active. I suppose that in some sense my psychoanalysis, as you called it, of people justifying what they are doing so they can keep doing it is my way of trying to understand a behaviour that is so (in my mind) wrong. Anyway, as you can plainly see I have some very deep seated views on the topic which are not about to be changed anytime soon. But, as I alluded to in an earlier post, I am a sinner too and have my own sins to struggle with, so I don't view homosexuals to be any different from myself on that level at least. I do recognize that my viewpoint is offensive to you, but I do think it needs to be expressed at times.

Gary
 

I never said that one should avoid homosexual practices. I just said, just watch it and stay in the white. If to you there is no white, then that is fine. Stay in the lightest shade of gray as you can. I am not going to tell you what that is.

I am not God and neither is this Canucklehead. I am not agreeing nor want to be put in the same pot with him/her. On other things sure, but this - not the same Corningware for me.

Let me clarify, as it seems that I didn't write like my mind thought I was writing ...

We should avoid sin. Since homosexuality seems to be in the gray area, then just watch it and stay in the light gray area. I do not know what that means for you. It may have to do with practices, it may not. Again, I say I do not know. But somewhere there is a line over which it would be a sin, natural, unnatural, feels right, feels wrong ... regardless there is a line. God and you alone know what that area is for you. Follow that and have no fear.

Even if Canucklehead says he knows, he don't. Only you and God know. Stay gold and avoid sin. That is all we can try to do. Right?

That is all I am saying. No judgement here. I got too much to clean up over here. My backyard is awfully littered with wood. As you detect those things, please let me know and I'll think about them.

I'll take another please. And thank you.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[
people (on the boards and elsewhere) keep mentioning "committed couples," particularly monogamous ones, as their example of morally acceptable gay relationships. [...] When I see the assumption that we're talking about monogamous couples, I feel baffled and frustrated, because to me that's not the issue, and is completely irrelevant to my own life and to the lives of most of the other gay men I know. (I'm quite unlikely to meet monogamous gay men in the social venues I am part of, so I have no real idea what the proportion of monogamous to non-monogamous gay male relationships are.) To me "committed" also doesn't mean "exclusive," and so I felt I had to comment.

---

I suppose I'm one of the people who has quoted the example of a committed gay couple as an 'morally acceptable' relationship. Though I wouldn't use the phrase 'morally acceptable' in this context as it sounds rather grudging. It would sound as if I was saying, 'Okay, I'm willing to tolerate your being a practising homosexual so long as you do it in as respectable and heterosexual a way as possible, right down to the white dress and joint mortgage,' which is not what I have meant to say at any point, and apologise if it sounded that way.

I quoted the example because it's one I'm familar with: pretty much all my gay friends are 'non-scene', and so I don't have any experience of the sort of situation you describe, Chastmastr.

From my position of extreme ignorance, I have no idea how the dynamics of a non-exclusive sexual relationship, gay or straight, would work itself out in a loving way, having been brought up in a culture that sees long-term monogamy as the ideal.

But I'm sorry if the terms of this debate have been framed in a way that excludes a wide section of the gay community. Please don't stop posting on that account! We need to know if there's an aspect we're ignoring.

(Looks as though I'm not leaving this thread after all. )
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elaine from the bar:
[QB]From my position of extreme ignorance, I have no idea how the dynamics of a non-exclusive sexual relationship, gay or straight, would work itself out in a loving way, having been brought up in a culture that sees long-term monogamy as the ideal.

QB]

---

From my experience of answering a Lesbian Line for five years I'd say that for most lesbians non-exclusive sexual relationships don't work at all, and from listening to straight friends who experimented with it I'd say the same. But gay men seem to be very different with regard to being non exclusive anda happy couple. Lesbians tend more to be serially monogamous than having several partners at the same time, but that's another problem.

Maybe it is not such much a problem of being gay or straight but of being a man or a woman.

Abo
 

higamous hogamous,
women monogamous,
hogamous higamous,
men are polygamous

but i don't think thats true all the time anyway. no wide generalization ever is.
 

canucklehead - not reading a thread properly and then posting isn't a great idea. You just piss people off by coming out with stuff that's been dealt with before. It also lays you open to accusations of crusading/trolling
 

Because I believe that this is what gay Christians are called to. In the same way that straight men might like to have multiple partners, or casual sex, but their Christian ethics and beliefs mean that they aim for the ideal of monogomy - which has, as far as I know, been the church's teaching on marriage since the days of the Church fathers.

And it's not about 'aping' heterosexual partnerships - I simply believe that monogomous and faithful is the Christian "norm" for relationships, be they gay or straight.

Jeffrey John makes an excellent case for this in his book "Permanent, Faithful, Stable: Christian same-sex partnerships", published by Darton, Longman & Todd, which I highly recommend. It's a small book, and only £3.50 too.

And yayy Joan for your own news!! *Cheers loudly*

Peace,
Kirsti
 

Thanks for letting me clarify my point.

By the way, I didn't say I was for or against homosexual practices. And I don't think it matters where I weigh in on that.

That is between anyone who ever practices homosexual acts and God. (I did as a 8yr old kid with a friend). Determining if it is a sin or not is between every person and God. It is not for me, a crowd of people or anyone else to say what is a sin for anyone. The Church is our source for the truth (that is if we believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit). If the Church is fine with it, then go baby go, there should be no sin and it is good. If it is gray, then be cautious - be bold too and live well and hard.

My point was: We all bring our skin to judgment. That's just the simple point.

P.S.
I love homosexuals. I have an uncle who is gay (he gave me 5 cousins too, before he came out). He is a great guy who impresses me with his understanding and compassion. I have a brother in law who is gay. A friend is also a homosexual. They are great people. And my dear ol' mom thought I was a homosexual until I was in college and started to date. But that is beside the point.

Friends regardless. Snif.
 

but to return to the ideas of what is "morally acceptable"...and multiple partners...i was wondering what do people think of the fundamentalist mormans who practice polygamy/polygny? there are estimated to be 50,000 or more polygamists in utah. and some say there are many more but they are urged to be discreet...many utahans(?) are descended from polygamists. apparently in the 50's the us govt tried to prosecute a bunch of polygamists in utah in Short Creek() and separated their children from them and threw the men in jail...but the country made such an outcry the govt., never did that again. even though it is technically illegal. (strange, that.) so some people have figured a way to exist with multiple partners within a context of scripture. it seems they base their beliefs on the old testament and J. Smith's revelations. what are the actual Christian teachings forbidding multiple partners? (seems like a stupid question, i know...but then, i really don't know.)
 

RuthW
Purgatory host
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
joan, maybe he thinks that everyone whos been on the one side of the debate is gay?

ahem.

canucklehead... i'm straight.

and i don't think homosexual acts are sinful.

---

(And we can even discuss our views without fighting.)

See, we really do run the gamut here at SoF.
 

quote:

---

The problem with saying stay away from homosexual practice 'just to be on the safe side' is that there isn't a 'safe side'. There's no default practice that God's calling us to. It's flatly unnatural for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual practices, so steering clear of homosexual practice would mean celibacy.

---

I knew a man at a previous church I attended that had been in the same University Christian Union as me. In my student days I had no idea he had homosexual inclinations (I choose my words carefully). It was a major barrier between him and his father (AFAIK) that he was 'gay'.

Now, many at that church were the sort that believed God could 'change' someone from having homosexual inclinations to being 'straight', and believed this was possible in his case. Someone must have put him in touch with a place 'down south' that he could go on a 'residential' (or more than one) for counselling and prayer. So he went.

Eventually he had a girlfriend, one who knew exactly wht he had been through. I believe they meant a lot to each other. Then they split up, which AFAIK was NOT because of his 'past' homosexuality. Then he got another girlfriend, and this time they got married (I and Mrs the G. went to the wedding).

As far as I know they are still happily married. Are they 'wrong' to ever have done this? For he is the best evidence I have seen that God can change one's sexual orientation 'permanently'. (I have read about another, more 'extreme', example in 'Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire' by Jim Cymbala). If this is so, it suggests God does want to help homosexuals to stop being 'gay'.
 

The whole 'ex-gay' thing is massively muddied by the growing number of 'ex-ex-gays'.
 

Does it?

There is a whole range of what sexuality is - a sliding scale with completely gay and completely straight at the extremes. I think most peoples' sexuality is a lot more in the grey areas than they think .

Basically, I think God wants to help us be who we are (that's certainly been my experience, talking as an "ex-straight" ).
 

I was part of an online community debating the whole issue of Christianity and homosexuality, with the aim of "bridging the divide" and enabling good honest communication with people on both sides of the issue. (It's at Bridges Across if anyone wants to check it out)

And I met people there who claimed that God had healed them, and who had families etc to back up their evidence. And could show God at work in their lives, and told of how deeply unhappy they were with their sexuality prior to healing.

I also met people like myself for whom God's healing had taken the form of helping us to accept both our sexuality and our faith.

I don't believe we can limit God. I do believe that the former instance - the true "ex-gay" is incredibly rare, and that for many people, the ex-gay ministries have caused an awful lot more emotional damage than they were trying to heal.

And this even applies to its founders - the two men who ran the ex-gay group Courage (I /think/ it was that one) are now living together in a committed Christian partnership, and have apologised for the damage that their ministry caused.

It's a tough area. But I don't want to deny what God is doing in other people's lives. I also would like other people to respect what that same God is doing in mine, and how I am "working out my salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who is working in me."

Peace,
Kirsti
 

It's such a contrast to the "debate" on the christianity & renewal site, where there just seemed to be lots of very prejudiced people, some with rather weird obsessions!

In the end, God's love encompasses all of us in our struggles. I have my own struggles with sex and relationships, and I'm sure I've been as imperfect as the rest of us; but God loves us anyway.

Thank you everyone. Aside to Joan: I'm really happy that your mother has changed her mind. God works in mysterious ways...

Steve Waling
 

In the original DSM, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder; same in DSM-II. In DSM-III, homosexuality was a mental disorder ONLY if it was "ego-dystonic"--which means that it is a psychological disorder if one feels this way: "I'm homosexual, but I don't want to be."
In the DSM-IV, homosexual is not mentioned as a psychological disorder at all.

The changing culture makes a difference regarding the idea of what is and is not a disorder.
 

Sexuality is not a 'duality' situation. Not "either homosexual or heterosexual". It's a continuum - in fact, several continua (if that's the correct plural form?

See Using the Klein Scale to teach about sexual orientation for more on this - people may have very different 'attractions' from 'behaviours', 'emotional preferences' to 'sexual fantasies'. (How else, for example, would you classify a gay Christian who believes that his sexual attractions to other men are wrong, and so has married, and is having sex with a woman, while fantasising about men?)

Kirsti, muddying the waters once more...
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:

The whole 'ex-gay' thing is massively muddied by the growing number of 'ex-ex-gays'.

---

Must... not... make... pun... about... whether or not... ex or ex-ex- or ex-ex-ex-gays... are "uncanny"...

Agh, too late. The comics fan (Marvel Comics' Uncanny X-Men) in me took over.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inanna:
I was part of an online community debating the whole issue of Christianity and homosexuality, with the aim of "bridging the divide" and enabling good honest communication with people on both sides of the issue. (It's at Bridges Across if anyone wants to check it out)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
we're all entitled to our own views and to have those views taken seriously, rather than told we're trying to justify something that we know in our hearts is wrong because we enjoy it.

---

Joan,

This struck a real chord with me.

It's not immediately obvious to me (which may be my own stupidity) whether your defence of homosexual acts amounts merely to special pleading, or whether you have a genuine philosophy of what morality is, which happens to allow that homosexual acts are morally permissible.

For example, homosexual acts have something in common with incest, cannibalism, prostitution, or necrophilia in that:
• they are morally wrong according to Christian tradition
• they're about bodies and what we do with them
• there's a strong element of public disgust which can impede rational discussion.

Is there a substantial moral difference between these and homosexual acts, or do the same moral principles permit or condemn each equally ? Do you have a consistent moral philosophy which applies the same considerations in each case ?

I suppose that I grew up with the phrase "consenting adults behind closed doors". (Meaning that if there is no sin against other people, then it's not for other people to condemn homosexual acts, or incest, or anything else. God can sort out any sin against God).

While it may be stretching a point to call this a philosophical position, it is a consistent point of view which I would be happy to apply (at least provisionally, as a starting point pending further thought) to any of these sort of "issues". (I can't say that any of them as such have actually been a big issue for me personally, but the question of what morality is is an issue for everyone).

People do try to justify something that they know in their hearts is wrong, because they enjoy it. We're human; we're like that.

I don't know how far this applies in your case, and want to give you the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise...

Russ
 

However, the bit which I do find difficult is that my Bishop won't ordain me unless I either marry my girlfriend, or end the relationship. (We're both happy with it as it is) However, he is happy to ordain practising homosexuals.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this ???

Maestro
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maestro:
As I see it - the man-man, or woman-woman sexual realtionship is no more or less sinful than the one which I have with my Girlfriend. All 3 fall short of God's idea, all are sins, and all can be confessed and forgiven.

However, the bit which I do find difficult is that my Bishop won't ordain me unless I either marry my girlfriend, or end the relationship. (We're both happy with it as it is) However, he is happy to ordain practising homosexuals.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this ???

Maestro

---

IMHO (which opinions are not all that well received on this thread) confession is not genuine unless it comes with a commitment to not comit the sin (any sin) again. To assume that forgiveness is granted when the confession does not carry with it a genuine intent to stop the sinful behaviour suggests that confession/forgiveness is more like a licence to continue to sin.
 

If it is not then you have no need for forgiveness concerning it.
If it is a sin then repentance involves stopping living with her outside marriage.

Paul had something to say about continuing in our sins - but I have not got a bible handy.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Joan,

This struck a real chord with me.

It's not immediately obvious to me (which may be my own stupidity) whether your defence of homosexual acts amounts merely to special pleading, or whether you have a genuine philosophy of what morality is, which happens to allow that homosexual acts are morally permissible.

---

Yes, I do - I'm not "special pleading". More below...

quote:

---

For example, homosexual acts have something in common with incest, cannibalism, prostitution, or necrophilia in that:
• they are morally wrong according to Christian tradition
• they're about bodies and what we do with them
• there's a strong element of public disgust which can impede rational discussion.

Is there a substantial moral difference between these and homosexual acts, or do the same moral principles permit or condemn each equally ? Do you have a consistent moral philosophy which applies the same considerations in each case ?

---

First, I'll be terribly improper and quote myself, on the first page of this thread. I don't have an algorithm for deciding what's right cos Christianity doesn't give simple answers . I said:

quote:

---

How do we tell what's right? The best answer I've found (I can't off the top of my head remember where) is that we have to look at what forms of life lead to an increase in holiness and Christian living and love. In terms of relationships, do they bring people closer to God and an understanding of his love? Are they a blessing to the world around them?

---

The difference I see between homosexuality and the other things people try and lump it with is that between two adults in a proper relationship you can have the emotional physical and spiritual bond that I (and an awful lot of theologians) believe is a God-given gift to humanity (not saying those theologians endorse homosexuality!). There is mutuality, love, and the creation of an entity that is more than the sum of its parts. This is not to say every straight or gay relationship is like that, but that this is the ideal for relationships, and it is empirically observed to be possible in straight and gay relationships.

However when we consider things like bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia we can see very clearly that they do not have the potential to be a part of this idea of relationships. There is no mutuality, and the relationships are fundamentally self-centred and abusive. There is not the reaching out to God and one-another that characterises a Christian relationship of love. An abusive straight marriage would be similarly bad. As would an abusive gay partnership. All of them are "actions against the Kingdom": things that sin against building God's Kingdom in our lives and our world (that may seem oddly phrased, but it's something I've felt quite strongly about since September 11).

I do not believe in the principle of "what people get up to behind closed doors is their own business" if that is abusive and degrading for both parties. However I also don't agree with the idea of breaking down the doors and barging in sermonising As someone said, we've got to decide for ourselves what is sinful or not, but we have no right to impose that on other people, we have to proceed in love, understanding and openness.

A slight aside: I understand your question and that you were genuinely asking, but it could have been phrased better. Lumping homosexuality in with bestiality etc in generally a good way to upset people and raise the temperature hell-wards. Think! I don't know if you've got a partner, but imagine if someone asked you what the difference between your relationship and shagging a sheep was because they couldn't see any - wouldn't you feel a wee bit upset? Don't worry, I wasn't in this case - I think this thread has developed a thicker skin on me cos I just giggled
 

With Homosexual and lesbian couples there is no equivalent to Marriage. the Bishop will belong to one of three camps,

1)practising homosexuals should not be ordained (the official line)

2)I don't know whether they should be ordained or not so i won't ask the question, (lot's of variations here)

3) they can be ordained i won't make a big fuss about it but I want to make certain they are in a relationship that is committed and is near to marriage as possible.

The answer to your question maestro is that in the churches opinion you are not committed to your girlfriend until you are married.
The DDO (?) will almost certainly think that your call for ordination can not be genuine since you are unwilling to jump through the hoop of being married.
 

It's an interesting statement you made: "Without an something absolute I could convince myself that rape and murder are completely acceptable". That's very black-and-white: either we have a 100% sure case-iron easy-to-understand moral code, or else anything goes. There are other options - there's all the area in the middle where we're trying to get towards the absolute truth with all the resources available to us (as I've said above), and we know that we might be wrong, that we can't be sure of what we've said, but nevertheless it's all we are ever going to have to go on, and it's rational to base our moral choice on that. It's OK not to be 100% certain - it can be frightening at first not to be sure of things, but ultimatly IMHO it's necessary for our growth to relax and open ourselves to God and not imprison God, ourselves or others in our own rigidity. Not knowing everything doesn't mean that we can know nothing.

This is all very Pauline - and one of the points, IMHO, of the Incarnation and the whole New Covenant: the Old Covenant was one of strict rules, and one could say unambiguosly if something was sinful or not; in the New, humanity was taken out from the juristiction of the law (Paul) and given the Spirit behind those laws from which to work (love God and love your neighbour as yourself). This is the grown-up, frightening, empowering, disturbing, loving religion that is Christianity - it is not a set of rules that we can be safe within, it is the dynamic living out of a relationship with God letting the Spirit move in our actions, and taking risks and not being safe but being with God and within God, unbounded.
 

As long as what is happening between people is mutually loving then it is fine.

Unfortunately the bible does provide absolutes. The vexed question is how is this tension between society and the Churches understanding of it's identity resolved.

There are two answers
one is what the hell lets go with society

The other lets hold on to the absolutes.

To go for the middle ground which is what most people here seem to go for is tricky if not impossible.
 

It's not an impossible place. IMHO it's the place as Christian's we're called to be. It ain't easy - absolutism and moral relativism are both the easy options, at the two extremes. As I've said many many times, IMHO truth lies in between, if we have the courage to abandon the safety of the edges to go there, trusting in God rather than ourselves.
 

Nightlamp, is the statement "As long as what is happening between people is mutually loving then it is fine. " your parse of my 19.51 post?? If it is, do read it again, hon, that ain't what I'm saying, there's a wee bit more to it than that!
 

I would consider what you are arguing for is relativism dressed up in spirtual language.
If I am incorrect please point out the differences between my summary of your arguement and what you are actually saying in how it would apply in some ones life.

Canucklehead is arguing for absolutes but he would find some of the biblical absolutes unacceptable hence I suspect he might well relativise some of it.
 

quote:

---

Ah yes Moral relativism it's quite popular at the moment.
As long as what is happening between people is mutually loving then it is fine

---

Making love in to some form of absolute but love is purely subjective. The absolute becomes our own perceptions our subjective self.

Moral relativism today has no external truth it has an internal one. What Joan you seem to me doing is christianising societys concept of morality so that christians can feel happen with it. This has been a common practice of the church down the years
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
What Joan you seem to me doing is christianising societys concept of morality so that christians can feel happen with it.

---

Not at all, Nightlamp. What I am doing is looking at Christianity, working out what I think it says about relationships and sex and then applying that to my own life. In this way I reach conclusions different from those that part of today's society reach. For example, I believe that sex is sacred and sacramental, and the place for it is in committed and emotionally intimate relationships. Therefore I do not agree with for example one-night-stands, even when there is consensual mutuality.

In re: "moral relativity", I'll set it out again. The terminology I am using (which I think is standard, at least in philosophy - I'm a lay(wo)man as far as theology is concerned)is:
Absolutism: there is absolute truth and we can know it for certain.
Relativism: there is no absolute truth: "anything goes".
Pessimistic realism: there is absolute truth but we can never get to it so we might as well act like relativists.
Fallible realism: there is absolute truth, but we can never know it for certain, BUT we can evolve in our understanding of it and get closer to it.

I am a fallible realist, in my life, my work (physics and philosophy) and my relationship with God.

I hope this has cleared up the "relativist" confusion.

In re: "Making love in to some form of absolute but love is purely subjective."

It seems that "love" being referred to here is not the Christian understanding of it, but rather the sort of wishy-washy pink-clouds-and-singing-bluebirds Hollywood idea. The Christian understanding is very much absolute: "God is love" (my emphasis, not Paul's!); Christian love is the centre of Christian morality ("love God and love your neighbour as yourself; on these hang all the Law and the Prophets"); and this has been the experience of mystics down the ages, who perceived God as the Love at the centre of the universe - in Dante's words, "The Love that moves the Sun and the other stars". Love is the first gift/fruit of the Spirit for Paul, and his love is definitely not limp-wristed!

Leaving my own words for now, I'd like to quote from my (ie CofE) House of Bishops statement 'Issues in Human Sexuality' (that concluded against homosexual sexual relations) to show the view of relationships I'm coming from (it's the start of Chapter 3):

quote:

---

It would seem appropriate at this point to set out an account of the Christian ideal or vision for human sexuality as this has developed within the context just described [ie Scripture]. Because secual love is a wonderful gift from God, then through it, if all goes well, a man and a woman can be united in a relationship which for depth, intensity and joy is unique in their experience. They can find a strength and support in one another which helps each of them to mature as individuals. They can form a partnership which is both a blessing to the whole community and also the stable and loving environment in which children need to be brought up. Being much more than simply physical organisms, they share their lives with one another at many different levels - bodily, emotional, intellectual, social and spiritual. To share at the bodily level alone is to make a relationship far less than it could be. But the body makes a unique contribution. Because full sexual relations are intimate, and can be ecstatically happy, they can make the partners supremely precious to one another, and so help them to treasure their sharing at all other levels. In this way an incomparable union can be built on the physical foundations.

Because of this affirmation of the body one basic principle is very definitely implicit in Christian thinking about sexual relations. It may be put this way: the greater the degree of personal intimacy, the greater should be the degree of personal commitment.

---

Discuss (please write a minimum of 2000 words)
 

Sex is more than biology.
 

I would suggest that everyone who is busily saying that the Bible absolutely forbids homosexual practise, go back over the earlier parts of this thread. Whilst I'm not sure that I agree with the interpretations given by some of the comments, they are all certainly scholarly. In terms of the Bible's teaching this is NOT as much of black and white issue as GLE people (like me) are taught.

Also, in reference to comments about gya people being "healed" and becoming straight. I'm not too sure about this, but I believe there is a difference between people who are gay by nature and people who are gay because of past hurts etc. The latter type of people are perhaps going against who they really are, and can/should be healed. The former sort are a different matter.

All the best,
Rachel.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
The difference I see between homosexuality and the other things people try and lump it with is that between two adults in a proper relationship you can have the emotional physical and spiritual bond that I believe is a God-given gift to humanity...

This is not to say every straight or gay relationship is like that, but that this is the ideal for relationships, and it is empirically observed to be possible in straight and gay relationships.

However when we consider things like bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia we can see very clearly that they do not have the potential to be a part of this idea of relationships. There is no mutuality, and the relationships are fundamentally self-centred and abusive.

...I do not believe in the principle of "what people get up to behind closed doors is their own business" if that is abusive and degrading for both parties...

...Lumping homosexuality in with bestiality etc is generally a good way to upset people... ...but... ...I just giggled

---

Dear Joan,

Glad you're able to giggle, and thank you for what I would ordinarily describe as a straight answer...

Funnily enough, I did put bestiality in the original draft, but edited it out before posting.

I think we're at the point of distinguishing what is moral from what is classed as socially acceptable. God can see into our hearts, and can judge the extent of sin in our intentions and the quality of our relationships. Society has to go by what things look like from the outside.

Few would argue with you that a spiritual and loving relationship is good, and an abusive and degrading one is bad. The difficulty comes when different people have different perceptions of what is uplifting and what is degrading.

I think the logical conclusion of your argument is that any form of perversion between any two people (of whatever legal relationship) is OK provided that the two of them view the act and the personal relationship between them as loving and uplifting and non-abusive.

You may argue that there are some practices that you find difficulty in believing are consistent with a mutual and spiritual love. But some people feel like that about homosexual acts...

A relationship between someone who is one year below the age of consent and someone who is one year older may be loving and spiritual and fulfil your ideal in every way. But that doesn't necessarily mean that our society would be better without an age of consent.

Russ
 

quote:

---

Russ stated:
You may argue that there are some practices that you find difficulty in believing are consistent with a mutual and spiritual love. But some people feel like that about homosexual acts...

---

Isn't this a natural result of the fact that most people /do/ just think of 'sex' when the issue of homosexual relationships comes up? (as has been evidenced and pointed out over and over again in the preceding 5 pages)

For me - I can't separate out the 'acts' from the relationship. My love for my partner is an entirity. Mutual, spiritual.

The other examples you gave (and I heard a sermon at my church many years ago which also lumped homosexuality together with bestiality and incest) - don't have the same potential for mutuality. One cannot have an intelligent conversation with an animal, no matter how 'hot' the sex. And, as all the literature on incest and abuse points out, that is about power and control; the adult using the child, rather than about sex.

I think also with this argument of 'revulsion' we need to be very careful not to be imposing cultural conditioning on the situation. A lot of revulsion can be predicted by the society and culture we're in. So, here in England, and probably in America too, the idea of eating horsemeat gives us instant revulsion. "Ew! Unnatural!". And yet to the French, it's entirely normal.

I don't quite see how the age of consent laws apply in this situation. Sorry. I may just be being incredibly dense this morning.
 

No, Russ, because I'm giving a definition of what is a perversion or not.

Also, it doesn't only matter what the people involved think. It's what the relationship actually IS that matters. Is it abusive and degrading, is it sinning against God and God's love, does it increase the holiness of the participants and those around them? This is the best way I can see of telling what is a perversion or not. Ultimately it's not about what people feel about the relationship, it's what God feels about it. How do we find out what God thinks? Read my post above about fallible realism.

Also: "You may argue that there are some practices that you find difficulty in believing are consistent with a mutual and spiritual love. But some people feel like that about homosexual acts..."

This is where I differ from such people: theirs is a feeling, mine is an argument. As I've said before, I have 'ugh' feeling about heterosexual sex, so I know what these people are feeling. However it is just that: a feeling, a gut reaction, and not a consequence of a theological or spiritual position. If you wish to give the arguments why some people feel that way then we can have a discussion. If not, other peoples' gut feelings are not an argument or a response to an argument.
 

last week i attended the funeral of a 27 year old fireman who went into the twin towers on 9/11 and was carried out 40 days or so later. as he was unmarried and left no children, this was genetic suicide on his part. but i do not think that most of us would say that it was immoral or displeasing to god.

(btw, i didn't know this young man personally, but he was from my area of queens, and the fire dept. is encouraging the general public to attend firemen's funerals, as the dept is spread so very thin now)

celibate priests and nuns are commiting "genetic suicide" too, come down to it.
 

By the way, (and now I've forgotten who said it, maybe Russ?)I don't actually have a problem, per se, with the idea that homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality. Clearly, as we generally aren't going to reproduce (without a willing lesbian or straight girlfriend), there is a level where heterosexuality has, if I may express it this clumsily, a higher potential calling. However, so what? I don't think it means that homesexual love is a lesser calling. Who knows what God might have in mind by creating gay people? The Orthodox (or at least something Orthodox I read recently) posits that all sex is a result of the Fall (not that it's not good and fun); it was not part of the original plan. I think the Church and society should encourage and support love and commitment wherever they find it. I'm probably rambling. My window is all shrunk up and won't get big and I can't see much of what I'm typing.

Staggering Ever Onward,

Jeff
 

I'm not sure what's going on here - it feels quite frustrating because I feel like you're not engaging with the debate as we're having it. I cannot see how your post a) fits in the with thread or b) says anything that we haven't already covered. Do you want to talk about how you've seen the debate covered in the past? If so, say so - at the moment it feels like people are only reading what they expect/want to read, and not what's actually being said.

If it's that you're not clear about the natural/unnatural argument that we had earlier, say that too - please don't phrase it as "you haven't dealt with this".
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
Is any new ground being covered here that hasn't been covered in the archived threads mentioned at the very beginning of this one? Or is this thread just running around in circles, chasing its own tail? I mean, the natural/unnatural argument alone has been covered at least twice in just this thread!!

---

oh, we're running round chasing our tails - most definitely.

I think there are some things we haven't covered in this thread though - but most of those must be in the archives somewhere - Gay marriage, Gay priests, Gay parents etc. Is anyone going to have a shot at reviving this thread, or shall we continue to circle?

OK - here's a starter for 10. Given Joan's concept - also expressed in her quote from the House of Bishop's statement, that "the greater the degree of personal intimacy, the greater should be the degree of personal commitment", what is a good attitude to Gay marriage. If I'm honest, my "primitive ugh" instincts cry out against this. However, I can (just about)argue myself to a place where I seeno Biblical prohibition against homosexuality, so within the House of Bishop's statement, allowing gay marriage would seem an obvious conclusion.

What does anyone else think?

All the best,

Rachel.
 

Speaking personally, I sincerely wish that at some point I will get married.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Just to clarify quickly - the House of Bish's concluded AGAINST homosexual unions. I quoted them because our views on relationships are the same - they used the natural law argument which I presented waaaaay back to say that.

Speaking personally, I sincerely wish that at some point I will get married.

---

I know that the House of Bishops is against homosexual unions. I just thought it was a jolly neat description.

Also, I think everything we've discussed here has been gone over in the archives as well, and we haven't been yelled at yet. I was trying to find a new tack for a thread I found interesting which has reduced itself to continual repition.

All the best,
Rachel.
 

just why the "primitive ugh" response? speaking just for myself, i couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in bed. in fact, straight as i am, i can find gay porn, both male and female, a turn on. and apparently many men find the thought of lesbian sex a big turn-on, hence the "obligatory les scene" in most porn flicks.

so why do some people get this "yuck" response?

i asked this before and didn't really get an answer, so i'll ask it again, and i'm serious in asking... why does anyone care about it? even if you think its immoral, theres not this sort of public outcry about other things considered immoral. theoretically divorce and remarriage could be considered as immoral... certain adultary usually is. but you don't see he sort of mad outpourings of vitriol heaped upon those things that you do on gays. so whats the fixation so many have with gays?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
so why do some people get this "yuck" response?

---

Just a theory, but I suspect that the "yuck" response is just a shared cultural stigma. A fad, if you will. Just a couple centuries ago, good, decent Christians would yank down their trousers and relieve themselves on the street. Compared to ducking the contents of chamberpots tossed from upper storeys, sodomy seems a little less distasteful.

This same theory rambles on to compare the horrors of movie violence to eagerly-attended public executions - but that's another rant.

Nobody ever claimed that society was an especially clever entity. I'd go one step further, to postulate the opposite.

...I don't need to quote what numerical type I am, as listed waaaay back on page one in order to join this thread - do I?
 

Homosexual Agenda

I felt that this thread was the best to put it on.
 

Angel
 

eg. if you ask somebody how they feel you probably wont get a good answer, but after tehy give you that answer what they feel may transform into that answer. If a councellor probes then they get a different (supposedly better) answer, which is more correct because it fits in with the current thinking on why these things happen.

Sorry its rambly
 

But ]Inanna[/B]: What, may I ask, is wrong with a "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach? And why, after having accused me of being too preoccupied with physical acts do you then focus on whether or not "sodomise" means only "to have anal intercourse"? I thought the word referred to homosexual acts in general, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Anyway, you must surely acknowledge that, whether we like it or not, the Bible consistently warns against homosexual behaviour of any kind, and that this must surely mean that this is because homosexuality really has no place in God's ultimate purpose for his people. God knows that such practices are ultimately destructive, spiritually if not physically, and therefore he warns us against them. What was Paul really saying in Romans ch.1, if he was not naming homosexual/lesbian behaviour as a step well down the road humanity has taken away from God?

Sure,there are many people in the world who through no fault of their own find themselves with this preference. They deserve all the love and support we can give, because many of them will never be able to change, nor should we expect them to. There are many people who through no fault of their own are schizophrenic, or manic-depressive, or have Downs Syndrome or some other debiltating disorder. Does this mean that these things should be regarde as part of God's ultimate purpose?

I guess I've just proved my own point, that all this is too close to home for me to deal with it without getting wound up! But I stand by my views on this one. Let us in Christ love and accept one another whatever the differences, but let us at least be clear about what is or is not part of the New Life to which Christ has called us. I still say that the Church should be able to find a way to declare God's love and God's holiness at the same time!

Enough!!
 

(Oh, even though I'm sure you didn't mean it, when you equate homosexuality with a range of physical disabilities it does sound deeply patronising. I'm not sure that anyone likes to be patronised.)
 

quote:

---

What, may I ask, is wrong with a "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach?

---

Because the implication is that someone's relationship, which can be one of the most precious and meaningful things in their life, is something sinful and dirty that they should be ashamed of.

Because that approach can force people to choose between their relationship and their faith. How many heterosexuals, if asked to choose between their husband/wife and God could honestly say they'd walk away from their marriage. Every individual who loses their faith through other people's judgement of their actions is a tragedy.

quote:

---

There are many people who through no fault of their own are schizophrenic, or manic-depressive, or have Downs Syndrome or some other debiltating disorder

---

Please don't tell me you're equating homosexuality with mental illness. There's a definition of mental illness that I read somewhere that runs along the lines of anything that impedes an individuals ability to function. A strong relationship, be it same sex or not, enhances life. Mental illness most definately does not.

As to whether these conditions are part of God's ultimate purpose, well, the question of why there is suffering when our God is a God of love is well out of the remit of this thread.

Emily
 

I couldn't care less who anyone around here nails, so long as it's another consenting adult. However, if you're going to use piss-poor logic to back up your argument, then deal with it when people turn it back on you.
 

quote:

---

He is not comparing homosexuality to mental illness, he's taken the ABSURD argument of "well this is how I am so clearly it's sanctioned by God" to its logical conclusion

---

I wouldn't say that's an absurd arguement. Its not one I happen to agree with, but I can see validity in it. If you grant the assumption that we're all created by God then you could argue from there that however we're created is how God wants us. The alternative is either that we're deliberately all created flawed, some are created more flawed than others and some are created so flawed that they can never reach God. Or that something got in the way and prevented us being made right. Again, it all boils down to the arguement that if God is loving then why is there suffering. Which is bigger than this thread.

It's certainly no more absurd than an alternative arguement 'anything I don't like/makes me uncomfortable/I don't understand/I don't agree with can'tbe sanctioned by God.'

However, I haven't proposed either arguement, and I haven't read anyone else do so either. I do argue, though, that whether something is sanctioned by God is very difficult for any of us to figure out. The only way to do it is through time, thought, prayer and study of the bible. Noone (unless they're directly invovled) has the right to judge or condemn the conclusion another's conscience has reached. On homosexuality or any other issue.

For what its worth, as someone with mental health problems, I do feel that they are sanctioned by God. I wouldn't be half the person (or half the surgeon) I am without having had those hurdles to overcome. So I guess I agree with the logical conclusion of an absurd arguement.

quote:

---

Sure,there are many people in the world who through no fault of their own find themselves with this preference. <middle bit cut> There are many people who through no fault of their own are schizophrenic, or manic-depressive, or have Downs Syndrome or some other debiltating disorder.

---

That sure sounds like a comparison to me. Of course, you're entitled to read it any way you like. I guess the only one who can really tell us whether or not it was intended as a comparison is Elijah on Horeb

quote:

---

However, if you're going to use piss-poor logic to back up your argument, then deal with it when people turn it back on you.

---

Erin, I couldn't agree more.

Emily
 

One of the many things I find wrong with this unwholesome and trite little saying is that it is unbiblical. Which is ironic as it is only ever said by those who seem pretty keen on quoting the bible when it suits them. Of course one may infer some biblical depth to it but then you can most things.

Elijah also said “Anyway, you must surely acknowledge that, whether we like it or not, the Bible consistently warns against homosexual behavior of any kind”,

I surely do not acknowledge it. I have heard this many times, why have you not heard the contra arguments? As far as I am concerned the bible seem to be abundantly clear about fornication, rape and prostitution ( usury, stealing, inhospitality etc etc ) and stunningly vague about homosexuality. So I find the tone of Elijah’s post (un-intentionally ?) ironic; Giving so much emphasis to a non-biblical quote and placing a similar emphasis on parts of the bible I would strongly disagree with.

The whole post in its “not wishing to offend” tone has offended me not least because it seems to be just an attempt to have the last word, in such a way as to say “ well done but here’s the truth”. Which does not the the previous discussions any justice.

P
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
ok, i think i have an issue that hasn't really been discussed yet.

just why the "primitive ugh" response? speaking just for myself, i couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in bed. in fact, straight as i am, i can find gay porn, both male and female, a turn on. and apparently many men find the thought of lesbian sex a big turn-on, hence the "obligatory les scene" in most porn flicks.

so why do some people get this "yuck" response?

i asked this before and didn't really get an answer, so i'll ask it again, and i'm serious in asking... why does anyone care about it? even if you think its immoral, theres not this sort of public outcry about other things considered immoral. theoretically divorce and remarriage could be considered as immoral... certain adultary usually is. but you don't see he sort of mad outpourings of vitriol heaped upon those things that you do on gays. so whats the fixation so many have with gays?

---

just to clarify, i'm a newbie so excuse my newbie-ness. I'm trawling some of the threads on the message board to try and help my understanding of certain areas because I find most things in life very grey these days and though I became a christian when I was about 14-15, i felt i had more answers then than i do now (37).

i don't think ( well with me anyway ) it's so much a yukk factor as an I don't understand factor, that isn't just an issue with gay love, there are plenty of things that we don't understand as we are all different in character, feelings etc. etc.

however i have 2 young lads and though i have acceptance of my gay friends/work colleagues, i know deep in my heart i would prefer my lads to have hetty relationships and though i'm pretty sure i would be loving and accepting as a father if either or both were gay, i just know that i would prefer the whole hetty thing to work out for them

not sure if iv'e added to the debate,

i think i'm rambling....

apologies if iv'e upset anyone as i'm just running the race like everyone else
 

Thus, for instance, I have a voice that is strictly an aesthetic reaction (yukk, as mezzaninedoor expressed).

Then there is a voice that comes from my civic/political side, which says that the state has no business making distinctions and treating people different under the law.

Then there's the amateur psychologist that says it's just too EASY to be right. What I mean is, that learning to get along with a person of a different gender is an entirely different project than learning to get along with a person of the same gender. The heterosexual relationship is a challenge (and thus a growth opportunity) in a way that the homosexual relationship can never be.

And there's the part that respects the faith of the early church fathers (and mothers!), who say that sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage are wrong. And this voice has great power with me (after all, I'm Orthodox).

And then there's the part of me that looks at the relationships I've seen between people of the same sex, and this voice says that the difference isn't all that great, in terms of human interaction. People are people, and we all struggle with the same set of questions and difficulties regardless of whom we're attracted to.

And some of the homosexuals I know or have known are family, and family is family no matter what. They are still part of my life, they remain part of my prayers (and I do NOT pray for them to become heterosexual!), and ultimately a part of me.

Another voice notes that many of the people I have met who claim to be homosexual have a history of sexual abuse (i.e. they were victims), and then there are others without that history, and that voice wonders if there isn't a difference between people who are born homosexual, and people who are driven to homosexuality because of sexual trauma. And other voices point out (quite rightly) that this is the sort of question you can't even ask in the current world setup.

So (and if you're still reading this far, and haven't written me off as a homophobe or anything else equally undesirable, bless you!), I don't really have "an" opinion on the question. My inner voices are too numerous and quite in conflict.

Thanks for listening.

Reader Alexis
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

Then there's the amateur psychologist that says it's just too EASY to be right. What I mean is, that learning to get along with a person of a different gender is an entirely different project than learning to get along with a person of the same gender. The heterosexual relationship is a challenge (and thus a growth opportunity) in a way that the homosexual relationship can never be.

---

I'm sorry, I had to respond to this because it is just so patently wrong. Firstly, learning to share your life with ANYONE is a challenge! Imagine you, as a heterosexual, spent the rest of your life with a man rather than your wife, doing everything apart from having sex. Are you really saying this would not be a challenge??

Secondly, please explain why I (and this is a common gay woman experience) have always got on better with males than females, and felt more at home with their friendship?

Thirdly, I have TRIED to like men sexually. One tends to do this when everyone's telling you that unless you do then you're warped. When it doesn't work you invent all sorts of things to blame the failure on yourself - exactly like this, you think you're just not mature enough to face the challenge etc etc etc. This in my case went on for over ten years.

Fourthly, the general populace, especially teenagers, are not noted for actively seeking out challenging emotional situations. If homosexuality was the sort of default easy relationship, why on Earth isn't it the first one everyone tries, and hence a LOT more common?

Fifthly, have you ever read Bridget Jones' Diary? Bridget's mother has this exact view, and it was hearing the self-flagellating voice in my head coming from her mouth that finally enabled me to laugh at it and go on to face the real challenge and grow. I can't find the reference, but it's something along the lines of
B's Mother: oh dear, but it's just laziness: they can't be bothered to relate to the opposite sex.
Bridget: Mum, Tom's known he was gay since he was ten.

This isn't meant to bash your post - thankyou for it.
 

There are, I think, two important theological points to be made on the question of homosexuality. It is often assumed that the "conservative" camp (no pun intended) have 'orthodoxy' (whatever precisely one means by that 0-so-elastic term) on their side. BUT...

Firstly (again), if we believe that in the Incarnation God has assumed and deified humanity in its entirety, then he has done so to ALL of humanity, ALL its faculties ("what he has not assumed he has not healed" - S. Gregory, concomitantly what he HAS assumed he HAS healed). This presumably goes for the sexual faculty. Moreover, the Christian hope for universal salvation demands that the 'results' of the Incarnation are transmisible to all. This being so it must be the case that the sexuality of homosexual people is taken up in the Incarnation and redeemed. It would seem bizarre if there were a redeemed faculty incapable of expression (Kenneth Leech's book 'The Eye of the Storm' makes this point very well.)

Secondly, in saying God CANNOT call lesbian and gay people to loving relationships are we not limiting God? We all have vocations, who are we to say that the vocation to a loving gay relationship is not of divine origin? Karl Barth, hopeless reactionary that he was on this issue, nonetheless makes a pertinent point - "the essence of morality is precisely the same as the essence of sin" (CD III/2) - both limit the sovereign freedom of God.

Love to you all. xxx
 

Welcome to the Ship of Fools, however, it is difficult to follow who's saying what in a debate when more than one person uses the same id (not to mention confusing when trying to refer to them - see the first line of this post!). It would have helped if you'd registered under your own id before posting, and since registration for the boards is free and quick I see no reason why you didn't do so.

Alan
Purgatory host
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Well, actually, yes it is.

---

OK, my bad - it took several days when I joined up...

PS, in re:

quote:

---

"When did ignorance become a point of view?" (Adams)

---

Not Joan asks: is that Gerry or Douglas?

You joined when we were under moderated requests, that's why. I took that off some time ago.

And it's Scott. It's the name of the latest Dilbert book.

</tangent>
 

Keep in mind I was speaking about my own thoughts and feelings, not about objective reality. I'm not willing to make broad, sweeping claims about objective reality in this area, as I noted, because my own thoughts and feelings about it are all over the map.

Rdr Alexis
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atticus:
Right, everyone else on earth is NOT predisposed to sin. C'mon.

---

That's right. We're all predisposed to sin. Turning away from that predisposition is the very essence of the Christian religion.
 

a propos this thread in general:

What a mercy that practice is more fun than theory!

I just registered and boarded SOF earlier this week. I've read the first two and the sixth pages of this thread. I wish I had time to read all pages, but I'm a middle-aged first-year divinity student somewhat overwhelmed by all the studying I have to do.

Anyway, on this day (known to some of my Anglo-Catholic friends as the commemoration of St. Charles, King and Martyr), I plunge in to this particular fray. At the moment I don't feel inclined to launch into a long description of my views on this subject. I do feel moved to say I'm impressed and heartened by the extent to which the people participating in this thread strive to debate in an atmosphere of Christian love. I do have thoughts on this subject and they're greatly influenced by the fact that I'm a gay man who--through reading, thinking, discussing, and an enormous amount of praying--has come to believe my sexuality is a gift from God.

Having said that, I'm also someone who is enormously pained by the ways in which disagreements about Christian faith and sexuality have rent the church universal. I grieve at the extent to which people on opposite sides tend so readily to demonize each other.

So, I'm heartened by most (though to be honest, not all) of what I've read on this SOF thread. It seems we're striving to be pilgrims here, trying to remember to love each other as members of the Body of Christ.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get preachy. (Am I breaking the rules?) I simply wanted to articulate my strongly-felt gut response to my first visit to this thread.

By the way, Joan the Dwarf, I can't refrain from expressing my admiration for your postings. You're brilliant!

I'll shut up now.

Dan (who's reading I Corinthians and St. Anselm this week, among other things, and finding his head swimming from time to time)
 

I hope you find the challenge interesting!
 

Sieg
 

a) intellectually demanding

b) oozing with Christian love and compassion

Am I right? And, if so, does it prove I'm possesed by a demon of divination?
 

Lord, we just want to just cast out just this just false demon that's just possessing our just brother, Huw. Lord, we just want to say that just you're so great, just like wow... (cont for 94 hours)
 

Oh Lord, I call down HELLFIRE on whoever ressurrected this VILE thread. Oooooooh Lord, may this thread DIE!

YE EVIL THREAD, DIE DIE DIE!

*hyperventilates and carries on for three hours*
 

quote:

---

Oh Lord, I call down HELLFIRE....

---

Wouldn't HELLFIRE come from the other direction?
 

If you don't have any such comments to make please say nothing. I'm leaving this thread open incase anyone wants to add to the discussion, if there's any more off-topic posts then I'll close the thread.

Alan
Purgatory host
 

And for my last word, When I was about 14, I fell in love with a young girl who is black, I am not. Because of family, and church pressure "Do not become unevenly yoked" we were forced to split up. My point is be careful of using the bible to condem someone elses relationship as sinful, you may have to answer for it later.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexliamw:
It is not a choice they make! Any homosexual will tell you this.

---

But I agree, this belongs in Dead Horses.
 

quote:

---

alexliamw said How can this be said at what claims to be a modern, forward-looking event? The church has alienated enough people without this problem making it worse. If Christianity hopes to be acknowledged as accesible and modern, it has to take all this on board.

---

Well i shall answer this question and not flog this horse any more.

In a major bit of being simplistic christianity holds on to various absolutes ie Jesus was the Son Of god Trinity ect and these are reavealed in the bible and the creeds.

The problems partly lies where do the absolutes end and start. One group (the evangelicals well more or less) holds on to more absolutes and another group (modernists terrible label then there you go) hold on to fewer absolutes.

The former group hold on to a more literal interpretation of scripture than the latter.

The evangelicals say that practicing homosexuality is wrong because that is what the bible says and how we have traditionally understood it.

The modernists say well the bible was a text for its time and the writers didn't understand what it was to be a in a loving homosexual relationship.

Both have a failing the evangelicals almost always have actually cut away at one or two absolutes already and just happen to have kept this one. The modernists actually have a problem of defining which absolutes should be kept and which should not.

In the UK at the moment the evangelical wing of the church is more dynamic section of the church hence many up tempo events are run by that particular branch of theology.

I hope that helps if you wish to read the details of the arguement please read the thread!!!