|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What homos do in bed
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
Prompted by reflections from RuthW and the Silent Acolyte in the San Jaoquin thread, I'm led to wonder why is homosexuality the hot-button du jour?
What is it about what homos do in bed that gets so many people so exercised?
Ok so it's yucky. But lots there are lots of yucky things that don't send certain kinds of conservatives shrieking out of communion with their co-religionists or flying to their Bibles to tote up injunctions against what are, in effect, a very small minority of people (even amongst Episocopalians).
I don't want to stray into the over-trod territory of whether homosexuality is right or wrong; I'm interested in why it is an issue of such moment that someone would break communion over it (when they would not over, say, the Doctrine of the Atonement or theology of the Eucharist).
Why are conservative hets so obsessed about the 'mos?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
I think it depends who you're talking about. Most people in the UK don't seem too fussed about homosexuality now. I suspect there's a lot who dislike it and keep quiet, but the tide of public opinion is definitely on the side of "it's not cool to be homophobic". There will still be sub-communities where being gay is a heinous offense, and likely to get the shit kicked out of you. But it's diminishing.
As for why some Christians have a big problem with it, I'm not sure I could answer that without getting into well-trodden DH territory.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
First of all to answer the original post ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
A straight priest once told me "If heteros designed the Vatican they would have used semi gloss latex Navajo white and called it a day, you'd think straight people would have done anything that fabulous?"
It was definitely uptight heteros who were behind the iconoclasm during the Reformation, no sense of style. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
One reason is that we stand up to them and disagree. They want us to hang our heads in shame and at least go back into the closet, if not to take vows of chastity. We refuse. They're outraged that any practicing churchman would dare to argue with them and deny such a "basic teaching of the church," as they usually call it.
Even the so-called "pro-abortion" crowd doesn't really celebrate abortion, just accept it as an occasional necessary evil.
Psychological projection has something to do with it, too. We've all heard of raging ecclesiastical homophobes unmasked at last as hypocrites.
This isn't the button-pushing issue that it once was, however, especially with the young. In the U.S., the rising generation is hardly the barbarian horde that Robert Bork dreaded in his Slouching towards Gomorrah (1996). A recent issue of Commentary discusses how pessimistic Americans were about their collective future fifteen years ago. In terms of personal morality and family values, there were cries that we were going to hell in a handbasket. (Hmm, Clinton had just taken office, after twelve years of Republican administration sunnily proclaiming "morning in America". Wasn't it, then?). But these dire predictions have not come to pass. Today, compared with then, youthful drug use and violent crime are down sharply. Acadamic standards are up. But most of these kids don't understand the fuss over homosexuals. people. They have more of a problem with homophobes. Only 3% of the unchurched 16-25 have a favorable impression of evangelicals, and the determination of the latter to make the church first and foremost the anti-homosexual club is a major reason.
The preachers will come around when they realize that the line isn't working anymore.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
Isn't there a danger of being reductive here, if we take the position that a) everyone who believes practicing homosexual sex is a conservative (and the same kind of conservative and b)that they hold their belief because they are disgusted or disturbed by the mechanics of 'homosexual' sex?
Surely some conservatives have no personal problem with any of the practices, but genuinely believe that the Bible says no, and that there are reasons rooted, eventually, in love, for the proscription?
Humity's infinite variety being what it is, I'm sure there are, somewhere, 'conservatives' who are gay but believe the Bible tells us not to have homosexual relationships or homosexual sex.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
One reason is that we stand up to them and disagree. They want us to hang our heads in shame and at least go back into the closet, if not to take vows of chastity. We refuse. They're outraged that any practicing churchman would dare to argue with them and deny such a "basic teaching of the church," as they usually call it.
Even the so-called "pro-abortion" crowd doesn't really celebrate abortion, just accept it as an occasional necessary evil.
Psychological projection has something to do with it, too. We've all heard of raging ecclesiastical homophobes unmasked at last as hypocrites.
This isn't the button-pushing issue that it once was, however, especially with the young. In the U.S., the rising generation is hardly the barbarian horde that Robert Bork dreaded in his Slouching towards Gomorrah (1996). A recent issue of Commentary discusses how pessimistic Americans were about their collective future fifteen years ago. In terms of personal morality and family values, there were cries that we were going to hell in a handbasket. (Hmm, Clinton had just taken office, after twelve years of Republican administration sunnily proclaiming "morning in America". Wasn't it, then?). But these dire predictions have not come to pass. Today, compared with then, youthful drug use and violent crime are down sharply. Acadamic standards are up. But most of these kids don't understand the fuss over homosexuals. people. They have more of a problem with homophobes. Only 3% of the unchurched 16-25 have a favorable impression of evangelicals, and the determination of the latter to make the church first and foremost the anti-homosexual club is a major reason.
The preachers will come around when they realize that the line isn't working anymore.
Don't you think a lot of it is actually knowing someone who is gay or Muslim, Jewish or Black or whatever? You experience their humanity. When someone is gay that is your neighbor, co worker, neice, brother etc that puts a human face to it they are no longer a scary "other".
My parish priest is very involved in inter-faith and ecumenism and last month we did a pot luck with the local Muslims and their imam and wife. I think it helped a lot with both sides.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
Surely some conservatives have no personal problem with any of the practices, but genuinely believe that the Bible says no, and that there are reasons rooted, eventually, in love, for the proscription?
Oh, hon. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
What is it about what homos do in bed that gets so many people so exercised?
Why are conservative hets so obsessed about the 'mos?
Excellent questions.
I've spent most of my life pondering this question as I've never understood it. In 40 years of knowing what a gay man was, I have yet to see one argument against them which does not come down to either, "I'm scared I might like it and become a brown hatter myself." or, "I'm a deviant and instead of tearing myself up, I'll pick on the fags."
Seriously, their sexual relationship is no different to lots of heterosexual ones and I think that people who have a problem with any kind of adult consensual sex to be badly fucked-up themselves.
My favourite example is the leading anti-gay campaigner Graham Capill.
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
I'm sure there are, somewhere, 'conservatives' who are gay but believe the Bible tells us not to have homosexual relationships or homosexual sex.
Of course there are. I believe I know a few.
But their sense of what the Bible forbids is very selective if they have a savings account in the bank. In Biblical times, usury meant lending money at any interest. It was thus prohibited in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and for centuries in tradition. Then we came around to the position that lending money at interest isn't always a no-no: you see, it depends... There's still an immoral act known as usury, but it's more narrowly defined.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
The funny thing is, as I pointed out in a DH thread the other day, if painstaking and inteligent researchers are to be believed there is more straight anal sex going in the world than there is gay anal sex - and remember that there are a fair few gay men who don't use anal sex at all.
And what about lesbians?
As Lynn Lavner once pointed out:
quote:
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Not to be too pervy, but has the Church ever officially condemned anal sex between heterosexuals as a sin?
I suppose, the only sexual activity allowed is one that directly relates to procreation. But then would French kissing be considered a "No-No"?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.
And even these numbers are dwarfed by the two thousand verses expressing concern for the poor and warning not just individuals but entire nations of the ruin that awaits them from ignoring the unfortunate in their midst. One can hardly focus on these passages without beginning to see the Bible as a political book.
Which, I suppose, is a third answer to the O.P.'s question: Harp on issues of sexual morality as the primary focus of the Christian faith so's we can get rich in peace.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
...What is it about what homos do in bed that gets so many people so exercised?
It's really quite simple. They haven't accepted and won't recognize the homosexual side of their nature. That, and fear of intransigent ostracization, drives the naturally bi-curious into great displays of condemnation. Witness the recent outtings of the most vocal anti-queer American evangelical ministers.
What I find interesting is the increasing popularity amongst younger women these days with exploring sex with women. Those I've known don't seem to think it's a threat to their image or their interest in men. Strange that the most adamant protesters are men. Maybe it's 'cause "straight" men more readily connect their self-worth to heterosexuality. I dunno.
There really are more important things to get het up about.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
has the Church ever officially condemned anal sex between heterosexuals as a sin?
According to Ingo (if I read him right), the Roman Catholic church condemns it if and only if it is the main act, rather than foreplay leading to potential procreation (and within marriage, of course).
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
If there is such a thing as an über Dead Horse, it is surely this one.
Hit the trail.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
According to Ingo (if I read him right), the Roman Catholic church condemns it if and only if it is the main act, rather than foreplay leading to potential procreation (and within marriage, of course).
I don't think that I want to speak for the RCC on such matters. Moral theology isn't exactly my strength, and I don't really know where to look such things up - the production of "moral manuals" has really suffered in the last century or so... (perhaps a good thing - perhaps not). I think it would be better to not do it at all, given that it is using the sexual faculties against their natural purpose. But within a marriage and used as foreplay it may well not be gravely sinful.
Our entire culture is over-sexed, partly because sex is allowed to sell, partly because only relentless indoctrination can maintain the current status quo on sex. A myriad voices talk relentlessly about sex amidst a flood of sexual images, and the OP pick out one such voice it doesn't like and asks why it is preoccupied with a particular kind of sex. I think the answer must be given in the context of our society: it is seen as a fulcrum point for a more general fight about sexual morals in which both sides hope to recruit strong emotional feelings in order to further a much bigger agenda. On one side we have the attempt to recruit disgust for a particular kind of sex to push through "old style" morals on sex in general, on the other side we have the attempt to recruit disgust for discrimination and restriction of freedom to push through the reduction of sexual morals to "mutual consent" in general.
I find all this ruckus rather pointless. Negativity seldom converts anyone, from either side. This is true for the "God hates fags" side just as much as for the "to be against homosex is to be bigoted" side, the latter being naturally more dominant here. Inevitably, that's just preaching to the choir and congratulating oneself how much more moral one is. Whatever.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I'm offended by the idea held by some that all gay people are sex-crazed perverts. Speaking as a gay man, I would simply like to have a companion to walk my life of faith together. Yes, sexual activity is a part of a relationship, but it is not the only part.
IMHO, a thoughtful Christian ethic emphasizes the values of compassion, reciprocity and justice. I certainly believe that everyone is called into lives of holiness. But I believe that holiness can be realized in either a homosexual or a heterosexual relationship.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I'm sure I've said it before on these boards: my experience is that many of the fiercely anti-gay Christians don't see lesbian and gay people as fully human. I remember Psyduck being horrified to realise that such people couldn't see love between two women as equivalent to love between a man and a woman. That was without even thinking about sex, just love.
Having listened to endless debates in Assemblies, I really cannot believe the old "love the sinner hate the sin" line. Before you can love me, you need to stop making me the object of your fantasies - some days I thought that I was in a twisted kind of porn shop, listening to Assembly debates on why I was not fit to belong in the church. To wrongly paraphrase a NZ politician, I don't miss sodomy in Assembly one tiny little bit.
Ingo, you can say what you like about the prevailing attitudes here, but I haven't noticed any mainstream denomination that has managed to welcome us into their congregations wholeheartedly. This suggests to me that what might be prevailing on the Ship is somewhat blessedly abnormal. I make no pretence of being any more moral than anyone else, but I am just as human.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
Isn't there a danger of being reductive here, if we take the position that a) everyone who believes practicing homosexual sex is a conservative (and the same kind of conservative and b)that they hold their belief because they are disgusted or disturbed by the mechanics of 'homosexual' sex?sex.
I can only talk for the Anglicans. However I think it is significant - and disturbing - that some time in the past fifty years the Church of England did a complete U-turn over contraception, and in the last decade greatly softened the rules against divorce and remarriage - and yet it is only homosexuality that is threatening to break up the Communion, even though the teachings on homosexuality are only relevant to a small section of the population.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Hooker's Trick:
Why are conservative hets so obsessed about the 'mos?
Dunno. Maybe they are worried that hordes of horny pooves with sodomy on their minds will come after their virginal bott-botts? Gawd - do they fancy themselves, or wot?
Seriously, have you seen some of those outraged anti-poove campaigners? They are so repulsive no-one would shove a broom up 'em in a dark closet.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
Seriously, have you seen some of those outraged anti-poove campaigners? They are so repulsive no-one would shove a broom up 'em in a dark closet.
One of the lighter moments of my last few months in the church was appearing on national television to be interviewed in the studio by the infamous Paul Holmes. He was perfectly lovely to me, and gave me the opportunity to say whatever I wanted.
I had dressed very carefully in a plain black suit jacket with necklace and earrings and my hair was spiffed up by the telly makeup person. The general impression was thoroughly professional. (Those who know me will know that I am normally very scruffy, but I do have the right clothes, I just don't wear them much. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
Anyway, I didn't realise until afterwards, but they intercut my interview with comments from one of the leading anti-queer Christian campaigners. He was sitting in his garden, dressed in the most ghastly old jersey, with his hair sticking out all over the place, sounding like a complete madman. Since that's the way he dresses (and sounds) all the time it was no surprise to me, but it did make me very pleased that I had gone to the effort of looking thoroughly normal.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Honest answer from a conservative - I'd much rather the quarrel was about the uniqueness of Christ, the historical truth of the Resurrection, or something like that.
Fact of the matter is that there are a good few reasons why lots of people think Gene Robinson shouldn't have been made a bishop. Personally I'd go for the fact he claims not to believe the Nicene Creed.
My guess is that some homophobic people (who I'd guess are somewhere under 10% of conservatives, and a much smaller fraction of those who've actually sat down and thought about the difference between temptation and sin) spoke out early, and the rest realised this was worth fighting on.
And yes, I do speak out against homophobia. And yes, I think the only right place for sex is in lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage. But I don't think the Church can really prescribe behaviour to people outside it, am ok with the notion of civil partnerships, etc...
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
Isn't there a danger of being reductive here, if we take the position that a) everyone who believes practicing homosexual sex is a conservative (and the same kind of conservative and b)that they hold their belief because they are disgusted or disturbed by the mechanics of 'homosexual' sex?sex.
I can only talk for the Anglicans. However I think it is significant - and disturbing - that some time in the past fifty years the Church of England did a complete U-turn over contraception, and in the last decade greatly softened the rules against divorce and remarriage - and yet it is only homosexuality that is threatening to break up the Communion, even though the teachings on homosexuality are only relevant to a small section of the population.
Surely that sentence ought to read "because the teachings on homosexuality are only relevant to a small section of the population"? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.A.M.
Shipmate
# 7390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Not to be too pervy, but has the Church ever officially condemned anal sex between heterosexuals as a sin?
I suppose, the only sexual activity allowed is one that directly relates to procreation. But then would French kissing be considered a "No-No"?
Certainly the Medieval Church had a big problem with it, if penitentials are to be believed.
Mr Brundage is the person to ask, in his Law, Sex and Christian Society, or possibly one of the chapters in The Handbook of Medieval Sexuality edited by Mr Bullough.
Mr Brundage includes a flow chart on p. 162 regarding sexual prohibitions in medieval Canon Law and penitentals. It has a great box in the middle marked "Stop! Sin!" which you reach by answering incorrectly questions such as "Are you married", "Is it Easter Week?", "Is it Saturday?" "Is wife menstruating?" etc. If you safely navigate the 21 conditions it ends with the following:
quote:
GO AHEAD!
But be careful:
No fondling!
No lewd kisses!
No oral sex!
No strange positions!
Only once!
Try not to enjoy it!
Good luck!
And wash Afterwards!
Apparently penitentials usually prohibit sex "from the rear" (Brundage, p. 161), which we can assume refers to hetero anal sex, as well as vaginal sex from that angles.
--------------------
Formerly Real Ale Methodist
Back after prolonged absence...
Posts: 1584 | From: (Sunshine on) Leith | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
I am not aware of how the sex of the anti comes into play. I haven't seen any research done.
In my experience antis are just as likely to be women. I have even heard women say things like 'I can understand women with women, but men with men is disgusting'.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
"Homos"? Bit dated.
I suspect most gay people do what most straight people do in bed - read their books for a while, turn the lights out and snore/fart until morning.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I can only talk for the Anglicans. However I think it is significant - and disturbing - that some time in the past fifty years the Church of England did a complete U-turn over contraception, and in the last decade greatly softened the rules against divorce and remarriage - and yet it is only homosexuality that is threatening to break up the Communion, even though the teachings on homosexuality are only relevant to a small section of the population.
The Orthodox Church allows second marriages and is rather neutral as far as contraception is concerned, leaving that to the couple's discretion.
In fact, in the ancient church spiritual battles were held against those heretics that did not accept second marriages (see the Novatians...)
So, departing from a unilateral insistence that Christians are to have only one marriage, or that contraception is forbidden, is not a bad thing. It can even be seen as a sign of coming back to the catholicity of the undivided church!
The same cannot apply with a change in attitude towards homosexuality. If you unilaterally make such a change and proclaim homosexuality to be OK, then you are departing from the unanimous teaching and life of the undivided church.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Low Treason
Shipmate
# 11924
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I suspect most gay people do what most straight people do in bed - read their books for a while, turn the lights out and snore/fart until morning.
I always liked the comment I heard many years ago at a student conference when a 'Radical Feminist' said; "What do we do in bed? The same as you, only better" ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.
Posts: 1914 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I can only talk for the Anglicans. However I think it is significant - and disturbing - that some time in the past fifty years the Church of England did a complete U-turn over contraception, and in the last decade greatly softened the rules against divorce and remarriage - and yet it is only homosexuality that is threatening to break up the Communion, even though the teachings on homosexuality are only relevant to a small section of the population.
The Orthodox Church allows second marriages and is rather neutral as far as contraception is concerned, leaving that to the couple's discretion.
In fact, in the ancient church spiritual battles were held against those heretics that did not accept second marriages (see the Novatians...)
So, departing from a unilateral insistence that Christians are to have only one marriage, or that contraception is forbidden, is not a bad thing. It can even be seen as a sign of coming back to the catholicity of the undivided church!
The same cannot apply with a change in attitude towards homosexuality. If you unilaterally make such a change and proclaim homosexuality to be OK, then you are departing from the unanimous teaching and life of the undivided church.
Well it depends on what you mean by "Homosexuality." The concept of orientation did not exist before the 19th century. To say that the Church condemned Homosexuality before it existed as a concept is frankly anachronistic.
One might argue that the Church has condemned same-sex activity. But then again, the Church Fathers and the Scriptural writers saw same-sex activity in the context of idolatry, temple prostitution, etc. One cannot assume a direct correlation between the activity condemned by the Church and the concept we are dealing with in our post-modern world.
I know a lot of people like to repeat to themselves over and over "Undivided Church says this" or "Scripture says this." I'm not convinced by appeals to authority. One can argue that God hates democracy because Peter writes in one of his letters to "honor the King". Yet churches at least are not demanding that our modern democratic systems be dismantled in order to facilitate a return to absolute monarchy. (Although given the rather blind support offered to Bush by some elements of the evangelical church, I might have to rethink that last point)
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I think it depends who you're talking about. Most people in the UK don't seem too fussed about homosexuality now.
Right -- in secular society homophobie as a social faux-pas. It's quite trendy to be bisexual nowadays, at least if you believe the Sunday Times glossy bits. The rising generation of undergraduates increasingly don't identify as straight or gay (a recent 'diversity study' at our uni asked students about their sexual orientation. Those self-identifying as 'gay' were dead last, behind 'trans-gendered', 'other', and 'bisexual').
Is it a mark of the counter-cultural nature of the church to baulk so enthusiastically over something that has become more of less normative in secular society? (what dinner party, after all, is complete without a requisite gay guest, and a gay couple if you possibly can acquire one?).
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Our entire culture is over-sexed,
Oh puhleeze. Have you ever read Pepys's Diary? When was the last time one of your friends, who had a respectable job in the civil service, went out for a drink and amused himself by touching up the barmaids (which was excellent good sport since they didn't wear any undies?).
Or how about Boswell, who confessed to fantasising about sex whilst attending Divine Service? Or relates with some relish having had sex with a prostitute on Westminster Bridge. Even in our 'sex-obsessed' culture I've never encountered the rumpy-pumpy on Westminster Bridge.
Or for that matter, John Clelend, who wrote blithely about every sexual act in the book (except for oral sex, apparently standards of hygiene on the C18 forbade it), from rape-fantasy to BDSM to -yes- even gay sex.
We're not more sex-obsessed than ever before (except possibly for the exceptionally repressed 1950s). I will concede that modern media makes available more immediately sexy images, but to claim that this is a novel development of the human condition is either naive or wishful thinking.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Honest answer from a conservative - I'd much rather the quarrel was about the uniqueness of Christ, the historical truth of the Resurrection, or something like that.
Which is my real question -- how can the Communion tolerate divergent and various views on the Theology of the Lord's Supper (we don't even call it the same thing) but can't accept a diversity of views on same-sex sex? Especially when the breaking point isn't the practice of buggery but the toleration of it.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What do they do in bed?
I imagine that after the first few weeks they mostly sleep in bed, just like the rest of us.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Is it a mark of the counter-cultural nature of the church to baulk so enthusiastically over something that has become more of less normative in secular society? (what dinner party, after all, is complete without a requisite gay guest, and a gay couple if you possibly can acquire one?).
This would be a good deal more convincing if the Church had been avidly in favour of homosexuality when the rest of society was agin' it. That's the problem with being 'counter-cultural' - as soon as people start to take any notice of you, you have to reverse your position ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think the answer must be given in the context of our society: it is seen as a fulcrum point for a more general fight about sexual morals in which both sides hope to recruit strong emotional feelings in order to further a much bigger agenda.
Ingo, thank you for this. I've long suspected that the gay issue was seen as a part of a wider plot to abandon sexual ethics. The fact that some of us, ŕ la the Dean of St Albans, take an overall traditional view of sexual ethics whilst affirming same-sex partnerships is apparently of little import. I may believe that same-sex intercourse isn't inherently wrong, but I would never practice it outside of the context of a civil marriage for which the Mass had been offered.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
how can the Communion tolerate divergent and various views on the Theology of the Lord's Supper (we don't even call it the same thing) but can't accept a diversity of views on same-sex sex?
I'm not sure we can't. I suspect that most of the churches that think of themselves as Anglican now still will in ten or twenty years time.
And the fuss over this is not as nasty as the fuss over ritualism was a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. Not in England anyway. No bishops are preaching sermons asking people to stay away from chruches in their own diocese and go to the Nonconfrmists instead. There are few if any court cases. Questions are not being asked in Parliament. Few if any vicars have been ejected from their livings. Few if any parished have even tried to get their priest ejected. There are no riots in the street. No-one has tried to burn down any church buildings. No preachers need police protection. As ecclesiastical spats go its pretty tame by 19th century standards.
Anyway. Anglicanism has schismed often enough before, and usually the sundered shards get on quite well with teach other after the first flush of fury has died down. Where else did all those Methodists come from?
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Even in our 'sex-obsessed' culture I've never encountered the rumpy-pumpy on Westminster Bridge.
Clapham Common and Hampsted Heath though... I suspect that it is something to do with street lighting.
[ 15. February 2008, 14:57: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
I have even heard women say things like 'I can understand women with women, but men with men is disgusting'.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned...
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
We can't really talk about "Abandoning sexual ethics". For the vast majority of people, sexual ethics do play an important role. In our post-Christian society, the reigning sexual ethic is that of Consent. One might disagree with it, but one can't say that our culture doesn't have a sexual ethic. I know of no one who thinks forced sexual assault is a good thing.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by leo: quote:
I suspect most gay people do what most straight people do in bed - read their books for a while, turn the lights out and snore/fart until morning.
Posted by ken: quote:
I imagine that after the first few weeks they mostly sleep in bed, just like the rest of us.
Guys! Please!! Our reputation has been built on the idea that the hetties think we're constantly at it like steam hammers. Are you telling me you weren't fooled? That you knew all along that most homos will be - to quote a friend I was talking to at lunchtime - in their jimjams and sipping a cup of camomile tea by 10 o'clock?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I suspect most gay people do what most straight people do in bed - read their books for a while, turn the lights out and snore/fart until morning.
You left out "fighting over the blanket".
Otherwise I would have to wonder when you were in our bedroom.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
That you knew all along that most homos will be - to quote a friend I was talking to at lunchtime - in their jimjams and sipping a cup of camomile tea by 10 o'clock?
There's a wonderful bit in Robertson Davies's The Cunning Man (which prominently features a fictionalised version of the Church of St Mary Magdalene) where the narrator, in conversation with a fellow physician, comments that a patient and her lover* have entered "the hot water bottle and nightie stage of lesbianism."
*(Although Davies denied any link, the women bear a strong resemblance to two real-life Toronto artists who did live - apparently as a couple - in a converted church schoolhouse. IRL, however, it was not at SMM, but my own parish).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And the fuss over this is not as nasty as the fuss over ritualism was a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago.
Except that 150 years ago you had a lay populace who actually cared about such things (even the Archbishop of Canterbury's curious pronouncements about Sharia law produces no more than some hysterical wailing in the pages of the Sun. Not a riot in sight).
And 150 years ago you didn't have the internet and blogshpere to keep your average keenie in a froth.
quote:
originally posted by LQ
Ingo, thank you for this. I've long suspected that the gay issue was seen as a part of a wider plot to abandon sexual ethics
Is it a 'thin end of the wedge' argument? First buggers, orgies on the altar-steps next?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Which is my real question -- how can the Communion tolerate divergent and various views on the Theology of the Lord's Supper (we don't even call it the same thing) but can't accept a diversity of views on same-sex sex? Especially when the breaking point isn't the practice of buggery but the toleration of it.
As I've told you privately, HT, it's because nobody really knows nor never will know what God is doing to the biscuits. Everybody suspects what nasssssty homosexuals are doing to each other, and so it's easier to schizz over that.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
My Duck:
I always liked the comment I heard many years ago at a student conference when a 'Radical Feminist' said; "What do we do in bed? The same as you, only better"
The one I heard was "Everything your girlfriend wishes you would do?"
I was not asking by the way. lol. I seriously do not understand why straight blokes fantasise about lesbians. Like, Hello? They like other lesbians - not you. Not to mention that 99% of self-respecting lesbians wouldn't be seen dead in the gear that fuels straight bloke lesbian porno fantasies. (I've met about 100 lesbians over the years, and only about 1 enjoyed wearing anything vaguely resembling trowelled-on lippy, tarty fuck-me heels and porno het-wear).
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The problem with sexual ethics in general, is that everytime the Church says "No, no, no", the practice goes underground and people have this pleasure of sticking it to Holy Mother Church.
I find that there is a disconnect between Christianity and sexuality in general. The problem is that Churches still don't have an open discussion about sex. Our hang up about sex, is due in part to our attempt to separate sexual questions from a broader examination of Christian discipleship.
Because that is the issue. How does one live as a Christian in the world? I certainly feel torn between an extreme conservative "Everything except Heterosexual marital intercourse is evil!" and a liberal I'm Ok, you're OK attitude.
I get conflicting signals. On the one hand, I'm supposed to wait for a partner, to wait for that nice suburban white picket fence scenario. On the other hand, some of the people I know, both queer and straight, are rather frank about their sexual exploits. The media promotes sex as the be-all and end-all, while the Church is stuck arguing over 2000 year old verses from the Bible. Can't we have a rational discussion about holiness, health, and our calling to be faithful Christian disciples in all things, including our sexuality?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
I seriously do not understand why straight blokes fantasise about lesbians. Like, Hello? They like other lesbians - not you.
In fairness, there is a corresponding fascination amongst straight females. Many of at least the ones my age populate various online communities devoted to swapping photos of "emo" boys making out with one another.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
"Homos"? Bit dated.
I suspect most gay people do what most straight people do in bed - read their books for a while, turn the lights out and snore/fart until morning.
Leo, have I slept with you??????
--------------------
"Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."
Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
The problem with sexual ethics in general, is that everytime the Church says "No, no, no", the practice goes underground and people have this pleasure of sticking it to Holy Mother Church.
I find that there is a disconnect between Christianity and sexuality in general. The problem is that Churches still don't have an open discussion about sex. Our hang up about sex, is due in part to our attempt to separate sexual questions from a broader examination of Christian discipleship.
Because that is the issue. How does one live as a Christian in the world? I certainly feel torn between an extreme conservative "Everything except Heterosexual marital intercourse is evil!" and a liberal I'm Ok, you're OK attitude.
I get conflicting signals. On the one hand, I'm supposed to wait for a partner, to wait for that nice suburban white picket fence scenario. On the other hand, some of the people I know, both queer and straight, are rather frank about their sexual exploits. The media promotes sex as the be-all and end-all, while the Church is stuck arguing over 2000 year old verses from the Bible. Can't we have a rational discussion about holiness, health, and our calling to be faithful Christian disciples in all things, including our sexuality?
This is pretty spot on!
I can address the issue from my church's point of view. Orthodoxy has been shaped to address the needs of people who are on their way to theosis (while yet in this life, I mean, not the general we will all get to see God some day) or people who want to begin that way. So, the Orthodox Church is really at a loss for words when people who don't want to get deified approach her. For Orthodox theology, those people simply do not exist. Even if they are the vast majority of people living today on the planet!
Which is why most people living in Orthodox countries live according to the same way of life you guys in non-Orthodox West live. And when a few people try and approach the Orthodox Church for answers on real life questions, they hit a civilization and a culture that has little to do with modern life.
As far as I am concerned, I think it would be a good thing for the whole issue of homosexuality to get resolved in a mature way by modern societies. Allow the people to get married, allow them to adopt children, and prepare the society so that this can be handled in a mature way. The same already applies for heterosexual relationships. Church's view is already outdated, it's just that the church hasn't realized why this is.
To conclude, the Church could play a leading way in helping our society become more mature. Denial and blindness to modern conditions is not the way to go. And as far as I can see, some Protestant churches have already helping towards that direction. The Catholic and the Orthodox Churches are those with most problems, as far as these things go.
There is a catch, here, though. Helping society grow up must not be made at the expense of the gospel. The gospel should be retained for those that want to follow it. How can this happen, when the gospel is almost unknown for the vast majority of Christian churches, that is another question...
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
...(I've met about 100 lesbians over the years, and only about 1 enjoyed wearing anything vaguely resembling trowelled-on lippy, tarty fuck-me heels and porno het-wear).
No, but we all know guys that love dressing like that, don't we?
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
