![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote: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".
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.
quote:Oh, hon.
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?
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:Excellent questions.
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?
quote:Of course there are. I believe I know a few.
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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
...What is it about what homos do in bed that gets so many people so exercised?
quote: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).
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
has the Church ever officially condemned anal sex between heterosexuals as a sin?
quote: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.
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).
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
Hooker's Trick:
Why are conservative hets so obsessed about the 'mos?
quote: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.
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.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)quote:Surely that sentence ought to read "because the teachings on homosexuality are only relevant to a small section of the population"?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote: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.
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.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Certainly the Medieval Church had a big problem with it, if penitentials are to be believed.
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"?
quote: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.
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!
quote:The Orthodox Church allows second marriages and is rather neutral as far as contraception is concerned, leaving that to the couple's discretion.
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.
quote: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"
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.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote: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.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:The Orthodox Church allows second marriages and is rather neutral as far as contraception is concerned, leaving that to the couple's discretion.
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.
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.
quote: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').
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.
quote: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?).
Originally posted by IngoB:
Our entire culture is over-sexed,
quote: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.
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.
quote: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
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?).
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote: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, à 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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote:Clapham Common and Hampsted Heath though... I suspect that it is something to do with street lighting.
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Even in our 'sex-obsessed' culture I've never encountered the rumpy-pumpy on Westminster Bridge.
quote:Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned...
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'.
quote:Posted by ken:
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.
quote: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?
I imagine that after the first few weeks they mostly sleep in bed, just like the rest of us.
quote:You left out "fighting over the blanket".
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.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote: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."
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?
quote: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).
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.
quote:Is it a 'thin end of the wedge' argument? First buggers, orgies on the altar-steps next?
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
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote:The one I heard was "Everything your girlfriend wishes you would do?"
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"
quote: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.
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
I seriously do not understand why straight blokes fantasise about lesbians. Like, Hello? They like other lesbians - not you.
quote:Leo, have I slept with you??????
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.
quote:This is pretty spot on!
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?
quote:No, but we all know guys that love dressing like that, don't we?
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).
quote:Thank you, Laura, this explanation makes the most sense of any I've heard.
Originally posted by Laura:
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.
quote:I alwys learn something from your contributions. My dictionary was no help with 'emo' but Wikipedia explained it refers to a sort of punk music with origins local to me, and some further Googling did indeed produce sites which promised 'emo boys kissing'.
swapping photos of "emo" boys making out with one another.
quote:From that framework seem to be missing the "passions". And it is the passions that are mentioned all the time in church's tradition on Christian life.
Originally posted by Custard.:
of those who've actually sat down and thought about the difference between temptation and sin
quote:It's also true that heterosexuals make the overwhelming majority (c. 90%, by most estiamtes) of the population. Of course anything that markets to homosexuals is going to exist in a cultural "niche."
Originally Posted by bc_anglican:
Homosexuality IMHO will never be completely seen as "normalized" because our society is based upon heterosexual privilege. The vast majority of romantic movies follow a standard heterosexual script. Valentine's Day is primarily a straight holiday. Heterosexuality is everywhere the public and legitimized face of sexuality.
quote:Yes, sorry: suffice it to say the genre has a whole accompanying manner of dress, distinctive hairstyle, and other stereotypical baggage.
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
My dictionary was no help with 'emo' but Wikipedia explained it refers to a sort of punk music with origins local to me
quote:I agree that our cultural artifacts is driven in large part by the fact that the majority of people are heterosexual. But I think that we have fallen in the easy trap of equating majority=normative/normal.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:It's also true that heterosexuals make the overwhelming majority (c. 90%, by most estiamtes) of the population. Of course anything that markets to homosexuals is going to exist in a cultural "niche."
Originally Posted by bc_anglican:
Homosexuality IMHO will never be completely seen as "normalized" because our society is based upon heterosexual privilege. The vast majority of romantic movies follow a standard heterosexual script. Valentine's Day is primarily a straight holiday. Heterosexuality is everywhere the public and legitimized face of sexuality.
A cold, calculating side of me wants to observe that a society that was majority homosexual wouldn't last more than a few generations unless there was a major external incentive to breed.
I'm as opposed to oppressing and sidelining people as any good liberal, but practically speaking, most of the human species is hetero and that fact in and of itself is going to lead to a lot of hetero-centric culture. Homosexuality as distinct from heterosexuality, will always be a niche market.
I don't know if the plethora of hetero-centric cultural artifacts is necessarily a product of an oppressive hetero-centric, patriarchal, WASP society, though I am not denying that such a society exists.
quote:This rather illustrates to me at least the limits of this sort of liberal response to gay people. You are there , we tolerate and can even celebrate you at times but don't forget we are the majority.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:It's also true that heterosexuals make the overwhelming majority (c. 90%, by most estiamtes) of the population. Of course anything that markets to homosexuals is going to exist in a cultural "niche."
Originally Posted by bc_anglican:
Homosexuality IMHO will never be completely seen as "normalized" because our society is based upon heterosexual privilege. The vast majority of romantic movies follow a standard heterosexual script. Valentine's Day is primarily a straight holiday. Heterosexuality is everywhere the public and legitimized face of sexuality.
A cold, calculating side of me wants to observe that a society that was majority homosexual wouldn't last more than a few generations unless there was a major external incentive to breed.
I'm as opposed to oppressing and sidelining people as any good liberal, but practically speaking, most of the human species is hetero and that fact in and of itself is going to lead to a lot of hetero-centric culture. Homosexuality as distinct from heterosexuality, will always be a niche market.
quote:On the contrary, I like learning new things. Can you shed any light on this passage I discovered on an 'emo corner'
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
Yes, sorry: suffice it to say the genre has a whole accompanying manner of dress, distinctive hairstyle, and other stereotypical baggage.
quote:
Usually there is no attraction behind the act of emo guys kissing. They just do it because they can
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
The vast majority of romantic movies follow a standard heterosexual script.
quote:No, it's a commercial holiday designed to part fools from their money.
Valentine's Day is primarily a straight holiday.
quote:There are different dynamics between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. With heterosexual scripts, there is an immediate difference between the two characters, one is male, and one is female. And so all the standard gendered stereotypes come in to play.
Can you elaborate on this? What is the alternate 'homosexual script'? Isn't 'boy meets girl, boy loves girl &tc &tc' the same if it's 'boy meets boy &tc'?
quote:Just so. But I would submit that reliance on these cliches makes for unappealing and uninteresting story-telling. And it certainly needn't be so. Consider Ian McEwan's Atonement, which relies on measures of courage and honesty over gender characteristics, or to take a more classic example, Pride and Prejudice.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
[QUOTE] There are different dynamics between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. With heterosexual scripts, there is an immediate difference between the two characters, one is male, and one is female. And so all the standard gendered stereotypes come in to play.
quote:I agree, and often in a good way, which is why it's unfortunate homosexual love isn't explored more in popular cinema (the 'yuck' factor again I suppose). I think one of the reasons Brokeback (again) was so effective, both the film and the story, is because it was able to explore a romance without reference to gender stereotype, or indeed to 'who is the woman'.
Homosexual relationships complicate things.
quote:Can't remember! So many men, so little time!
Originally posted by Gay Organ Grinder:
quote:Leo, have I slept with you??????
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.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Can't remember! So many men, so little time!
Originally posted by Gay Organ Grinder:
quote:Leo, have I slept with you??????
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.
So true, so true!!
quote:Could that possibly be because the vast majority of human beings are heterosexual? If it were not so we would not be here.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Homosexuality IMHO will never be completely seen as "normalized" because our society is based upon heterosexual privilege. The vast majority of romantic movies follow a standard heterosexual script. Valentine's Day is primarily a straight holiday. Heterosexuality is everywhere the public and legitimized face of sexuality.
quote:I completely agree with your post. I wonder why we make a deal of some human differences over others. No one today makes a big deal about left-handed persons, even if they are the minority. No one makes a huge deal about hair or eye color.
Originally posted by John Holding:
Further to Ken's point, heterosexuality is the human norm, at least in statistical and scientific terms. But properly, that is a statement without any moral or other connotations. Brown eyes are the norm, staitsically -- which does not make my blues eyes wrong. WOmen are the norm statistically, which (I certainly hope) does not make me, as a man, wrong. And the converse is true, I suppose, if you use language sloppily -- being male, blue-eyed or gay makes one abnormal. But that is equally an empty statement, morally.
And Andreas, what is being experienced now is the knowledge that there is no difference between same-sex attraction and opposite-sex attraction. So if by calling it a "passion" your church writers intended to define same-sex attraction as inferior or different to opposite sex-attraction, they were wrong -- as a matter of fact. Now what happens when theology collides with fact is precisely what the debate is about.
Personally, I'd go with observable fact, and decide that the Fathers did not know everything, were not themeselvse infallible, and made a mistake.
John
quote:Oh, no?
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
No one today makes a big deal about left-handed persons, even if they are the minority.
quote:Normal, to me, has always been a really weird and culturally relative term. Mathematically, I think the word "normal" does refer to the trend of the majority of a sample, but of course that's playing mean games with semantics
Originally Posted by bc_anglican:
I agree that our cultural artifacts is driven in large part by the fact that the majority of people are heterosexual. But I think that we have fallen in the easy trap of equating majority=normative/normal.
But then again I question the easy distinction between heterosexual and homosexual.
. Underneath it all, I think we really need to have a conversation about what "normal" really is. quote:I sincerely hope you didn't read any sort of poltiical threat in that statement, as I was merely stating a fact. Most people tend to be straight. I had no desire to remind you of that fact, just state the fact and let folks make of it what they would. And it is true that most culture will reflect most people. If it's less threatening to use an analogy, if 10% or so of hte population enjoyed seeing things the color chartreuse, you wouldn't expect a majority of that culture's, erm, culture to be dyed chartreuse. It would always be a minority interest.
Originally Posted by SeraphimSarov:
This rather illustrates to me at least the limits of this sort of liberal response to gay people. You are there , we tolerate and can even celebrate you at times but don't forget we are the majority.
The acceptance with hooks mentality. I much prefer the people who out and out say what they think about the subject, pro or con.
quote:Actually, not too long ago, they did. My mom's naturally left handed and can tell stories about how, in school, they tried for years to teach her to write with her right hand.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
No one today makes a big deal about left-handed persons, even if they are the minority.
quote:I agree with you here, and I agree that it tends to be more "fluid" in females than in males. Similar with genuine bisexuality, though similarly, I think that that is rarer in males.
Originally Posted by bc_anglican:
So there is a bit of fluidity that exists in sexual orientation and preference.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
). quote:True and I think that people over on the hetero side of the scale tend to push themselves to the far end and pretend there's nobody in the right 1/3 of the spectrum (or left -- i was going in alphabetical order) except at the very end. This then becomes "normal".
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
When I say that I question the easy distinction between homosexual and heterosexual, I mean that not everyone define themselves in their binary categories. Some of my younger generation, especially among women, define themselves as "Queer" rather than "Lesbian" or "Gay". As well, I believe there is evidence for genuine bisexuality.
So there is a bit of fluidity that exists in sexual orientation and preference.
quote:So true. I used to go to the local queer church corral and one of the chaps there who I think was a cross-dresser rather than TS, wanted to be known as Diana (after the princess) - and everyone obliged. He was much taken with hot pink satin flairs, skimpy midriffs, and platform slip-slops and his Sunday outfits usually caused the women of the congregation to 'Tch!' and roll their eyes!
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
quote:No, but we all know guys that love dressing like that, don't we?
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).
quote:How about missed out that stage of development? Have you seen young girls trying out makeup and clothes for the first time? It is that sort of caricature of very feminine or very tarty and totally overdone. Lots of teenage girls are still trying to work through that one, and having daily rows with their parents who are trying to tone down those expressions of personality.
Jimmy B postulated:
I think I understand where he's coming from - in that our society is (or has been) so repressive of blokes who want to express themselves in a feminine way or wish to express feminine aspects of themselves, that when they finally do get the opportunity they run amuck with the tartiest and most overt expressions of femininity they can imagine.
quote:When I worked for the health department and was literally (and I do mean "in the literal sense of the word") surrounded by persons of every imaginable sexuality and dressuality, a great number of the gay people there expressed to me that they avoid the Pride Parade like the plague because it was "only" the most embarassingly flashy people who took part. (One suspects they overestimated.) In their opinion this worked against the strides being made to impress upon breeders the just-like-folks-ness of gay people. (Thus, of course, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the non-flashy gays/lesbians stay away, then by golly it will only be the flashy ones left behind! (and the handful of breeders that also take part).)
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
I think I understand where he's coming from - in that our society is (or has been) so repressive of blokes who want to express themselves in a feminine way or wish to express feminine aspects of themselves, that when they finally do get the opportunity they run amuck with the tartiest and most overt expressions of femininity they can imagine.
quote:I think that's changed a bit in the last ten years. I mean, at the last Portland Pride parade I made it to, the Grand Marshall was a Bronze Star recepient, three sitting City Commissioners rode in the parade, along with two candidates for Governor and 48 churches.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:When I worked for the health department and was literally (and I do mean "in the literal sense of the word") surrounded by persons of every imaginable sexuality and dressuality, a great number of the gay people there expressed to me that they avoid the Pride Parade like the plague because it was "only" the most embarassingly flashy people who took part. (One suspects they overestimated.) I
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
I think I understand where he's coming from - in that our society is (or has been) so repressive of blokes who want to express themselves in a feminine way or wish to express feminine aspects of themselves, that when they finally do get the opportunity they run amuck with the tartiest and most overt expressions of femininity they can imagine.
quote:Even among us 'breeders'.
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
"Not my business" is fine by me. I deliberately do not speculate on what "breeders" do in bed and I worked in sexual health for a good few years. Even then I tried not to think of what they might be doing, beyond the necessary knowledge of plumbing, etc, but I was concerned with helping them to do it safely.
As for the Doris Day look, I am afraid it does nothing for me - but looking tarty can be great fun!
quote:Wellington's parade got so boring it doesn't happen any more. Probably something to do with the public service (the major industry of this town) being staffed by queers in great numbers. They're well known as "suits".
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Comparing that to the first Pride parade I ever went to (San Francisco, 1994), it was... well, boring. And sedate. And the kids enjoyed it a lot, especially my friend's kids who rode with him on the Law Enforcement float.
quote:Better than Dykes on Trikes?
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
(p.s. The absolute best marchers, every pride parade, are the PFLAG contingent.)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:True but also everyone knows what the nassssty heterosexuals do, divorce fundmanager scuzzbucket style* and they don't schizz over tolerating that sort of thing these days, despite the fact that a common reason given for attacking harmless gay couples is that they're 'destroying marriage and the family'.
Originally posted by Laura:
quote: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.
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.
quote:I know one Anglican who has Inuit ancestry, and who says it's particularly tragic that the Diocese of the Arctic has taken such a hard line on The Issue because it isn't an indigenous stance of theirs. That's to say, the anti-gayness is a product of imperialism.
Originally posted by Louise:
If you're criticised you can play the 'western imperialism' card.... Also it's fun to talk about gay sex
- fall of the ACoC) expatiating on all the nasty bugs that befall gays on account of our ardent buggering and (of all things) rimming. It's ninety per cent disgusting owing to its graphic nature, and ten per cent hilarious thanks to its blatantly nongay authorship.quote:Like I say, they get off on it. Possibly far more than us queers do.
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
As for talking about sex, the Rev. Dr Marney Patterson spends an entire chapter on his book "Suicide?" (about the imminent - as of twenty years ago
quote:I'm willing to go even further and say it's okay for them to do stuff in the kitchen, in the bathroom, or even on the couch. Hell, I'll even give them the garage as long as the door is down.
Originally posted by Janine:
Nice to keep it in bed.
quote:how about on a motorcycle in the garage??
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:I'm willing to go even further and say it's okay for them to do stuff in the kitchen, in the bathroom, or even on the couch. Hell, I'll even give them the garage as long as the door is down.
Originally posted by Janine:
Nice to keep it in bed.
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:Oh, no?
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
No one today makes a big deal about left-handed persons, even if they are the minority.
quote:
finally, all sinistrals, to whom bishops and pastors of souls offer the solace of holy religion, should be assured that despite their best efforts they will probably go to hell anyway for thinking left-handed thoughts. Let them thus be encouraged to know that, after a life in which
they have basically considered themselves worthless, they will at last find themselves entirely worthy of something; to wit, eternal damnation in the slime-infested miseries of the abyss, where horribly disfigured imps and little red demons with pitchforks and tridents will perform unremitting acupuncture upon their most sensitive bodily parts as they roast in the searing embers of hell.
quote:well..
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Last night I was coughing and sneezing due to my Valentine's Day flu.
That is what I was doing in bed. How is that morally wrong in the eyes of conservative Christianity?
you are still according to them, a homo doing things in bed
quote:Ah, yes, they're fun. But when a grandmother-woman comes up and says, "Do you want a sticker?" and you say "Yes, please! Thank you!" and then she says, "How about a hug?" and you say, "Yes, please! Thank you!" and she gives you a big ol' hug and says, "You are a lovely young person".... When that's not what you've been hearing for so long from so many people (especially little grandmother-women), it's the kind of thing that makes an impression.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:Better than Dykes on Trikes?
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
(p.s. The absolute best marchers, every pride parade, are the PFLAG contingent.)
quote:Probably too late now, but one might suggest that even so, the other people could use their support.
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
When I was 14, I suggested that my parents join PFLAG and they refused on the grounds that they didn't want anyone to think they had a problem with it and needed "support."
quote:Perhaps they could even go at it mounted on the thing and rumbling down the street, while I hid out in the garage where I couldn't see them. I could bring my knitting, stay a while. How long do you think they'd need?
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:how about on a motorcycle in the garage??
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:I'm willing to go even further and say it's okay for them to do stuff in the kitchen, in the bathroom, or even on the couch. Hell, I'll even give them the garage as long as the door is down.
Originally posted by Janine:
Nice to keep it in bed.
quote:Depends. Have they been practicing that "tantric sex" stuff? They could run out of gas first.
Originally posted by Janine:
Perhaps they could even go at it mounted on the thing and rumbling down the street, while I hid out in the garage where I couldn't see them. I could bring my knitting, stay a while. How long do you think they'd need?
quote:You would wonder why homosexual sleeping habits are so important to these hets. It doesn't make sense, really.
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
What is it about what homos do in bed that gets so many people so exercised?
quote:Honey, it is Dykes on Bikes®.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:Better than Dykes on Trikes?
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
(p.s. The absolute best marchers, every pride parade, are the PFLAG contingent.)
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:One of the problems I have is the fairly consistent equation one sees of "homosexual activity" with buggery. When my grade 12 drama teacher was away, our class would serenely ignore the supply teacher and hold peer discussions on sex and sexuality. During one of these sessions, I admitted that the aforementioned notion rendered me faintly nauseous, only to be told that this was impossible since, as a gay man, I would obligated to submit to it. Say what?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ahem...to return to the OP, I find thinking about what homos get up to in bed sexually rather icky. But, then again, I find thinking about what my fellow-heteros get up to sexually in bed pretty icky too.
quote:I agree it sounds yucky, but then again most sexual acts have some yuckiness, and this one in particular gets to core of yuckiness in the popular imagination.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I recall reading a while back about a very conservative member of the UMC (James Holsinger, former member of the Judicial Council) being nominated for the position of Surgeon General, and his views on homosexuality were partly "backed" by an article on how medically risky anal sex was. Even if it's not something every male homosexual couple does, the two definitely seem connected in at least some portion of the public eye.
Here's a PDF of the article for the curious.
quote:I am quoting this long post because the questions Louise raises with the Anglican con-evos falling on their swords on this particular issue are important ones- which is an extended version of the OP's question. Perhaps the participants on the thread should ASK the con-evos this question or get one of them to provide an answer, rather than having a bunch of gay activists and their friends answer the question in their names with a lot of cheap and stupid psychobabble answers which are just as likely to be cases of projection on their part as the anti-gays' horror of gays to be the cases of projection that they hope to be.
Originally posted by Louise:
If you're going to fight to push through a conservative religious agenda and to keep control over a church in the hands of conservative men like you, what issue do you pick?
Divorce? Everyone does it - evangelicals in the US have above average rates. Most of your congregation will have divorced people in their families. Not a good idea.
Premarital sex? Again most of your congo will have been at it. The Newspapers will laugh at you.
Male headship/ no women priests? Half the population are going to be really chuffed with that. Don't expect any sympathetic newspaper coverage. Even some African and Asian countries have had women priests for a long time and wont come on board.
The Gays? Ah now, there are a lot of African and Asian countries which for cultural and historical reasons are very anti-gay. If you're criticised you can play the 'western imperialism' card. If people point out you're behaving like a racist or sexist, you can play the 'homosexual practice' card - 'love the sinner, hate the sin. Only a tiny minority of gays are going to be in your congo and most of them will be closeted, and there's still a fair amount of anti-gay prejudice even in the UK or US. It's a great wedge issue to push through a conservative agenda with all kinds of other things on the coat tails (no women priests, anti-abortion, high view of the Bible), because the people who side with you on it will tend to go along with the other items anyway, but you don't need to bring that agenda up explicitly in public. It can be a variant of 'Dog Whistle' politics.
But if you follow this strategy then the one thing you must NOT talk about is communion, because you risk breaking your conservative coalition apart. The Conservative Catholics believe in the real presence and a proper mass, the traditional low church people don't, but expect communion to be carried out by a properly ordained minister and maybe even a prayer book service, the Sydney Anglicans and very con-evos believe in lay presidency and will use Ribena and overhead projectors, if they want to.
The First Rule of Conservative Fight Club is you do NOT talk about What God Does With The Biscuits.
Always talk about The Gays, and if people push you further on that, waffle about 'the faith once delivered unto the saints' and 'raisin cakes' but don't mention The Biscuits! Also it's fun to talk about gay sex, and if you're one of the many closeted gays in the conservative ranks, why shouldn't Jeffrey John and Gene Robinson have to suffer the way you did?
I'm not saying that people don't hold anti-gay beliefs for sincere reasons, but if you ask why the leadership of people like Minns, Sugden, Schofield and Akinola and Jensen et al picked this issue, at this time, that would be my guess.
It's not so much what homos do in bed, as what bishops do in committee rooms.
L.
* I wouldn't normally link to the Daily Wail, but I can't get a link elsewhere.
quote:Soy milk? You people really are sick.
Originally posted by beachlass:
I'm not so sure it is what we do in bed that causes all the ire - it's what we do outside of bed.
Preach from the pulpit.
Go to parent teacher meetings.
Call home from the grocery store aisle to ask which brand of soy milk we were meant to pick up.
quote:That article is almost enough to turn me hetro!!!
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:I agree it sounds yucky, but then again most sexual acts have some yuckiness, and this one in particular gets to core of yuckiness in the popular imagination.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I recall reading a while back about a very conservative member of the UMC (James Holsinger, former member of the Judicial Council) being nominated for the position of Surgeon General, and his views on homosexuality were partly "backed" by an article on how medically risky anal sex was. Even if it's not something every male homosexual couple does, the two definitely seem connected in at least some portion of the public eye.
Here's a PDF of the article for the curious.
quote:In my experience, it's mainly men who get very exercised. Women tend to be more tolerant or, at least, not so strident in their opposition.
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
...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?
quote:Please, oh God please tell me Lesbians don't feed soy milk to their cats?
Originally posted by beachlass:
My point.
And that's even setting aside the lesbians and their cats.
quote:[my italics]
Originally posted by andreas1984:
That the tendency to feel sexual towards a member of the same sex is against nature, and that putting that tendency into action is a Big Mistake.
Basically it has to do with whether feeling sexual about members of the same sex is part of human brokenness or not. It has been experienced as such till our days, which is why the Church condemned it, because the Church cannot bless brokenness and proclaim it to be OK when it's not. I could draw a parallel with sex outside marriage or before marriage.
In my view the Church does not give satisfactory answers to these problems which is why the majority of the people has stopped listening to the Church long ago...
quote:Even from a Dawkins' viewpoint this is rubbish. It may well be better from my genes' perspective that I form a homosexual relationship and ensure that my siblings' children thrive.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
That the tendency to feel sexual towards a member of the same sex is against nature, and that putting that tendency into action is a Big Mistake.
Basically it has to do with whether feeling sexual about members of the same sex is part of human brokenness or not. It has been experienced as such till our days, which is why the Church condemned it, because the Church cannot bless brokenness and proclaim it to be OK when it's not. I could draw a parallel with sex outside marriage or before marriage.
In my view the Church does not give satisfactory answers to these problems which is why the majority of the people has stopped listening to the Church long ago...
quote:I think it would be more accurate to say that that's the way that straight people have considered it. Those who actually experienced it may have had very different ideas!
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It has been experienced as such till our days...
quote:And, more problematically, a circular one.
Originally posted by JimS:
You could draw a parallel with sex outside marriage but as the church doesn't alow homosexuals to marry it would be a stupid and illogical one.
quote:The problem with appeals to natural law is because it is subjective. There was a time when people thought women wearing pants was against nature.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
That the tendency to feel sexual towards a member of the same sex is against nature, and that putting that tendency into action is a Big Mistake.
Basically it has to do with whether feeling sexual about members of the same sex is part of human brokenness or not. It has been experienced as such till our days, which is why the Church condemned it, because the Church cannot bless brokenness and proclaim it to be OK when it's not. I could draw a parallel with sex outside marriage or before marriage.
In my view the Church does not give satisfactory answers to these problems which is why the majority of the people has stopped listening to the Church long ago...
quote:The church is not here to cater for one's preference, but to save us.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Maybe it is against nature but obviously not against one's preference.
quote:Of course they aren't. For them to be natural God would have to be their author.
Aren't gluttony, theft and a lustful desire outside marriage entirely natural?
quote:You are not the epitome of human nature. Just because one makes certain choices, or even if many make those same choices that does not make it natural.
I can't avoid one for the road, would have difficulty handing back an fiver given in change and, yes, there are some women I would not kick out of bed.
quote:On the contrary, Jesus shows what man is called to become... Man is being created as we speak, and in Jesus Christ is authentic humanity seen.
A lot of Christ's teaching is clearly against nature
quote:Except that the bible does not mean the Universe, but passions. The world is a scriptural term for passions. And I recall saying the church sees homosexuality as one passion, but I got no response whatsoever to that...
and the Epistles are full of injunctions to be "in the world but not of it"
quote:Drawing a parallel does not make the two identical. Duh!
Originally posted by JimS:
You could draw a parallel with sex outside marriage but as the church doesn't alow homosexuals to marry it would be a stupid and illogical one.
quote:Really? So, out of the millions of people that have shaped the Churches' view, out of all those people who wandered in deserts and caves, out of all those people who shed their blood and were mutilated and tortured, out of all those people who bore the pain of the world, they all happened to see things that way because they were straight? Is that so?
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think it would be more accurate to say that that's the way that straight people have considered it. Those who actually experienced it may have had very different ideas!
quote:I'm not appealing to a law. I'm appealing to the Church's view. You guys seem to think that if you don't like what the Church says on any number of issues, you can make a church accept your view or change to a church that does. Well, things don't work like that. The Church Christ founded is one and one gets to be a member by changing one's life so that it can fit the Apostolic Way. It doesn't go the other way around.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
The problem with appeals to natural law is because it is subjective.
quote:Because humans haven't changed that much in the past two thousand years*. What was seen as a passion back then, it can't be revised now... Besides, what's that knowledge you are talking about? As far as I am concerned, the way sexuality works is far from being clear!
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
Why would I accept as the final word that of an author who wrote before there was any notion of a concept of sexual orientation? For some of us, that's a fatal flaw.
quote:Are you going to seriously argue that the same-sex couples in the present are the same as the same-sex activity, connected with Greco-Roman idolatry, that Paul condemned 2000 years ago?
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:Because humans haven't changed that much in the past two thousand years*. What was seen as a passion back then, it can't be revised now... Besides, what's that knowledge you are talking about? As far as I am concerned, the way sexuality works is far from being clear!
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
Why would I accept as the final word that of an author who wrote before there was any notion of a concept of sexual orientation? For some of us, that's a fatal flaw.
*Of course, there is more to the church than what happened two thousand years ago and what happens now... There is a continuous history all along. What Paul saw 2000 years ago, is what others saw 1400 years ago, 700 years ago, 100 years ago, 15 years ago...
quote:From the many replies I saw on my mentioning nature, I see there is an unbridgeable gap between what I view as the Christian view on nature and other poster's views. Saying that this or that passion is natural, is a shocking thing for me to hear. Saying that Christ's teachings are against nature, is even more shocking! We are talking about entirely different kinds of Christianity here, and I am very saddened by this.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Au contraire. One might argue that nature favors multiple partners.
quote:To the best of my knowledge none of the Saints ever argued in favor of same-sex couples. None. From the oldest times of the Old Testament to the most modern elders. None argued in favor... This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the advocates of same-sex couples in church.
What constitutes the Church? Is not the Church, the entire catholic body of Christ? Does that not include the genuine spiritual experiences of same-sex couples as loving and Christ-like people?
quote:First of all, all the Saints, have been rejected by decent society. Some of them were accepted and that was only when they lowered their tone a bit.
The Church includes all of us, including those rejected by polite and decent society.
quote:I think the problem is that not the differences in our Christianity, but the fact that you're using 'Nature' in a way which is, for an ordinary English-speaker, very odd.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:From the many replies I saw on my mentioning nature, I see there is an unbridgeable gap between what I view as the Christian view on nature and other poster's views. Saying that this or that passion is natural, is a shocking thing for me to hear. Saying that Christ's teachings are against nature, is even more shocking! We are talking about entirely different kinds of Christianity here, and I am very saddened by this.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Au contraire. One might argue that nature favors multiple partners.
quote:I thought I was not talking with ordinary English-speakers
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think the problem is that not the differences in our Christianity, but the fact that you're using 'Nature' in a way which is, for an ordinary English-speaker, very odd.
quote:Dan Brown, is that you?
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
So David and Jonathan doesn't count?
quote:Well yes, the first bit I probably agree with you, but, oh you know what I mean...
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:I thought I was not talking with ordinary English-speakers
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think the problem is that not the differences in our Christianity, but the fact that you're using 'Nature' in a way which is, for an ordinary English-speaker, very odd.
When I made that post on passions, some days ago, I thought it was the single most important thing for our discussions, and I am a bit surprised that we are not discussing on that basis. Passions are central to Orthodox church life, because we are all afflicted by them, and it is because of them that our nature does not shine forth the goodness inherent in it.
quote:This kind of takes us round the circle. In fact, what I am suggesting is that there is a very good reason to look differently know at certain matters than the New Testament church did. Your reponse (in essence: "Nuh-uh!") doesn't really address that.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:Because humans haven't changed that much in the past two thousand years*. What was seen as a passion back then, it can't be revised now... Besides, what's that knowledge you are talking about? As far as I am concerned, the way sexuality works is far from being clear!
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
Why would I accept as the final word that of an author who wrote before there was any notion of a concept of sexual orientation? For some of us, that's a fatal flaw.
*Of course, there is more to the church than what happened two thousand years ago and what happens now... There is a continuous history all along. What Paul saw 2000 years ago, is what others saw 1400 years ago, 700 years ago, 100 years ago, 15 years ago...
quote:We touched on this on, I think, the priestly genitalia thread. It goes to your idiosyncratic definition of "Church", which appears to be in your eyes a bodiless theoretical entity divorced from the people who comprise it. I believe on the other thread you were saying something to the effect that even if Christians as a group came to new conclusions about the ordination of women, it would still be against the mind of "the Church." I'll fish for a link.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You guys seem to think that if you don't like what the Church says on any number of issues, you can make a church accept your view or change to a church that does.
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think it would be more accurate to say that that's the way that straight people have considered it. Those who actually experienced it may have had very different ideas!
quote:Given that the issue has only in very recent history been framed this way (i.e. same-sex relationships founded on commitment, fidelity, mutuality and reciprocity), isn't it missing the point to appeal to the witness of those who came before? The scriptural and traditional witness was aimed at a different target (as been emphasised multiple times on this thread).
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Really? So, out of the millions of people that have shaped the Churches' view, out of all those people who wandered in deserts and caves, out of all those people who shed their blood and were mutilated and tortured, out of all those people who bore the pain of the world, they all happened to see things that way because they were straight? Is that so?
quote:Well, "the Church" I'm in says that sexuality is a gift from God, and does not differentiate between heterosexuality and homosexuality. We have been ordaining gay and lesbian clergy for 20 years, and perform same sex marriages (in some, but not all of our congregations).
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You guys seem to think that if you don't like what the Church says on any number of issues, you can make a church accept your view or change to a church that does.
code:preview post is my friend, coding brackets are not
quote:No, it's not like that... It's not bodiless, but it's not a secular democracy. Truth is not set to vote. The Apostolic Way is given. If we change that Way, we are creating different churches.
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
It goes to your idiosyncratic definition of "Church", which appears to be in your eyes a bodiless theoretical entity divorced from the people who comprise it.
quote:Is heterosexual attraction a passion? Hetorosexual love? Love of a parent for a child or vice/versa? Are you saying that only those who are asexual and non-emotional should do theology?
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Which is pretty standard ancient Christianity... Those still afflicted under passions have no right to do theology... And of course, that's not because the ancients were snob, but because they knew that when we are afflicted we don't see things clearly, and if we guide ourselves we will end up falling in a pit...
quote:Well, that`s because no one arguing in favor of same-sex couples would be labeled a "Saint" by the people who give those labels. Part of your definition of a "Saint" is "someone who doesn`t argue in favor of same-sex couples."
To the best of my knowledge none of the Saints ever argued in favor of same-sex couples. None. From the oldest times of the Old Testament to the most modern elders. None argued in favor... This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the advocates of same-sex couples in church.
quote:Point taken. I was going for a quick-and-dirty (get your mind out of the gutter) but as you say there are a lot of other things that the modern sense of "passion" can be used for.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Seriously helpful post Mousethief, thank you. I'd add one tiny change to your modern gloss on passions - things which arise from deeply held convictions (which may or may not be sexual). Thus, one may have a passion for anti-war activism arising out of one's strongly held belief in peace (believe me, it can consume people just as much as sex, my mother-in-law is a fabulous example at 86).
quote:This is spot on.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Specifically, what needs to occur is for sexual theology to move away from judging the "nature" of a relationship towards addressing the "quality" of a relationship. All relationships, should be characterized by mutuality, compassion, respect, faithfulness, and genuine love.
quote:This is deeply problematic, the way I see it. It's not some Orthodox jargon, but the single most important word in Christianity's ascetical literature.
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
Andreas, you're clearly either using "passions" in a specific technical sense or else trying to translate something directly (remember the "Secret Supper" debacle?). Either way, I suspect that most of us aren't familiar with the usage at hand. Please do us the courtesy of an explanation.
quote:All these things are aspects of our brokenness, which is the world to which we must die so that we can live in Christ. They are passions that need to get healed before we enter the Kingdom. And if we say we have entered the Kingdom but our passions follow, we will be like the man who came to the Wedding but did not wear appropriate clothing and was thrown out by the angry Host.
Weakness for wealth and for collecting and owning things of different kinds; the urge for physical (sensuous) enjoyment; the longing for honor, which is the root of envy; the desire to conquer and be the deciding factor; pride in the glory of power; the urge to adorn oneself and to be liked; the craving for praise; concern and anxiety for physical well-being. All these are of the world; they combine deceitfully to hold us in heavy bonds.
quote:It depends what you mean by "patristic times". For example, elder Paisios who died a couple of years ago, is certainly one of the fathers, and the issue was brought to him and he replied that it is a passion.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
What is unclear is whether the type of stable homosexual relationship between two committed and loving partners is a passion [o.s.]. This sort of meaning for "homosexual" was unknown in Bible times and I daresay in patristic times.
quote:Well, if you take into account that their calling is to die to the world and live in Christ, that's no small thing to break...
Interestingly in the stories of the desert fathers, when one of the monks was caught in flagrante delecto, the sex of their partner was not given as an issue; only the breaking of their monastic calling.
quote:The people who give those labels are the laypeople who get to live with a person and can testify of his holiness. Many many Saints have been persecuted by the officials of the Church. Many of them have been tortured by the decent society and exiled and died in prison. Some of them had their hands and tongues cut.
Originally posted by St. Sarcastica:
Well, that`s because no one arguing in favor of same-sex couples would be labeled a "Saint" by the people who give those labels.
quote:Okay, I think I follow now.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
A quick google search gave this:
quote:All these things are aspects of our brokenness, which is the world to which we must die so that we can live in Christ. They are passions that need to get healed before we enter the Kingdom. And if we say we have entered the Kingdom but our passions follow, we will be like the man who came to the Wedding but did not wear appropriate clothing and was thrown out by the angry Host.
Weakness for wealth and for collecting and owning things of different kinds; the urge for physical (sensuous) enjoyment; the longing for honor, which is the root of envy; the desire to conquer and be the deciding factor; pride in the glory of power; the urge to adorn oneself and to be liked; the craving for praise; concern and anxiety for physical well-being. All these are of the world; they combine deceitfully to hold us in heavy bonds.
quote:Humpty Dumpty, I think you'll find!
Originally posted by John Holding:
We are not in Wonderland after all, and none of us is the (white? Red?) Queen who famously said that words mean just what she means by them.
quote:Andreas, the thing is, if you want to communicate with people who live in a different culture and who speak a different language, you have to figure out how to put the ideas you have into words in their language, words that make sense in their culture. Berating them for not having the words isn't helpful.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Of course. It's just me. If you google for passions you will find only John's meaning of the word... Right!
This is circular. A deeply anti-ascetical culture comes and shapes language the way it wants, then you complain for me using the term.
quote:You are running in a circle.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:The people who give those labels are the laypeople who get to live with a person and can testify of his holiness. Many many Saints have been persecuted by the officials of the Church. Many of them have been tortured by the decent society and exiled and died in prison. Some of them had their hands and tongues cut.
Originally posted by St. Sarcastica:
[qb]Well, that`s because no one arguing in favor of same-sex couples would be labeled a "Saint" by the people who give those labels.
Like I said, they were pariahs, not exactly power's best friends...
And when God reveals a man or a woman of that magnitude, the people run to him or her for advice, for healing, for help. And it is because the people got immense help that they are now celebrated as Saints...
Take the late elder Paisios for example. Countless people have been healed of their diseases through his prayers. He was knowing who came to visit him before they came. Read a bit of his life, and you will realize that a Saint is someone that extra-ordinary. If he was to say "look, you have got it wrong, same-sex couples can be blessed" then that would be quite a thing.
And neither did the great Saints of old say such a thing...
quote:Because they didn`t have the knowledge about nature of sexual orientation. They didn`t now a lot of things we know. They didn`t know that Earth is round and not flat. It`s that simple.
What bothers me, and that's a question to MouseThief as well, is that if we are born heterosexuals and some people are born homosexuals, then why wasn't the issue addressed and resolved in the ancient times?
quote:Ok, I suspected that Andreas was using it in a more restrictive way than the general dictionary definition. Thank you for the explanation. It helps the discussion make more sense. Andreas' statement that lust is an Passion in the Orthodox sense, while love is not necessarily is a chain I can follow now. I don't follow how homosexual love is (always) a Passion while heterosexul love isn't, but that's why this discussion is in Dead Horses.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
"Passions" is a technical term in Orthodoxy. I have never quite been able to totally pin down the meaning -- sometimes it seems to mean "temptation" and other times something like "actions arising from the old man or sinful nature". They can be opposed (this is a form of "spiritual warfare" IIRC) or given in to. We are told to flee from all passions. Jesus' death is paradoxically referred to as the "passionless passion" playing on the two meanings of the word (apparently, even in Greek).
quote:Yep, it is the big question. My personal (and Orthodox-clueless
Originally posted by MouseThief:
What is unclear is whether the type of stable homosexual relationship between two committed and loving partners is a passion [o.s.].
) opinion is that it is not, any more than it would be if you substituted in the word "heterosexual" above. Some homesexual relationships probably are, and so are some heterosexuals. Some people can have a glass of wine and enjoy it without a problem, some people are alcoholics. quote:Josephine, I assure you I wouldn't make a big deal out of it had I not been hurt by John's post.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Andreas, the thing is, if you want to communicate with people who live in a different culture and who speak a different language, you have to figure out how to put the ideas you have into words in their language, words that make sense in their culture.
quote:There are degrees of love. Friendship is a form of love, companionship is a form of love, caring for one's compatriots is a form of love. These are lower forms of love, and as we move towards higher forms of love we find God being Love.
Originally posted by Otter:
I don't follow how homosexual love is (always) a Passion while heterosexul love isn't, but that's why this discussion is in Dead Horses.
quote:Yeah, but I don't get how friendship, caring for others etc are lower forms of love. Love is love. Love comes from God. Do we have other issues which cause us to sin? Sure, are we perfect - no far from it - do we love in every way as God loves? No - but lower forms? No I don't buy it. Jesus, after all calls his disciples friends, or was he just expressing some lower form?
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Our language can be enriched by adding meanings to the words, or shaping the meanings words already have. There is no reason to think the Dictionary fell from Heaven, like Quran!
quote:There are degrees of love. Friendship is a form of love, companionship is a form of love, caring for one's compatriots is a form of love. These are lower forms of love, and as we move towards higher forms of love we find God being Love.
Originally posted by Otter:
I don't follow how homosexual love is (always) a Passion while heterosexul love isn't, but that's why this discussion is in Dead Horses.
Love is a big issue in itself, and I feel so small compared to the depth of this issue, so I will leave that aside. For examples, there are questions for what constitutes selfless love and what is selfish love. Selfishness keeps us bound to the flesh, selflessness sets us free. Then there is the issue of a kind of love co-existing with passions.
Then there is pleasure, and why Christianity has been so much anti-pleasure. I think that this is a bigger issue that needs to be explored first before we could understand the specific issues that arise better...
quote:That's a historical perversion of Christianity, a Gnostic/Manichee infection, from which the CHurch on earth needs to be purged.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Then there is pleasure, and why Christianity has been so much anti-pleasure.
quote:Er, but actually they did know the Earth is round and not flat.
Originally posted by St. Sarcastica:
Because they didn`t have the knowledge about nature of sexual orientation. They didn`t now a lot of things we know. They didn`t know that Earth is round and not flat. It`s that simple.
quote:This answer . . . isn't one, at least to me. It's not addressing the question of why heterosexual love is good, or at least ok, and homosexual love isn't. You imply that homosexual love is a lesser love, or a more selfish love, but not the why. Is it an explanation you have difficulty putting into words, or is it more of an "XYZ says so"? I'm not trying to attack you or your position, but trying to understand where you're coming from.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:There are degrees of love. Friendship is a form of love, companionship is a form of love, caring for one's compatriots is a form of love. These are lower forms of love, and as we move towards higher forms of love we find God being Love.
Originally posted by Otter:
I don't follow how homosexual love is (always) a Passion while heterosexul love isn't, but that's why this discussion is in Dead Horses.
Love is a big issue in itself, and I feel so small compared to the depth of this issue, so I will leave that aside. For examples, there are questions for what constitutes selfless love and what is selfish love. Selfishness keeps us bound to the flesh, selflessness sets us free. Then there is the issue of a kind of love co-existing with passions.
quote:But we know that! Even in the poor benighted West, we're perfectly well aware of this fact. It's just that we don't think you're going after it in the right way by seeking to eliminate all 'worldliness' or pleasure from your life.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Christianity exists so that man can become God and not even being aware of that is a very sad thing because we get shut off from a potential that is quite amazing!
quote:Get prepared to purge your bibles then
Originally posted by ken:
That's a historical perversion of Christianity, a Gnostic/Manichee infection, from which the CHurch on earth needs to be purged.
quote:Not at all. They spoke about it as the beginning of our ascension, not as the end. Dealing with passions was a prerequisite for ascending into the level of theoreia (beholding), it was not theoreia itself.
The Saints who were anti-pleasure were wrong. They confused salvation with a mere abscence of passion (in your sense)
quote:You knew that the phrase "we believe in one God" of the credo refers to God the Father. You don't count
Which is a perfectly normal sense in English and I don't know why so many people are making a fuss about it
quote:Exactly! Which is why I don't like the arguments here that begin with "but science says"
And frankly, we nowadays have very little scientific knowledge about the "nature of sexual orientation". [/QB]
quote:It's a difficulty to put in words what the eye of the heart can sense. Imagine having the trinitarian debate without all those ancient refined words. It would be a very difficult thing.
Originally posted by Otter:
Is it an explanation you have difficulty putting into words, or is it more of an "XYZ says so"? I'm not trying to attack you or your position, but trying to understand where you're coming from.
quote:True, it hasn't. Yet saying that our nature is for a man and a woman to get together and join their lives and have sex and children and when someone has that natural tendency distorted inside himself and he gets to have feelings towards members of the same sex, is not acceptable by you guys either because it cannot be "proved"... It's a circle...
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
None of which really has any bearing on whether homosexuality represents a distancing of oneself from God in any that heterosexuality also doesn't.
quote:It depends what you mean by holy. I think Plotinus and Buddha were holy in their own ways, but I would not dream of introducing their teachings in Christianity! Any Saint of the undivided church of the first millennium? No? Why not?
The fact that ostensibly Holy people say it is really isn't enough, not least because I could drag out plenty of ostensibly Holy people who would disagree with them.
quote:Of course it does, if what you are saying is true! Which is why this is a big issue for me, even though I am not personally influenced by the debate!
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
And when the Church refuses to recognize that, I would be bold to say that it refuses to recognize the will of God working in our lives.
quote:Who did? And did they know the speed of light etc.?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Er, but actually they did know the Earth is round and not flat.
Originally posted by St. Sarcastica:
[qb]Because they didn`t have the knowledge about nature of sexual orientation. They didn`t now a lot of things we know. They didn`t know that Earth is round and not flat. It`s that simple.
quote:Uh...
And frankly, we nowadays have very little scientific knowledge about the "nature of sexual orientation". Not real science.
quote:Well, Aristarchos from Samos in the third century BC did.
Originally posted by St. Sarcastica:
Who did? And did they know the speed of light etc.?
quote:
You King Gelon are aware the 'universe' is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere the center of which is the center of the Earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the center of the Sun and the center of the Earth. This is the common account as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface.
quote:So why not see same-sex relationships as deeply intense friendships that include a sexual component?
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:Of course it does, if what you are saying is true! Which is why this is a big issue for me, even though I am not personally influenced by the debate!
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
And when the Church refuses to recognize that, I would be bold to say that it refuses to recognize the will of God working in our lives.
Saying that people are born (I think that's what you mean by God making all heterosexual) homosexual however is circular. How do you know?
Take Dawkins for example. In his Extended Phenotype he mentions a scenario of his. There is some genetic basis, he says, but the phenotype for that genotype is far from a clear issue. The phenotype is influenced by environment, so a genotype that had phenotype A in the deep past, it might have been having phenotype B in the past 10.000 years and we might be seeing that phenotype and assume that the genotype is supposed to give that phenotype in the first place when it's not!
Nobody demonizes love. Friendship is very important, and the love between friends is amazing. Which is why John can be the beloved disciple of Jesus without this implying a sexual tension between the two!
quote:Because they are not the equivalent of the heterosexual relationships but this spiritual view of reality cannot be proved by using logical arguments? The alternative to what you are suggesting, as far as I can see is that those advanced on the Way "see" with their spiritual eyes reality as is, and they "see" homosexuality as a passion, and asking them why they see it that way is meaningless... They see it that way because that's the way it is... They see what is.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
]So why not see same-sex relationships as deeply intense friendships that include a sexual component?
quote:Why?
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:Because they are not the equivalent of the heterosexual relationships .
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
]So why not see same-sex relationships as deeply intense friendships that include a sexual component?
quote:Not being a conscious choice does not make something less sinful. take a married man for example. If he walks on the street and he gets aroused by the many beautiful women he sees, that's not like choosing a flavor of the ice cream either! We are not going to bless that though!
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
there is overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is not autonomously chosen, in the way as I might choose a flavor of the ice cream.
quote:Err, no I don't! Everything cannot be processed by our intellect. I blame it to the scholastics
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Again, you need to give a reason why the plumbing matters so much to Almighty God.
quote:I'm talking about saints who are members of my own Church - the Church of England. Sanctity didn't drain out of the world with the Great Schism you know, especially not in the land of our Lady's Dowry!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that ostensibly Holy people say it is really isn't enough, not least because I could drag out plenty of ostensibly Holy people who would disagree with them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends what you mean by holy. I think Plotinus and Buddha were holy in their own ways, but I would not dream of introducing their teachings in Christianity! Any Saint of the undivided church of the first millennium? No? Why not?
quote:Sounds right to me...
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
So to sum up: consrvatives care about what homos do in bed because it is both yucky and sinful, and the combination of yuckiness and sinfulness is something conservatives (not just conservative Christians, btw) can rally around and form a sense of solidarity -- and (a la Laura and Louise) homosexuals are an easy target for this sort of thing.
Does that about get it?
quote:Still waiting on why this is more true of homosexual relationships than heterosexual ones. Although frankly I'm beginning to suspect that the emperor's argument has no clothes.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's a low form of love, in the sense that having peace among countries is a low form of peace (My peace I give unto you, not like the world...)
quote:I'm actually rather curious about this. I recently went to one of the residences in my college to visit a friend, while she and her floormates predrank before going out for the evening to a college function. While I was there, I met one of the denizens of my friend's hall, who apparently has something of a "pervy" reputation. He remarked to us that on a certain level he wished he were gay, since he would have a more varied and active sex life. I was reminded of Michael Thomas Ford's essay in which his heterosexual friend laments that "If I were gay, I would get head all the time" to which Ford replies in the essay that his friend has clearly never dated any of the men Ford has.
Originally posted by Otter:
the automatic assumption that all homosexuals relationships are shallow and tawdry
quote:I don`t get that. How can any act be a sin if it`s not a conscious choice? How can you commit a sin without knowledge and consent? How can one be guilty of something without knowing it`s a wrong thing and wanting to do it?
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Not being a conscious choice does not make something less sinful.
quote:Okay, that`s Aristarchus. What about the rest of them? A did you miss my point that today we have immense amount of scientific knowledge about the world, nature and ourselves that the ancients didn`t have?
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:Well, Aristarchos from Samos in the third century BC did.
Originally posted by St. Sarcastica:
Who did? And did they know the speed of light etc.?
quote:Well, according to Wikipedia quoting someone else, "after the fifth century BCE, no Greek writer of repute thought the world was anything but round." This seems to be fairly uncontroversial to me, though I don't really see why it's relevant.
Originally posted by St. Sarcastica:
Okay, that`s Aristarchus. What about the rest of them?
quote:As I'm pretty sure I know who you are talking about, this comment doesnt really surprise me, he is wrong by the way... tell him another Traditional Anglo Catholic says so, I'm even straight to boot!
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:I'm actually rather curious about this. I recently went to one of the residences in my college to visit a friend, while she and her floormates predrank before going out for the evening to a college function. While I was there, I met one of the denizens of my friend's hall, who apparently has something of a "pervy" reputation. He remarked to us that on a certain level he wished he were gay, since he would have a more varied and active sex life. I was reminded of Michael Thomas Ford's essay in which his heterosexual friend laments that "If I were gay, I would get head all the time" to which Ford replies in the essay that his friend has clearly never dated any of the men Ford has.
Originally posted by Otter:
the automatic assumption that all homosexuals relationships are shallow and tawdry
Similarly, I have a friend who is similar to me in many ways. We are both relatively traditional Catholic Anglicans who aspire to the priesthood. He, though, is a heterosexual, and periodically has sexual intercourse with his girlfriend. However, he has made very clear his belief that if I should enter into a union of exclusivity and intended permanence, I should not expect to be considered a suitable candidate for Holy Orders. He says this with no trace of irony, and insists that his relationship is Biblically sanctioned purely because it is heterosexual in nature.
quote:Because a man afflicted with passions is not like a criminal, someone to be condemned, but like a very ill person, someone to be healed, and his pain is to be shared.
Originally posted by St. Sarcastica:
I don`t get that. How can any act be a sin if it`s not a conscious choice? How can you commit a sin without knowledge and consent? How can one be guilty of something without knowing it`s a wrong thing and wanting to do it?
I`m have RC view of morality, perhaps there are branches of Christianity hat see things completely differently. I`m confused.
quote:Ricardus did a fine job to show that the Greek speaking world knew... I don't know about people in the far East, but just thinking the ancients were unenlightened while we are is a Big Mistake (that needs to get deconstructed!)
Originally posted by St. Sarcastica:
Okay, that`s Aristarchus. What about the rest of them? A did you miss my point that today we have immense amount of scientific knowledge about the world, nature and ourselves that the ancients didn`t have?
quote:We do, in some areas, and yet I wouldn't go from this to assuming that the ancients didn't understand anything.
Originally Posted by St Sarcasticus:
Okay, that`s Aristarchus. What about the rest of them? A did you miss my point that today we have immense amount of scientific knowledge about the world, nature and ourselves that the ancients didn`t have?
quote:
Also, from Wikipedia :
The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[1] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[2] Several scholars[3] have argued that "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth.[1] Jeffrey Russell states that the modern view that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat is said to have entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.[1] Although these writers reject the idea of a flat earth, others such as the Flat Earth Society accept or promote the hypothesis.
quote:The Articles of Religion?
Originally posted by marian:
The effect on the church caused by the question of homosexuality is enormous. We all know of churches that are leaving the general body to place themselves under the jurisdiction of foreign bishops. Discussion with members of those congregations is frustrating and astounding. They place their reasoning within the Bible - as well as the Articles of Religion.
quote:Absolutely.
What does make it right, in my opinion (and I have to say I have issues with clergy and laity who are sexually active outside marriage -- but then, no one seems to be upset about heterosexual fornication) is that the ministries of many of these people are clearly blessed by God -- they show the fruits of the Spirit as set out by Paul. God has blessed them, and I'm not going to say He's wrong.
quote:"Okay, so it's yucky". Oh yeah? Well, I consider heterosexual sex to be "yucky". Ewwwwww, penises! Yuck, yuck, yuck! Why did you feel the need to throw that comment into the discussion? Although I am a lesbian, I don't frequently say negative things about my straight friends sexuality.
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
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?
quote:I've heard lots of monologues in recent years, but precious little discussion. Perhaps I've been unlucky in my geography.
Originally posted by marian:
*snip*
I would also like to know from other Anglicans how much discussion goes on within their churches regarding the impact of these two issues.
quote:This article by Giles Fraser is about the yuck factor and sex. I think it's spot on. He is right - the reality of life is sticky, squelshy and smelly.
Again and again, throughout his ministry Jesus sought to undermine the link between morality and disgust. Touching lepers, menstruating women, dead bodies: in his culture these were powerful gestures that challenged all those who would construct morality on the basis of repulsion
quote:Or at least polite. That's what got me over and over in church circles - how rude people were to me and my beloved.
Originally posted by MirrorMouse:
[There are a lot of times in life when something or someone might seem revolting on a visceral level, which might be easy to reject and run away from, but where we are actually morally obliged to put aside that revulsion and be kind.
quote:What about me and my cat?!
Originally posted by beachlass:
My point.
And that's even setting aside the lesbians and their cats.
quote:I agree with you about having a life companion. My partner and I, both committed (or committable!) Christians have many medical issues that definitely keep us from being sex-craving fiends! Also, we just don't like that sort of nonsense. We work, in our own small ways, for justice, peace, mercy for all God's children. Why, then, are we still condemned for our "lifestyle"? I'm so sick of people policing others on things that are not their business!
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
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.
quote:Just so. Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Spikey Pants, I don't think he was saying he thinks it "Yucky" though perhaps I'm wrong. I think HT was noting one of the common objections.
quote:Folks, I've got news. To the best of my knowledge, the proportion of straight couples (1 male, 1 female) that have engaged in that yucky activity is significantly higher than the corresponding proportion of gay (2 males) couples. And as for straight men thinking anal sex is yucky, have you heard of the "Butt Man Does ... " series of videos? They're for straight men.
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
quote:Ooops! Sorry! You know how we oppressed people can be: Always seeing discrimination lurking around every corner and hiding under every bush. Uhhh, "bush" meaning a small shrub and not a stupid current American president or a slang term for a woman's....ahem!
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:Just so. Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Spikey Pants, I don't think he was saying he thinks it "Yucky" though perhaps I'm wrong. I think HT was noting one of the common objections.
So I understand how the popular perception might find the idea of gay sex unpalatable, I *don't* understand why it's the deal-breaker in church circles.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:I think it has little to do with anal sex being "yucky", but is all about old fashioned gender roles. In anal sex, there is a receptive and an active partner. For many, heterosexual anal sex is ok as long as the woman is the receptive partner and the man is the active partner. It is strongly patriarchal, as long as the man is "on top", everything is ok.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:Folks, I've got news. To the best of my knowledge, the proportion of straight couples (1 male, 1 female) that have engaged in that yucky activity is significantly higher than the corresponding proportion of gay (2 males) couples. And as for straight men thinking anal sex is yucky, have you heard of the "Butt Man Does ... " series of videos? They're for straight men.
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
In other words, there's a very good chance that a significant number of those heterosexual people going on and on about anal sex being yucky are actually doing it and (presumably) enjoying it. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Makes you think of another word that starts with H, doesn't it? Maybe the real problem with what homos do in bed is that they aren't lying about it. OliviaG
quote:And I always thought it was a clematis in my back-garden
Originally posted by beachpsalms:
If you haven't figured out that it's a clitoris hiding behind the bush, and not discrimination: You're doing it wrong.
quote:So, by this argument, the same people offended by homosexual anal sex (but seemingly less so by married heterosexual anal sex) would be more bothered if the woman were to use an implement (say, a dildo) to penetrate the man than if the man was buggering the woman.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
quote:I think it has little to do with anal sex being "yucky", but is all about old fashioned gender roles. In anal sex, there is a receptive and an active partner. For many, heterosexual anal sex is ok as long as the woman is the receptive partner and the man is the active partner. It is strongly patriarchal, as long as the man is "on top", everything is ok.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:Folks, I've got news. To the best of my knowledge, the proportion of straight couples (1 male, 1 female) that have engaged in that yucky activity is significantly higher than the corresponding proportion of gay (2 males) couples. And as for straight men thinking anal sex is yucky, have you heard of the "Butt Man Does ... " series of videos? They're for straight men.
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
In other words, there's a very good chance that a significant number of those heterosexual people going on and on about anal sex being yucky are actually doing it and (presumably) enjoying it. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Makes you think of another word that starts with H, doesn't it? Maybe the real problem with what homos do in bed is that they aren't lying about it. OliviaG
The reason why some find anal sex between two men revolting is because they see it as a man willingly taking on the role of a woman. It has to do with the construction of masculinity. The idea of a man being a "bottom" disgusts people who grow up with certain perceptions of gender roles.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
to Peppone LQ?
quote:People have done research on this topic, and exactly this distinction is maintained in a number of cultures. Here is an article on attitudes towards penetration in Norse and Welsh mythology that I came across when writing my poem Gwydion which is a retelling of the Fourth Branch of the Mabinogion. (How disconcerting to find that my notes to the poem come up second when you type "Gwydion Mabinogion penetration" into Yahoo. It doesn't show at Google at all.)
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So, by this argument, the same people offended by homosexual anal sex (but seemingly less so by married heterosexual anal sex) would be more bothered if the woman were to use an implement (say, a dildo) to penetrate the man than if the man was buggering the woman.
Clearly, someone has to do a research survey on this...
quote:As ever, Martin's posts are hard to understand (but so often worthwhile trying to persevere!) but I felt compelled to investigate what this could be referring to. I may be wrong but the only time I could see that Peppone had posted on this thread was in the first few posts on page 1 (back in February). And LQ's response included the
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why the
smiley not the one. So I'm still confused by what point Martin is trying to make here.
quote:I gather many evangelicals might not be aware of what strap-on sex is.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:So, by this argument, the same people offended by homosexual anal sex (but seemingly less so by married heterosexual anal sex) would be more bothered if the woman were to use an implement (say, a dildo) to penetrate the man than if the man was buggering the woman.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
quote:I think it has little to do with anal sex being "yucky", but is all about old fashioned gender roles. In anal sex, there is a receptive and an active partner. For many, heterosexual anal sex is ok as long as the woman is the receptive partner and the man is the active partner. It is strongly patriarchal, as long as the man is "on top", everything is ok.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:Folks, I've got news. To the best of my knowledge, the proportion of straight couples (1 male, 1 female) that have engaged in that yucky activity is significantly higher than the corresponding proportion of gay (2 males) couples. And as for straight men thinking anal sex is yucky, have you heard of the "Butt Man Does ... " series of videos? They're for straight men.
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
In other words, there's a very good chance that a significant number of those heterosexual people going on and on about anal sex being yucky are actually doing it and (presumably) enjoying it. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Makes you think of another word that starts with H, doesn't it? Maybe the real problem with what homos do in bed is that they aren't lying about it. OliviaG
The reason why some find anal sex between two men revolting is because they see it as a man willingly taking on the role of a woman. It has to do with the construction of masculinity. The idea of a man being a "bottom" disgusts people who grow up with certain perceptions of gender roles.
Clearly, someone has to do a research survey on this...
quote:How could they have missed all of Dan Savage's columns on pegging?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I gather many evangelicals might not be aware of what strap-on sex is.
OliviaG
quote:Prostate, my good man, prostate. Whether or not God intends for us to have sexual pleasure lying flat on our stomachs (=prostrate) is a conversation for another day.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If God only intended that sex was to be for procreation only, why did he create the clitoris and the prostrate?
quote:Dan's columns are a constant source of education
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:How could they have missed all of Dan Savage's columns on pegging?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I gather many evangelicals might not be aware of what strap-on sex is.
quote:I think this hits it. Constructing an identity called "homosexual" allows us to easily forget that any of us are liable to these feelings or temptations, and that orientation is much more fluid than most of us (straight or gay) are comfortable admitting : plenty of men who were predominantly straight in their 20s turn out to be interested in men 20 or 30 years later, and the phenomenon of Lesbian Until Graduation is also well-documented.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And since the anti-Christian German philosopher has been brought into the discussion, I will bring the ancient and modern understanding of the Church on passions. Is homosexuality another passion or not? Because that's how the desire for another person of the same sex has been experienced by the church in the past two thousand years.
quote:It seems to me that citing David & Jonathan as a prototypical gay couple is anachronistic. What textual evidence can you point to that suggests their friendship was sexual, or even romantic?
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
:To the best of my knowledge none of the Saints ever argued in favor of same-sex couples. None. From the oldest times of the Old Testament to the most modern elders. None argued in favor... This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the advocates of same-sex couples in church."
So David and Jonathan doesn't count?
quote:He's a hypocrite, but you already knew that.
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:I'm actually rather curious about this. I recently went to one of the residences in my college to visit a friend, while she and her floormates predrank before going out for the evening to a college function. While I was there, I met one of the denizens of my friend's hall, who apparently has something of a "pervy" reputation. He remarked to us that on a certain level he wished he were gay, since he would have a more varied and active sex life. I was reminded of Michael Thomas Ford's essay in which his heterosexual friend laments that "If I were gay, I would get head all the time" to which Ford replies in the essay that his friend has clearly never dated any of the men Ford has.
Originally posted by Otter:
the automatic assumption that all homosexuals relationships are shallow and tawdry
Similarly, I have a friend who is similar to me in many ways. We are both relatively traditional Catholic Anglicans who aspire to the priesthood. He, though, is a heterosexual, and periodically has sexual intercourse with his girlfriend. However, he has made very clear his belief that if I should enter into a union of exclusivity and intended permanence, I should not expect to be considered a suitable candidate for Holy Orders. He says this with no trace of irony, and insists that his relationship is Biblically sanctioned purely because it is heterosexual in nature.
quote:The textual evidence is not going to "convert" anyone. Obviously people on both "sides" are going to read it the way the choose. The "reappraiser" argument is that the language in the passage in question is not used for any (other) platonic friendship in the Bible.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:It seems to me that citing David & Jonathan as a prototypical gay couple is anachronistic. What textual evidence can you point to that suggests their friendship was sexual, or even romantic?
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
:To the best of my knowledge none of the Saints ever argued in favor of same-sex couples. None. From the oldest times of the Old Testament to the most modern elders. None argued in favor... This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the advocates of same-sex couples in church."
So David and Jonathan doesn't count?
quote:Ahem, AB.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I gather many evangelicals might not be aware of what strap-on sex is.
It seems weird to me. The female clitoris and the male prostrate are places of sexual stimulation. None of those organs is related to procreation. If God only intended that sex was to be for procreation only, why did he create the clitoris and the prostrate?
Perhaps there is value in sexual pleasure alone, within a life-affirming relationship of course.
quote:None!
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:It seems to me that citing David & Jonathan as a prototypical gay couple is anachronistic. What textual evidence can you point to that suggests their friendship was sexual, or even romantic?
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
:To the best of my knowledge none of the Saints ever argued in favor of same-sex couples. None. From the oldest times of the Old Testament to the most modern elders. None argued in favor... This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the advocates of same-sex couples in church."
So David and Jonathan doesn't count?
quote:Surely not deeper than a couple of inches at most?
Originally posted by bonabri:
Prostate/prostrate!
MT
Deep joy!
quote:I just knew when I posted this that it was going to be interpreted in that fashion. Some people!!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Surely not deeper than a couple of inches at most?
Originally posted by bonabri:
Prostate/prostrate!
MT
Deep joy!
quote:A large percentage of the lesbians I know have previously been married or in long term heterosexual relationships, including my own partner. My circle of gay male friends are more lifetime gay, but even there I have, off the top of my head, at least three who have been married and have children from those marriages. I also have lesbian/gay friends who have gone in the other direction and started having relationships with opposite sex partners.
Originally posted by Gwai:
However, many (I suspect most) gay people have never been attracted to a member of the opposite sex and many (most?) straight people have never been attracted to a member of the same sex.
quote:I understand that in many Middle Eastern countries men tend to be more physically affectionate with their friends than they are in Anglo places. That doesn't necessarily mean there's no sexual component to such friendships, of course, but we don't have anything which states that explicitly in the text.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Well, there's that bit where David mourns Jonathan, saying "Your love for me was wonderful/surpassing the love of women." And they sure kiss a lot for straight guys.
Ross
quote:With due respect, Gwai, I don't think that's what I said, much less what I meant!
Originally posted by Gwai:
APB,
Fair enough! Being still in my twenties, all my gay friends have always been gay, so that probably influences my point of view. Really I was just objecting to the implied point of view that we all choose to be gay and so being gay can be a sin.
quote:Fr Weber, just thought I'd point out that Gwai was not responding to your comments here, but to those from Arabella who posted above you. (denoted by using a form of Arabella's initials at the beginning of her post). Knowing this may help you to be less confused about where Gwai was coming from.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:With due respect, Gwai, I don't think that's what I said, much less what I meant!
Originally posted by Gwai:
APB,
Fair enough! Being still in my twenties, all my gay friends have always been gay, so that probably influences my point of view. Really I was just objecting to the implied point of view that we all choose to be gay and so being gay can be a sin.
)
quote:Have you got a link LQ?
Originally posted by LQ:
"The Sex Articles" are, to my view, the definitive work...
quote:Thanks - I thought you meant that, but didn't see the series title (down the rightside of the site).
Originally posted by LQ:
It's in ToujoursDan's post immediately above mine.
