Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
S
If some clueless individual were to tell a homophobic joke during coffee hour, I might take the tack I've taken hearing racist jokes -- a look of confusion, followed by, "I'm sorry, but I didn't understand that. Can you explain the punchline?"

If someone where to drop some dubious factoid about the gay community, I might say, "Well, I'm a lesbian, and I don't perceive that in my circle of gay and lesbian friends," or cite some corrective statistic for them.

---

quote:

---

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
S
If some clueless individual were to tell a homophobic joke during coffee hour, I might take the tack I've taken hearing racist jokes -- a look of confusion, followed by, "I'm sorry, but I didn't understand that. Can you explain the punchline?"

If someone where to drop some dubious factoid about the gay community, I might say, "Well, I'm a lesbian, and I don't perceive that in my circle of gay and lesbian friends," or cite some corrective statistic for them.

---

How would you react if someone said:

quote:

---

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

---

?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
I do not believe that ++Carey disagreed with this statement, but he was entirely beholden to groups like Reform, one of the factors that made him a disappointing archbishop.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
It is to the great discredit of George Carey that he refused to sign even such a moderate document as the Cambridge Accord, which stated nothing more than that gay people, like all other children of God, were to be treated with respect and charity. I do not believe that ++Carey disagreed with this statement, but he was entirely beholden to groups like Reform, one of the factors that made him a disappointing archbishop. Rowan Williams, an infinitely more capable and also rather more likable archbishop, did sign the accord and has written a great deal of worth the subject, but many liberals are understandably disappointed with how little progress he has been able to make.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Would you consider a heterosexual who has no problem with people being gay or lesbian and practicing as such and supports their civil liberties up to the hilt but who himself has moral doubts about the practice (as well as fornication; adultery; two-timing as in practicing bisexuals; polyamory; 'open marriage' and hypocrisy (possibly the greatest sin ) homophobic?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

How would you react if someone said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

I'd say that whoever was quoting this text was quoting it out of its cultural and rhetorical texts -- that, first of all, it references not stable, monogamous, mutually respectful relationships -- not Jim and Bill or Jane and Mary planting flowers along the picket fence next door and volunteering to host coffee hour at church -- but the sorts of exploitative sex and promiscuity practiced in the ancient world either as part of ecstatic religious experience or as the sort of droit de signeur (sp?...early in the morning here) sexual exploitation of persons in the servant class by their masters; and that in context Paul is using a litany of iniquities practiced by "those bad people over there" as a buildup to a larger theme -- that those who think they're morally superior, who rest on the laurels of their received Law, are no better than the pagans around them; so they need to "get real" about their own failures to love God and love other human beings.

---

And you'd be absolutely right, in the NSHO of this straight male. LC Why do the normal evangelical standards of biblical exposition fly out the window when this particular issue is under discussion.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posted                          

quote:

---

I have encountered ignorant attitudes to homosexuals much more in church

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
PDAs of any kind in church are not terribly common in Lutherland...I'm reminded of the joke about the old German (or Swede, or Norwegian, or Finn, depending on where you're telling the joke) who loved his wife so much that, once, he almost told her.

---

Dear God, I'm married to a nice Swedish/Norwegian heritage guy. (Not Luthernan, though, rather the agnostic UU variant.) While he does sometimes say he loves me (my having beaten into him that it's important to do so), PDAs were a brief experience during courtship, rarely to be seen again.

I grew up with all those Scandinavian and German Lutherans in the Midwest, so I understand and accept the behavior.

Seriously, though, until the silly PromiseKeepers sort of thing started, I can't think of any churches of whany way acceptable. I'm old enough and old-fashioned enough (in certain respects) to think that nobody should be flaunting their lovey-dovey, much less sexual relationship in church. That's not what we're there for.

It's the same reason we (hopefully) dress conservatively. I don't want to be exposed to too much of anyone's body or too much of any couple's relationship in church. The particular details are irrelevant.

So the above-mentioned idea that somehow heteros have some sort of preference or advantage seems ridiculous.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ticachick:
Hi this isnt trying to revive the old "is homosexuality wrong" topic, but more a reflection on my experiences in church. I have recently been saddened by a number of very prejudiced comments against the gay community in two churches that I have recently attended. Along the lines of assuming that all gay people are desperate to bed anyone of the same sex, that gay men are pathetic (using Howard from the apprentice as an example) etc etc.

As someone with a number of gay friends, I find these comments offensive, ignorant and unfair. I wondered had other shipmates come across this in church before, and if so how did you address it, and what is the best way to respond to this?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Would heterosexual people feel loved in a place where their relationship was described in that way?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think it should be realised that disagreeing with the practise of homosexuality is a faith-viewpoint.

---

• I do not think homosexual relationships should be legislated against on the basis of a faith viewpoint if one does not live in a theocracy.
• I do not think this viewpoint is the only available interpretation of the biblical texts, and therefore I would like to see differing views treated as a serious attempts at interpretation not excuses
• I do not think unsubstantiated libels against active homosexuals should be promulgated by people holding this faith view point: eg the non-existent link between homosexuality and paedophilia
• I would like to see serious engagement with the scientific evidence, if you wish to say that homosexuality is an innate variation that is undesirable and it is immoral to act upon it - I may not agree with the view but I can accept someone believes that on the basis of biblical material - but if you decide to simply ignore existing scientific evidence to assert homosexuality is a choice I want (preferably) scientific or biblical material to back that up. Because currently, it seems to be a circular argument, the bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it must be a choice - but I didn't chose to be gay, therefore your interpretation of the bible is wrong - no you did chose you are lying and/or mistaken about your experiences it really is a choice. What people don't say is, it's wrong, being born that way is a call to celibacy, we'll all have challenges in our lives to bear - this happens to be yours
• I have not seen a convincing argument, based on the bible, as to why homosexuality is treated differently to other behaviours believed to be sins such as gossip or gluttony and why people are persistently excluded on this basis, nor do I see a rational biblically based argument as to why it is equated in severity to murder, incest and rape.
• When people talk from this faith viewpoint they often give the impression of distaste, which strengthens my impression that a lot of responses are organised by feelings of disgust - and that relates very strongly to the concept of phobia

Posted                          

quote:

---

n short I don't think every one who believes homosexual acts to be immoral, is homophobic, but observation suggests many are. ++Akinola is a rather extreme example of this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie17:
What practice might that be ?

If being scientif define your terms maybe...

In my book, the phenomenolgy would have to include the practice of joy, listening, inclusion and the delights of the tea-pot in gay life ....

any other suggestions ? ...........

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:

quote:

---

n short I don't think every one who believes homosexual acts to be immoral, is homophobic, but observation suggests many are. ++Akinola is a rather extreme example of this.

---

I think you have just proved my point about liberals being bigoted. Just because Akinola has chosen not to follow your path to damnation does not make him wrong.

By your standards(?) God is homophobic.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:

quote:

---

n short I don't think every one who believes homosexual acts to be immoral, is homophobic, but observation suggests many are. ++Akinola is a rather extreme example of this.

---

I think you have just proved my point about liberals being bigoted. Just because Akinola has chosen not to follow your path to damnation does not make him wrong.

By your standards(?) God is homophobic.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
orfeo, you might find reading the coiled spring in Hell helps.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't agree that anyone should be nasty about anyone, but I think it should be realised that disagreeing with the practice of homosexuality is a faith-viewpoint. Unless you want to call in the thought police you will never get people to go against their ethics.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liverpool fan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't agree that anyone should be nasty about anyone, but I think it should be realised that disagreeing with the practice of homosexuality is a faith-viewpoint. Unless you want to call in the thought police you will never get people to go against their ethics.

---

Pseudo-theology used to (and still does, in some parts of the world) lie behind anti-semitism too, doesn't make it a valid viewpoint, to be accepted just because it comes from 'faith'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie17:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11826.html

---

quote:

---

From the article:
The group [of parents] stated: "God hates the UK and the Tomlinson School fag tyranny, where conscientious parents face religious persecution for withdrawing their children on lying fag so-called history."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liverpool fan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't agree that anyone should be nasty about anyone, but I think it should be realised that disagreeing with the practice of homosexuality is a faith-viewpoint. Unless you want to call in the thought police you will never get people to go against their ethics.

---

Pseudo-theology used to (and still does, in some parts of the world) lie behind anti-semitism too, doesn't make it a valid viewpoint, to be accepted just because it comes from 'faith'.

---

That's one of the primary rhetorical benefits of religious thought; the fact that you don't have to justify or explain anything. The explanation comes down to "because God said so!" This not only alleviates the need for you to explain why you're right, it also means that anyone who disagrees isn't disagreeing with you, their arguing against God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

• I do not think homosexual relationships should be legislated against on the basis of a faith viewpoint if one does not live in a theocracy.
• I do not think this viewpoint is the only available interpretation of the biblical texts, and therefore I would like to see differing views treated as a serious attempts at interpretation not excuses
• I do not think unsubstantiated libels against active homosexuals should be promulgated by people holding this faith view point: eg the non-existent link between homosexuality and paedophilia
• I would like to see serious engagement with the scientific evidence, if you wish to say that homosexuality is an innate variation that is undesirable and it is immoral to act upon it - I may not agree with the view but I can accept someone believes that on the basis of biblical material - but if you decide to simply ignore existing scientific evidence to assert homosexuality is a choice I want (preferably) scientific or biblical material to back that up. Because currently, it seems to be a circular argument, the bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it must be a choice - but I didn't chose to be gay, therefore your interpretation of the bible is wrong - no you did chose you are lying and/or mistaken about your experiences it really is a choice. What people don't say is, it's wrong, being born that way is a call to celibacy, we'll all have challenges in our lives to bear - this happens to be yours
• I have not seen a convincing argument, based on the bible, as to why homosexuality is treated differently to other behaviours believed to be sins such as gossip or gluttony and why people are persistently excluded on this basis, nor do I see a rational biblically based argument as to why it is equated in severity to murder, incest and rape.
• When people talk from this faith viewpoint they often give the impression of distaste, which strengthens my impression that a lot of responses are organised by feelings of disgust - and that relates very strongly to the concept of phobia

---

I may completely disagree with you on this issue DT but I endorse your list above. If both sides of the argument could start with your list we might even make some progress.

Posted                          

quote:

---

I may be from pretty much the other side of the fence from you on this issue, but I can heartily endorse all you say, including the bit about ++Akinola: in so far as he calls for criminal sanctions - and worse - against those is S-S relationships, he's a nasty homophobic bastard, and I'm sorry to have him on my 'side'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

• I do not think homosexual relationships should be legislated against on the basis of a faith viewpoint if one does not live in a theocracy.
• I do not think this viewpoint is the only available interpretation of the biblical texts, and therefore I would like to see differing views treated as a serious attempts at interpretation not excuses
• I do not think unsubstantiated libels against active homosexuals should be promulgated by people holding this faith view point: eg the non-existent link between homosexuality and paedophilia
• I would like to see serious engagement with the scientific evidence, if you wish to say that homosexuality is an innate variation that is undesirable and it is immoral to act upon it - I may not agree with the view but I can accept someone believes that on the basis of biblical material - but if you decide to simply ignore existing scientific evidence to assert homosexuality is a choice I want (preferably) scientific or biblical material to back that up. Because currently, it seems to be a circular argument, the bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it must be a choice - but I didn't chose to be gay, therefore your interpretation of the bible is wrong - no you did chose you are lying and/or mistaken about your experiences it really is a choice. What people don't say is, it's wrong, being born that way is a call to celibacy, we'll all have challenges in our lives to bear - this happens to be yours
• I have not seen a convincing argument, based on the bible, as to why homosexuality is treated differently to other behaviours believed to be sins such as gossip or gluttony and why people are persistently excluded on this basis, nor do I see a rational biblically based argument as to why it is equated in severity to murder, incest and rape.
• When people talk from this faith viewpoint they often give the impression of distaste, which strengthens my impression that a lot of responses are organised by feelings of disgust - and that relates very strongly to the concept of phobia

---

I may completely disagree with you on this issue DT but I endorse your list above. If both sides of the argument could start with your list we might even make some progress.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:

quote:

---

I may be from pretty much the other side of the fence from you on this issue, but I can heartily endorse all you say, including the bit about ++Akinola: in so far as he calls for criminal sanctions - and worse - against those is S-S relationships, he's a nasty homophobic bastard, and I'm sorry to have him on my 'side'.

---

Are you sure about that considering what 2 Peter 2 has to say

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Dont'cha just love it when people toss Bible verses out with the expectation that everyone is going to understand/interpret/apply it the same way they do?

---