Ship of Fools: Who's changed their mind about homosexuality and God?

Thread: Who's changed their mind about homosexuality and God? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028540

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I'll start. I hope this doesn't come across as patronising towards gay and lesbian posters here (I can imagine an "Oh so you noticed" reaction and in a way that would be fair - I'm hoping for some slack in making this confession.)

I was always someone who took a strict "biblical view" since I'd been brought up with that, and couldn't imagine faith without it. However, I never really liked the fact that I needed to take such a negative view of gay and lesbian people, and was always desperately apologetic about it.

Several things came together to change my mind.

Firstly, I became more and more aware of the oppression of gay and lesbian people, and the terrible suffering some experienced as a consequence of trying to reconcile their faith with their sexuality.

Secondly, I heard a particular story about a gay vicar who had adopted a child with severe behavioural problems. He had been on the point of returning the child to the institution when the child became violent towards his elderly mother. A social worker talked him out of this, and his elderly mother agreed to support his decision. He commented that he couldn't have done it without the support and understanding of his congregation, and in particular that they had placed no additional pressure on him because of his sexuality. It disturbed me greatly that I would have supported the congregation had they taken a negative view of this very moving and deeply christian man. There are many other such stories, of course, but this one stuck.

Thirdly I became more and more aware that the "strict biblical view" I had grown up with wasn't even internally consistent, and wasn't externally consistent with the things I saw or studied.

I attended a church led by a gay vicar* and found the people were christians, still had their faith, and no-one had any horns and I didn't explode.

I remain uncertain about what the bible means and how it should be interpreted - but that in many ways is the point.

Anyway, I'm interested in how many have had similar changes of heart, and thought this was a distinctive enough aspect to the dead horse to have its own thread.

(* The vicar there was a bastard, by the way, but that's irrelevant.)

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

+Tom Southwark has changed his mind.

Apparently.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I attended a church led by a gay vicar* and found the people were christians, still had their faith, and no-one had any horns and I didn't explode. ...

(* The vicar there was a bastard, by the way, but that's irrelevant.)

This was the bit that leapt out at me.

I certainly would not want to assume that all gays were like this Vicar but it does seem odd that you are specifically giving one of the reasons for your change as the opposite - i.e. that you met gay Christians who didn't have horns.

If bad examples prove nothing (which they don't) then why should positive examples mean anything either?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, I've changed my views.

But then, I'm gay, so people are all too ready to accuse me of believing something just because it 'suits me'. I have to repress the urge to belt them with something heavy, because they're ignoring around 17 years where my beliefs *didn't* suit my homosexuality, but there's no pleasing some people.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I attended a church led by a gay vicar* and found the people were christians, still had their faith, and no-one had any horns and I didn't explode. ...

(* The vicar there was a bastard, by the way, but that's irrelevant.)
This was the bit that leapt out at me.

I certainly would not want to assume that all gays were like this Vicar but it does seem odd that you are specifically giving one of the reasons for your change as the opposite - i.e. that you met gay Christians who didn't have horns.

If bad examples prove nothing (which they don't) then why should positive examples mean anything either?

Haven't you misread the passage your quoting? It says no-one in the congregation had horns. It doesn't say the congregation were all gay.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

No, that's not the angle Johnny S is playing. He's making a logical point that if the fact that there are bastard gay people doesn't prove gay people are all bad, then the fact that there are good gay people shouldn't prove the fact that some gay people are good.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well what he said was "you met gay Christians who didn't have horns".

Whereas what mdijon actually said in the passage quoted was "I met Christians pastored by a gay man, and the Christians didn't have horns". Nothing about the Christians without horns being gay.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Straight Christians can be as horny as gay ones.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Secondly, I heard a particular story about a gay vicar who had adopted a child with severe behavioural problems.

That bit also seemed to suggest that a gay Christian was being seen in a good light because of his behaviour.

(Of course that is making the assumption that all vicars are Christians which may just reflect my prejudices.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Secondly, I heard a particular story about a gay vicar who had adopted a child with severe behavioural problems.
That bit also seemed to suggest that a gay Christian was being seen in a good light because of his behaviour.

What conceivable other aspect, occurrence, or circumstance should make us see people in a good light except their behaviour?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Secondly, I heard a particular story about a gay vicar who had adopted a child with severe behavioural problems.
That bit also seemed to suggest that a gay Christian was being seen in a good light because of his behaviour.
What conceivable other aspect, occurrence, or circumstance should make us see people in a good light except their behaviour?

Presumably their whiter-than-white holiness, which apparently isn't necessarily reflected in their behaviour.

Jesus got terribly cranky in the temple, remember...

Seriously, though, it seems that Johnny has completely missed the fact that gays and lesbians are sometimes presented as uniformly black-hearted, moustache-twirling pedophiles. If that's the image of gays and lesbians you've been presented with, then discovering them behaving in ordinary ways, including doing good, IS noteworthy.

Johnny seems to presume we all knew that gays and lesbians were an ordinary mix of good and bad in the first place, which is rather contrary to the point of the thread.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
He's making a logical point that if the fact that there are bastard gay people doesn't prove gay people are all bad, then the fact that there are good gay people shouldn't prove the fact that some gay people are good.

I disagree with your use of the word "logical", but I think that's the point he's making.

However, my point wasn't so much that the other gay vicar was obviously a good guy, but that my influence in the situation would have been decidedly negative - in that it may have resulted in him being unable to cope with what he was going through, and had adverse consequences for his charge of care and possibly his mother.

It was hardly meant to be a stereotyping example - even then I didn't think that all gay people were the same and that one could make meaningful inferences about what gay people were like from a few contacts.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Johnny seems to presume we all knew that gays and lesbians were an ordinary mix of good and bad in the first place, which is rather contrary to the point of the thread.

But (ISTM) that is the point of the OP.

I've had reason to meet and get to know some convicted paedophiles. Some of them have been really nasty and some of them have been lovely people I count as friends. (All of them were broken people.) However, whether they were nice or nasty would never enter my thinking regarding the morality of paedophilia.

[and just for the record NO I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. It is just an analogy.]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Yeah, right. [Paranoid]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But (ISTM) that is the point of the OP.

I really wanted to share experiences with others who had changed their minds and see how common the reasons were. Your version of my point really isn't correct, and focuses really rather narrowly on a single sentence of the OP out of context. I didn't have a single point.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

I used to be one of those people who were brought up to believe what ‘good’ books say (Banner of Truth was one ‘sound’ publisher) and to accept the views of authority figures who were deemed to be ‘reliable’. The Bible was ‘the best book to read’, contained no contradictions and was completely reliable in all things. Thus, I did not like or approve of gay sexuality, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, working class and upper class people and, to a lesser extent, black people, because this is what I was taught was contained in these ‘reliable’ books and in the teaching of these ‘reliable’ people.

(Incidentally, I have had cause recently to make contact with one or two of my peers of 60 years ago and they haven’t budged much from this line so far as I can tell.)

Things began to change (and it was at first a fairly slow process) when I ‘happened’ to rub shoulders with people who were different to my peers / parents / church leaders. The Bible began not to be such a cut and dried book, a Roman Catholic priest actually preached ‘my’ gospel, pentecostals seemed to be having the good time that my church failed to provide for me, National Service took me to Africa. The Methodist Church issued their early sexuality report which was debated in our church where the minister brought together a mixed group of people which included gay Christians and I was tasked with recording the discussions.

So, it seems to me that it has been the fact that I met and interacted with gay people that began to change my mind, exposed me to alternative points of view. And that this was supported by a much wider reading than I had been exposed to before. Study of the Bible confirmed in me that it contains no teaching against gay sexuality.

Recently I’ve added a couple more prejudices to my list, but that’s another matter. [Biased]

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

I've a good friend who was brought up in a very evangelical church that truly believed the correct response to finding out someone was gay was to disown them/banish them from church and community, for their own good until they repented.
He has since been challenged by finding out that his own son is gay, and another close member of the family is transgender.
Strangely, his views on banishment have changed quite radically, and he's now realising that gay people aren't actually monsters out to destroy other people and our faith at all.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I remain uncertain about what the bible means and how it should be interpreted - but that in many ways is the point.

I think that probably describes me too. I was never a fire'n'brimstone type, and was good friends with a (celibate, extremely closeted) gay man in my church for years. So much so that most people in that church tried to marry us off!

I think the difference for me these days, is that I've stopped struggling. It isn't for me to tell people if they are 'living right' or not. If God wants to do that to anyone, I'm sure He'll find a way.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If bad examples prove nothing (which they don't) then why should positive examples mean anything either?

Because when a sweeping claim is made such as homophobes like to make, a single counterexample suffices to topple it.

And because positive examples are something that most of us never saw when everyone was forced into the closet.

[ 04. June 2010, 17:12: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
He's making a logical point that... the fact that there are good gay people shouldn't prove the fact that some gay people are good.

When someone you know well appears to be good, it requires a very abstract argument to tell you that you're mistaken, he's really not good. Most people aren't that adept with abstractions.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Actually I was being facetious.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

Perhaps 'changed my mind' is a bit strong because my initial position was not very well thought through, but I was certainly brought up (as a teenager) to believe that being gay was "against God's plan" or "fallen behaviour", but to "love the sinner and hate the sin".

Then I started thinking for myself, examining how hermeneutics work, and trying to determine a reasonably self-consistent theology that actually holds up to the stresses and strains of everyday life*. I came very quickly to realise that it's not as cut-and-dried as a quick proof text from Paul would have you believe.

Now, I am fully convinced that being straight or gay doesn't matter a jot. The reason for this is that I don't think anything written in the epistles actually addresses the contemporary context of long-term, stable, mutually respecting relationships between people of the same sex. Paul in particular is much more likely to have been addressing the hedonistic aspects of the culture of the time, and the use of prostitutes in pagan temple ritual than anything else. Therefore the general principles of love, honour, and acceptance are the most important guidance.

So I guess my realisation is a little different from other posters in that I had more of an intellectual conversion that a relational one. Hopefully that's still valid though. [Smile]

* I'm still working on that last part, by the way. [Biased]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually I was being facetious.

And brilliantly ironic. [Overused]

Which (speaking of knowing people well enough) I should have realized immediately.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually I was being facetious.

Yeah, I realised that. [Razz]

Which was why I didn't respond.

I think you are ignoring a fundamental issue that is all to do with why people change their minds about things like this though.

People who live really good lives (and that we respect for other reasons too) inevitably shape our opinions. So if X behaves in a way I think is wrong but I respect him this may well cause me to rethink that issue. But not always. And that is my point. There are a lot of good people that I admire greatly but I'm not blind to their weaknesses and not convinced by their self-rationalisations over some issues.

So what makes the difference? That's my question.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
When someone you know well appears to be good, it requires a very abstract argument to tell you that you're mistaken, he's really not good. Most people aren't that adept with abstractions.

I never made any reference to that abstraction. I was merely referring to something that all of us do all the time - concede that no one is perfect and that even good people have flaws.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Secondly, I heard a particular story about a gay vicar who had adopted a child with severe behavioural problems.
That bit also seemed to suggest that a gay Christian was being seen in a good light because of his behaviour.

(Of course that is making the assumption that all vicars are Christians which may just reflect my prejudices.)

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Discipleship is part of true Christianity.

Besides, being gay is also a matter of behavior. If being good isn't the mark of being a Christian, I fail to see why being straight has to be one.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

For my part, I've gone from being fairly indifferent to the idea (meh, gay folk don't seem so bad) to being more or less convicted, partly because of the sheer harm anti-gay teachings do to people (Hell isn't only a place in the afterlife,) because of the sheer slimness of biblical words on the subject (not to mention the fact that they're made in a completely different sexual culture than we have today,)

The way that some churches seem to take the subject so seriously as to seem idolatrous (where the idol is old fashioned Roman straight patriarchal "family values" culture [Projectile]

) doesn't help matters. I've had more negative experiences with conservatives than liberals. Again, something with this many briers and nettles can't be the truth, as much as I love some of these people (and I do, and I do not deny that these churches do feed people in a meaningful way.) I've seen stuff in liberal churches that rubbed me the wrong way, but it never seemed to scar and cripple people for life (or at least decades) with the same intensity or frequency. That may seem harsh to some people, and perhaps a bit stereotyped (and it is) but it's my experience of the church. Liberals may be less effective in some ways, but they also don't have the same propensity to harm the little ones (in a more general sense of the word.)

In an odd way, my increasing respect for the bible and the tradition have come somewhat later (though admittedly not by much,) which puts me in kind of an opposite place. I'm pretty convinced that gays are acceptable, and now learning how that fits into the tradition as I've begun to appropriate it.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny S:
[qb] ...Besides, being gay is also a matter of behavior. If being good isn't the mark of being a Christian, I fail to see why being straight has to be one.

Totally agree with second sentence. Not sure about the first one...one can be gay (deeply attracted to own gender, unable to be sexually interested in the opposite gender etc) and not act on it, therefore there is no 'behavior'. What then? Are we not gay, in that case?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I agree amber.

I don't see being gay as a matter of behaviour at all.

I am heterosexual - it is my sexuality, not my behaviour.

I have always been dumbfounded by the anti-gay mood in some churches, as three of my close family are gay - so it has never been an issue for me.

My own Church is very welcoming and inclusive, whatever your sexual orientation and has been ever since I began attending (1978)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So what makes the difference? That's my question.

All the other stuff in the OP that you didn't focus on.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

"Gay? Whatever, Dude" discusses some of the recent polling on attitudes to gays/lesbians. Apparently, for the first time, more than 50% of Americans now perceive that gay/lesbian relations are morally acceptable, and, more interestingly, for the first time as well, more men than women make that statement.

So the change in attitude is among more than a minor sample of the population (although the term used in the question "gay or "homosexual" does affect the numbers, as discussed elsewhere on the Ship)

The article suggests three hypotheses for the change:
1. contact: if you know a GLBT person, or even see more such persons openly talked about/portrayed, you are more likely to be accepting;
2. egalitarianism: diversity has become more acceptable in general, and that includes diversity in sexuality;
3. The Ted Haggard/George Rekers antiMidas touch: as the more violently homophobic are exposed as being secretly gay or bi themselves, the message they offer becomes less acceptable. (more detail and links in the article)

The last longer paragraph offers an interesting sidelight!

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So what makes the difference? That's my question.
All the other stuff in the OP that you didn't focus on.

I get that. And that's why I'm still following this thread.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Then why ask the question if you get the answer already?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Then why ask the question if you get the answer already?

Because I want to hear other people's stories.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

JS, I'm not trying to be confusing, but I'm also finding your line confusing.

I posted my experience of changing my mind on an issue and wanted to hear others' experiences. You focused on a single line and questioned the logic of it.

We had a bit of discussion on that, which narrowed down to the exchange above - and when I pointed out that the single line wasn't the sum total of my reasoning (i.e. there was the rest of the OP for starters) you respond that you got that.

Which left me a bit perplexed as to why you went down a line of a narrow exchange focusing on it. And now you say it was because you want to hear people's stories?

[Confused]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

I tend to view most threads like a discussion. You have started us off with your experiences and I'm also interested in those of others. I picked up on one part of your experience and asked questions about it - which seems a fairly normal thing to do.

That doesn't mean that this particular issue is the only part of the process that I'm only interested in though.

I was assuming a sort of purgatorial type discussion but maybe you were after an All Saints 'we just share our experiences' type thread?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Purgatorial slants are fine by me, but that makes it even less clear why you'd ask a question to which you already know the answer, and justify doing so by saying you were interested in people's stories.

That's where I'm confused.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Over time, I've certainly changed my position.

I grew up with the assumption that being gay (actually we called it "being a poof") was soooo wrong. It was a position that was only strengthened by becoming a Christian.

But gradually I changed my position. First of all, I started to realise that the Bible wasn't actually that definitive on the matter. It actually said very little and what it did say wasn't 100% clear. Then I started to question the way that I understood the Bible. Its "authority" changed. I realised that you could still have it as a holy book without falling into the trap of literalism. I found that it was possible to say "even if Paul WAS condemning all homosexual acts, I don't actually have to accept that as God's opinion on the matter."

Then I spent an evening talking to a gay couple, who were both Christians. It was a sobering and yet liberating experience. They didn't have all the answers. In fact, they didn't have many answers at all. Yet they were Christians, genuinely seeking to follow Christ as I was. I found that I could not condemn them. Now I could never go back to being "anti-gay" and I increasingly find Christian anti-gay attitudes offensive and hopelessly outdated.

If I am wrong and God really does hate fags, then - to be brutally honest - I'd rather not be anywhere near such a God.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Over time, I've certainly changed my position.

I grew up with the assumption that being gay (actually we called it "being a poof") was soooo wrong. It was a position that was only strengthened by becoming a Christian.

But gradually I changed my position. First of all, I started to realise that the Bible wasn't actually that definitive on the matter. It actually said very little and what it did say wasn't 100% clear. Then I started to question the way that I understood the Bible. Its "authority" changed. I realised that you could still have it as a holy book without falling into the trap of literalism. I found that it was possible to say "even if Paul WAS condemning all homosexual acts, I don't actually have to accept that as God's opinion on the matter."

I agree with all of your post that I have quoted. But I haven't changed my belief that homosexual acts are wrong. Perhaps because I have never had such a conversation as you describe with a RL gay Christian. Perhaps if I had such a conversation it still wouldn't change my mind. I don't know. What I do know, is that though the passages relating to homosexuality in the Bible are not 100% clear (what could be?) they are as clear as the writer(s) could make them considering that there wasn't a word for homosexuals, nor a group of people in those cultures that specifically thought of themselves as homosexuals (as far as we can tell from the evidence).

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If I am wrong and God really does hate fags, then - to be brutally honest - I'd rather not be anywhere near such a God.

So would I. Fortunately, we have a God that loves fags, the same as everyone else, despite their, and our, sin.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

IOW, you would like to be sure that their sin registers higher on the scale of badness than anyone else's, because that particular sin is one that you won't commit.

But Josephine said it much better than I.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you are ignoring a fundamental issue that is all to do with why people change their minds about things like this though.

People who live really good lives (and that we respect for other reasons too) inevitably shape our opinions. So if X behaves in a way I think is wrong but I respect him this may well cause me to rethink that issue. But not always. And that is my point. There are a lot of good people that I admire greatly but I'm not blind to their weaknesses and not convinced by their self-rationalisations over some issues.

So what makes the difference? That's my question.

Hmm. Well, I don't think I changed mind because of any good person. Unless perhaps I was convinced of my own goodness...

As much as for any reason, I changed my mind because the alternative view simply did not work. And I don't mean that in the sense of it was inconvenient. Being a gay, self-condemning Christian isn't a recipe for repentance and healing, it's a recipe for depression, anguish a life half-lived and in many cases suicide.

I cannot being to describe how much more alive I am as an openly gay Christian who believes God loves me as I am - with all my other faults, yes, but not because I'm attracted to my own gender.

And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?

I actually believe that it was God who told me to change my position on these things, when I wasn't quite ready to. But I don't expect anyone to be convinced by that particularly. I'm asking you to look at the fruit.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What I do know, is that though the passages relating to homosexuality in the Bible are not 100% clear (what could be?) they are as clear as the writer(s) could make them considering that there wasn't a word for homosexuals, nor a group of people in those cultures that specifically thought of themselves as homosexuals (as far as we can tell from the evidence).

I couldn't have put the bit after "considering" any more forcefully if I'd tried. It does seem to work against the "100% clear" very effectively.

I think the aspect of my discussions with gay Christians that particularly convinced me was talking with those Christians who had desperately tried to not be gay. They had repeatedly renounced their "lifestyle", broken up with partners, gone through tearful repentences, and yet couldn't conform to a heterosexual pattern of behaviour, and so slipped back, full of self-loathing and guilt.

However God wanted these people to live, I was pretty sure that wasn't it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What I do know, is that though the passages relating to homosexuality in the Bible are not 100% clear (what could be?) they are as clear as the writer(s) could make them considering that there wasn't a word for homosexuals, nor a group of people in those cultures that specifically thought of themselves as homosexuals (as far as we can tell from the evidence).

Given those caveats why should I think they're about what we today call "homosexuality" at all?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?

You've set up a false dichotomy there.

My varied experience of human nature is that I would never underestimate the power of self-justification and rationalisation of any behaviour.

Some Christians seem to operate on the assumption that if it feels good it must be wrong, others that it must be right. I reject both options.

But speaking personally, I'm very glad that Jesus chose the path that led to misery and death.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
IOW, you would like to be sure that their sin registers higher on the scale of badness than anyone else's, because that particular sin is one that you won't commit.

But Josephine said it much better than I.

If that was addressed to me then no, you're wrong.

I am sure that is true for some people, though I've never met them or noticed them on the Ship. But for me, homosexuality in itself is no worse a sin than any other. The only reason it is such a big deal, as opposed to gossip (per Josephine's post you linked to) is that there are no pro-gossip activists, no gossip-pride marches, no Gossip Christians as a defined group and no Churches set up with a pro-gossip ministry. If two homosexuals (or even more) want to do their thing in the privacy of their own homes then Josephine's right, it's none of my business and I have nothing to say about it. It's only when people bring the conversation into a discussion of Christianity and what is or is not a sin that I feel it is important enough to talk about and get right.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?

Well, if we're following Jesus then often the first one. That's certainly the path God intended for His son, why should our discipleship be any different?

No one ever said following Jesus would be sunshine and roses. In fact I think He said exactly the opposite. "Take up your cross and follow me", He said. Everyone has their cross to take up when they follow Jesus, some crosses are lighter than other people's, some a lot heavier.

If someone's doing what they're doing because it makes them happy or makes their life easier, how is that following Jesus as opposed to following their own desires?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
You've set up a false dichotomy there.

My varied experience of human nature is that I would never underestimate the power of self-justification and rationalisation of any behaviour.

Some Christians seem to operate on the assumption that if it feels good it must be wrong, others that it must be right. I reject both options.

But speaking personally, I'm very glad that Jesus chose the path that led to misery and death.

That last sentence is so remarkably stupid and obtuse that I want to slap you.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
Well, if we're following Jesus then often the first one. That's certainly the path God intended for His son, why should our discipleship be any different?

No one ever said following Jesus would be sunshine and roses. In fact I think He said exactly the opposite. "Take up your cross and follow me", He said. Everyone has their cross to take up when they follow Jesus, some crosses are lighter than other people's, some a lot heavier.

If someone's doing what they're doing because it makes them happy or makes their life easier, how is that following Jesus as opposed to following their own desires?

And this is only marginally better.

If we're going to start quoting Jesus, then maybe we ought to have a look at the part where he talked about having life, and having it to the full.

I actually find it shocking that the last two posts have taken what I said about depression and suicide and tried to equate it with Christly suffering.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Hawk:

quote:
If someone's doing what they're doing because it makes them happy or makes their life easier, how is that following Jesus as opposed to following their own desires?

It's statements like this that make me wonder how it took me over 50 years to reject Christianity.

(note: must go away and change that signature.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Indeed. The assumption that our own desires must be wrong is spiritually immature.

At root, all our desires are for God. God woos us through our desires, not against them.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
Well, if we're following Jesus then often the first one. That's certainly the path God intended for His son, why should our discipleship be any different?

No one ever said following Jesus would be sunshine and roses. In fact I think He said exactly the opposite. "Take up your cross and follow me", He said. Everyone has their cross to take up when they follow Jesus, some crosses are lighter than other people's, some a lot heavier.

If someone's doing what they're doing because it makes them happy or makes their life easier, how is that following Jesus as opposed to following their own desires?

Where does it say that he was talking about sexuality, or even any desire. What Jesus crucified on the boards of his desires? I know it's a popular read of that passage, but I'm wary enough to make a Keryg thread about it...

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Here's the thread I alluded to before.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...
But speaking personally, I'm very glad that Jesus chose the path that led to misery and death.
That last sentence is so remarkably stupid and obtuse that I want to slap you.

hosting

My apologies for missing this - this is far too personal and Hellish, Orfeo. If you want to get that personal, you must do so in Hell, as per Commandment 4 and not on the other boards.

Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Isn't the whole "misery and death" position rather at odds with the typical reasons given for becoming a Christian? I mean the poster children of being born-again are very keen to emphasise how much more meaningful life becomes, with a sense of peace, purpose, fulfillment and love towards humanity. Now it may be that when it suits the argument you can say that actually the Christian experience is really about misery, self denial and death in an attempt to avoid pissing God off, but it seems a little dishonest to avoid saying that except when it suits your purpose.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

New slogan:

Christianity: Come for the misery, stay for the death!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
Well, if we're following Jesus then often the first one. That's certainly the path God intended for His son, why should our discipleship be any different?

Because we're not dying for the life of the world?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
My apologies for missing this - this is far too personal and Hellish, Orfeo. If you want to get that personal, you must do so in Hell, as per Commandment 4 and not on the other boards.

Point taken. I should have waited to post until I was somewhat less outraged.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Now it may be that when it suits the argument you can say that actually the Christian experience is really about misery, self denial and death in an attempt to avoid pissing God off, but it seems a little dishonest to avoid saying that except when it suits your purpose.

These comments suggest that you are not listening to what either myself or Hawk have been saying.

I have never said that God wants misery for us all the time. I was merely reacting to the suggestion that 'God wants for us whatever makes us happy / feel good'.

I repeat what I said in my previous posts:

Some Christians seem to assume that 'if it feels right to me it must be right'.

Other Christians, rather perversely, adopt the opposite position of 'if it feels right it must be wrong'. (Or you could say 'if it is painful it must be right'.)

I reject both positions.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Now it may be that when it suits the argument you can say that actually the Christian experience is really about misery, self denial and death in an attempt to avoid pissing God off, but it seems a little dishonest to avoid saying that except when it suits your purpose.
These comments suggest that you are not listening to what either myself or Hawk have been saying.

I have never said that God wants misery for us all the time. I was merely reacting to the suggestion that 'God wants for us whatever makes us happy / feel good'.

I repeat what I said in my previous posts:

Some Christians seem to assume that 'if it feels right to me it must be right'.

Other Christians, rather perversely, adopt the opposite position of 'if it feels right it must be wrong'. (Or you could say 'if it is painful it must be right'.)

I reject both positions.

So if it's not clear cut, how do you discern the difference between what my Aikido sensei would call "good pain" and "bad pain."

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So if it's not clear cut, how do you discern the difference between what my Aikido sensei would call "good pain" and "bad pain."

I'd argue that such a distinction is only possible with an objective morality (as opposed to an extreme form of situational ethics).

Of course that then raises the question of where it is possible to derive such an objective morality from.

As an evangelical I'd try to derive it from Jesus, as revealed in the scriptures ... but then that leads us to the other current dead horses thread! [Biased]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Which only returns me to the point that I find it shocking that anyone would look at a situation that regularly leads to suicide and suicide attempts, and equate that with 'good pain'.

How anyone could think the fruit of good/Godly suffering involves people killing themselves is beyond me.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So if it's not clear cut, how do you discern the difference between what my Aikido sensei would call "good pain" and "bad pain."
I'd argue that such a distinction is only possible with an objective morality (as opposed to an extreme form of situational ethics).

Of course that then raises the question of where it is possible to derive such an objective morality from.

As an evangelical I'd try to derive it from Jesus, as revealed in the scriptures ... but then that leads us to the other current dead horses thread!

The trouble with being objective is that you have to presume that you speak on God's behalf.

I tend to figure as far as perfect objectivity goes, that's God's and God's alone. The rest of us try as best we can with the goodwill given to us.

While I'm also wary of total subjectivity, I'm not quite comfortable with setting everything according to a standard that I derive as "objective." I figure one has to allow room for the obvious gap between myself and God, which means, to an extent, confessing my own subjectivity, even in exegeting the Scriptures.

And since we're already in Dead Horses anyway, I'm happy to bring that one in too. Who says threads have to be limited to one equine at a time? I've always thought on a certain level that the argument over homosexuality boils down to an argument about what inerrancy means anyway... [Two face]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which only returns me to the point that I find it shocking that anyone would look at a situation that regularly leads to suicide and suicide attempts, and equate that with 'good pain'.

How anyone could think the fruit of good/Godly suffering involves people killing themselves is beyond me.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I reject both positions.

Maybe if I do it in capitals, bold and italic it will be clearer?

I REJECT BOTH POSITIONS.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The trouble with being objective is that you have to presume that you speak on God's behalf.

I tend to figure as far as perfect objectivity goes, that's God's and God's alone. The rest of us try as best we can with the goodwill given to us.

I half agree but wonder how that doesn't just lapse into deism? How does it not, in practice, lapse into total subjectivity?

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
since we're already in Dead Horses anyway, I'm happy to bring that one in too. Who says threads have to be limited to one equine at a time? I've always thought on a certain level that the argument over homosexuality boils down to an argument about what inerrancy means anyway...

I agree, I think this is the issue too.

I'm torn. Often an insistency on inerrancy does become an insistence on my interpretation. However, I think it is equally true that once inerrancy is let go it almost always becomes my interpretation anyway - i.e. if I accept or reject ethics from scripture based on my own morality then hasn't any sense of the external voice been lost altogether?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which only returns me to the point that I find it shocking that anyone would look at a situation that regularly leads to suicide and suicide attempts, and equate that with 'good pain'.

How anyone could think the fruit of good/Godly suffering involves people killing themselves is beyond me.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I reject both positions.
Maybe if I do it in capitals, bold and italic it will be clearer?

I REJECT BOTH POSITIONS.

Why do you think that makes it any clearer? I never accused you of saying 'if it hurts it must be good'. Just as I never said 'if it hurts it must be bad'.

You're the one (well one of two) that attempted to link suicide-causing pain with Christ's suffering and death. My entire POINT is that the two kinds of suffering are utterly different.

You're repeated statement that you don't think that suffering is always good merely confirming that you share my view on that point. What it is completely failing to do is indicate why you would think, in the case of Christian homosexuals, the suffering of internal conflict IS good, or at least better than them giving in to their homosexual desires in the context of a loving committed relationship.

Suffering that leads to change and repentance - good fruit, arguably good suffering that should be undergone. Suffering that leads to suicide and which consistently fails to bear any fruit other than further suffering - hmmm, do you seriously think that's what God wants?

What I actually said is, if it hurts in such a way that it leads to people throwing themselves off bridges and the like, maybe you should reconsider whether or not the interpretation of Scripture that directly CONTRIBUTES to that hurt is actually an interpretation in keeping with God's intention. Given that other interpretations are perfectly open.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're the one (well one of two) that attempted to link suicide-causing pain with Christ's suffering and death. My entire POINT is that the two kinds of suffering are utterly different.

No I didn't.

If you read back over the thread you will see that you started by talking about pain that may lead to suicide.

Later I made a comment about, for Christ, choosing God's will meant pain.

From there first of all you made a link between my comment and your one about suicide (a connection I didn't make) and then you strengthened it by making it a direct link: "suicide-causing pain".

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Suffering that leads to suicide and which consistently fails to bear any fruit other than further suffering - hmmm, do you seriously think that's what God wants?

What I actually said is, if it hurts in such a way that it leads to people throwing themselves off bridges and the like, maybe you should reconsider whether or not the interpretation of Scripture that directly CONTRIBUTES to that hurt is actually an interpretation in keeping with God's intention. Given that other interpretations are perfectly open.

I am terribly saddened by anyone who commits suicide for any reason. I've had to deal with two suicides (not for these reasons) and the brokenness normally leaves one with nothing to say.

However, there are a lot of assumptions in those paragraphs:

1. There is a direct causal link between a conservative view of sexuality and suicide.

2. Resisting the desires of our sexuality never bears any fruit. (How do you know that?)

3. Other interpretations are perfectly open.

I'd disagree with all of those assumptions.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you read back over the thread you will see that you started by talking about pain that may lead to suicide.

Later I made a comment about, for Christ, choosing God's will meant pain.

From there first of all you made a link between my comment and your one about suicide (a connection I didn't make)

You didn't just 'make a comment'. You QUOTED me. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw when you quote me but that you are linking your thoughts to mine.

As to italicising that it 'may' lead to suicide... I'm sorry, are you saying that the argument isn't valid unless every gay person actually goes all the way as far as attempting suicide, and not only attempts, but succeeds?

The first thing that reminds me of the old witch trials, where if someone drowned when you put them under the water, it was proof they weren't a witch. Terribly sorry, we made a mistake after all.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, there are a lot of assumptions in those paragraphs:

1. There is a direct causal link between a conservative view of sexuality and suicide.

2. Resisting the desires of our sexuality never bears any fruit. (How do you know that?)

3. Other interpretations are perfectly open.

I'd disagree with all of those assumptions.

I wanted to treat this part separately.

1. Yes, that is exactly what I am telling you, in regards to a conservative view of HOMOsexuality. Having attempted to live according to the conservative view of HOMOsexuality for 17 years, I am telling you that it is a total disaster for gay Christians.

2. This is a total mischaracterisation of what I've said. I find it interesting that you keep saying 'sexuality'. It's obvious that 'sexuality' encompasses much, much more than the gender you are attracted to, and nothing I have said in this thread suggests that I think there should be no sexual morals whatsoever.

3. Then why are you even in this thread?

3A. I feel it necessary to return to the very first comment I made on this thread. There's this very bad tendency to assume that because I'm gay, I must have adopted an interpretation that just happened to 'suit me'.

This is complete rubbish and precisely why I am explaining how I came to my current view. I started with the question: did my initial view bear good fruit? No. It didn't.

THEN I went and looked at the relevant passages of Scripture more carefully. While doing so, I tossed out a lot of very unsatisfactory justifications for BOTH views. I continued to look at the discussions, in favour of BOTH views, that actually looked they had been written by someone with a brain who hadn't prejudged the entire issue. Eg, those who actually acknoweldged that Romans 1 was the trickiest passage of the lot (anyone who tried to base a condemnation of homosexuality on the destruction of Sodom is foolish in the extreme).

THEN I concluded that actually, there were some cogent and well-argued views in favour of saying that the handful of passages of interest were focused on particular sexual practices, not on same-gender attraction generally.

AT THE SAME TIME, I began testing out whether such an interpretation bore better fruit.

It did.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Apologies for the triple-post, but I can't go back and edit the first one and I want to head off one potential response before Johnny S thinks of making it.

When I say Johnny S quoted me, I don't just mean he pressed the quote button. He used the same words I used, verbatim. I said 'misery and death' (referring to the internal conflict of gay Christians leading to potential suicide) and HE said 'misery and death' (referring to Christ's suffering and crucifixion).

I would think, in those circumstances, it is not only reasonable for me to see the two as linked, it is exceedingly strange for Johnny S to now claim they weren't. Either he chose to link them, or he somehow managed to pick that phrase to quote while completely ignoring the entire context I had said it in.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The trouble with being objective is that you have to presume that you speak on God's behalf.

I tend to figure as far as perfect objectivity goes, that's God's and God's alone. The rest of us try as best we can with the goodwill given to us.
I half agree but wonder how that doesn't just lapse into deism? How does it not, in practice, lapse into total subjectivity?

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
since we're already in Dead Horses anyway, I'm happy to bring that one in too. Who says threads have to be limited to one equine at a time? I've always thought on a certain level that the argument over homosexuality boils down to an argument about what inerrancy means anyway...
I agree, I think this is the issue too.

I'm torn. Often an insistency on inerrancy does become an insistence on my interpretation. However, I think it is equally true that once inerrancy is let go it almost always becomes my interpretation anyway - i.e. if I accept or reject ethics from scripture based on my own morality then hasn't any sense of the external voice been lost altogether?

The gap between subjectivity and deism is a lot like the gap between objectivity and self-idolatry. There's a hazard on either end of the field, IMO.

If you consult scripture at all, then there's always a sense of the other voice. And as it is you consulting the scripture, there is always your own voice as well. This is inevitable, and I'd rather admit it than pretend to be able to eradicate my own prejudice from the situation. There's also the role of the community in interpretation to be considered.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Not to link this thread too closely with the wine thread in Purg, but there's a difference between insisting on resisting sexual temptation and insisting on celibacy.

One can accept that homosexual relationships are legitimate without opening the door to profligate promiscuity. And of course, homosexuals hardly have a monopoly on promiscuous sexual behavior.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Christians of a certain persuasion often voice the idea that homosexuals only engage in promiscuous sex.

But they also say that homosexuals may not get married, because that interferes with some other bureaucratic rule about having procreation as the only reason for sex.

So ANY sexual relation undertaken by a gay is automatically "promiscuous" and therefore should be slandered by right-thinking Good Christians.

But all the sex that Christians engage in, that is not done with a proper prayer for a new baby, (I don't mind if they also enjoy it!) is also promiscuous, according to the rule stated above.

So are we allowed to slander all Good Christians for their promiscuity, or is consistency not allowed in discussions about sex?

And what are we to make of all the sex engaged in outside marriage by a large group of Christians? I know that it does go on, because the number of teenage (and other) pregnancies occurring among abstinence-espousing Christians is actually higher than the number among sex-educated teens who happen not to be Christian at all (or, at least, who don't trumpet their Christianity).

Christians want there to be committed relations between sexual partners. Why are some people not allowed to have committed relationships, so they can avoid the stigma (or boredom) of having judgmental Christians talk about promiscuity?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
When I say Johnny S quoted me, I don't just mean he pressed the quote button. He used the same words I used, verbatim. I said 'misery and death' (referring to the internal conflict of gay Christians leading to potential suicide) and HE said 'misery and death' (referring to Christ's suffering and crucifixion).

I would think, in those circumstances, it is not only reasonable for me to see the two as linked, it is exceedingly strange for Johnny S to now claim they weren't. Either he chose to link them, or he somehow managed to pick that phrase to quote while completely ignoring the entire context I had said it in.

I realise that, because of past experience, this is a painful issue for you and perhaps that is why you assume the worst in what I post. Therefore I think I'll bow out at this point.

When I picked up on your phrase 'misery and death' I was using it as a general (pessimistic) expression that is sometimes used to describe the common lot of humanity - which while including suicide was certainly not meant to focus on it. I had no intention at all of comparing Christ's death with that of someone who commits suicide.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

In other words, you DID competely ignore the context.

Well, thank you for at least admitting it.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

I will try to address the initial question; "who's changed their mind about homosexuality and God".

Naive person I was (maybe am), the idea of homosexuality never occurred to me when young. Initially once I understood it was really something people did (not trying to be offensive here, I did think it was a behavioural choice initially, along the lines of smoking actually). Initially I went with what authorities told me. Partly along the line of "the bible tells me so". So I was negative, perhaps at the level of 6 or 7/10 against. In the past 20 years or so, I began to understand that the issue is not homosexual behaviour, but rather faithfulness in relationships, respect and love. Sex being essentially a private matter involving a rather poor set-up in my opinion, with sewage being dealt with right beside an amusement park (a good argument for a Godly sense of humour or evolution etc.).

I put forth a motion at our vestry (parish council), with encouragement of my children who, God bless 'em are way more modern than me, that we consider writing the bishop and national church that we were an affirming parish and that we would like to conduct same-sex blessings. The resulting vestry discussions were explosive at times, with the end result of the motion passing after about 10 months of dialogue and working with the parish. The annual general meeting also passed it. The fall-out? One family did leave the parish and I am sorry about that, but frankly not that sorry. This is a matter of Christian love.

So, I have changed my mind.

Posted by Full Circle (# 15398) on :

AIDS changed my mind, especially at the beginning of the epidemic when it was predominantly seen as a disease of gay men. I just couldn't believe some of the loud statements about HIV being God's judgement. The need to think about where they were coming from made me re-examine my beliefs (alongside meeting people: Christian and otherwise who self identified as homosexual).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I grew up knowing we had an "aunt" (not a blood relation but a family member nonetheless) who was a Lesbian. I don't remember if I was told directly or it was pieced together from hearing what other people said when they thought I wasn't listening. But a big deal was not made of it, and it never seemed like a big deal to me. Most people are like this, some people are like that.

Becoming a Christian in my early adulthood kind of clouded the issue, but underneath was a pretty firm understanding that gay people were not bug-eyed monsters.

Working for 5 years in HIV/Aids surveillance, I rubbed elbows with a lot of gay folk. They were a lot like people.

I struggle with my own church's teachings on homosexuality. But I'm a heretic on so many other things.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Nothing much has changed for me. I've been gay and a churchgoing Christian nearly 40 years, and I still feel more embarrassed telling gay people I'm a Christian, than telling Christian people I'm gay.

The reason, I think, is that I'm confident I can defend homosexuality when I'm with Christians. I'm not sure I can defend Christianity when I'm with homosexuals.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

I haven't changed my mind on the central issue. I was broadly 'pro' before becoming a Christian. I'm still broadly 'pro' now. What has changed is my attitude to Christians who disagree with me. IME most of them (at least in Europe and particularly in the younger generation) don't hate gays, don't think gayness is worse than any other 'sin' and aren't nearly as obsessed about the whole thing as liberals seem to think they are. So I'm in the odd position of being a pro-LGBT Christian who finds most of the spokespeople on her own 'side' a bit irritating. I'm also in the awkward position of being a sliver to the right of alot of pro-LGBT churches theologically. In the past I've attended a church that was (very, very mildly) anti and argued my corner when the issue came up. And no I wasn't kicked out or treated like a heretic.

[ 15. June 2010, 15:13: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

Today, actually the only real question I have about homosexuality, is how the word "gay" came to be the preferred term. When I was young, we all were gay and happy on sunny days and it did not have anything whatever to do with sexual orientation. Somehow the word's meaning changed. This is off topic, but I've never had a satisfactory explanation for this and I thought this learned crowd might know.

The other question might be with number of letters that are strung together to represent the wide variety of orientations: LGBT is commonly seen, but we are also seeing LGBTTS and I'm not sure exactly what "two spirited" actually means which is what the final TS is about. It would seem that this might be a pretty diverse grouping with all together.

[ 15. June 2010, 16:04: Message edited by: no_prophet ]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Yereven: I get that a lot too. Clearly we should form a sect... [Big Grin]

no-prophet: I've heard LGBTQ (Q being queer, which is funny because I thought "Queer" was catchall for the whole bunch,) though I've never heard of two-spirited...

After a quick google, wikipedia informs me that it's a term of (loosely) Native American origin that became popularized in the 1990s for people who possess both a masculine and a feminine spirit, wearing clothes or assuming roles of either gender.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Today, actually the only real question I have about homosexuality, is how the word "gay" came to be the preferred term. When I was young, we all were gay and happy on sunny days and it did not have anything whatever to do with sexual orientation. Somehow the word's meaning changed. This is off topic, but I've never had a satisfactory explanation for this and I thought this learned crowd might know.

Checking the OED, it came into use in America in 1941. First recorded quote was from G W Henry:

quote:
Gay, an adjective used almost exclusively by homosexuals to denote homosexuality, sexual attractiveness, promiscuity..or lack of restraint, in a person, place, or party. Often given the French spelling, gai or gaie by (or in burlesque of) cultured homosexuals of both sexes.

Also from 1941 is this one:

quote:
Supposing one met a stranger on a train from Boston to New York and wanted to find out whether he was ‘wise’ or even homosexual. One might ask: ‘Are there any gay spots in Boston?’ And by a slight accent put on the word ‘gay’ the stranger, if wise, would understand that homosexual resorts were meant.

The OED warns that

quote:
A number of quotations have been suggested as early attestations of this sense. It is likely that, although there may be innuendo in some cases, these have been interpreted anachronistically in the light either of the context … or of knowledge about an author's sexuality.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Cecil Adams makes the point that the word was not quite as innocent as we might have thought--and points out that the word would probably have been in use in the subculture for some time before it made it to print in the larger world.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
The other question might be with number of letters that are strung together to represent the wide variety of orientations: LGBT is commonly seen, but we are also seeing LGBTTS and I'm not sure exactly what "two spirited" actually means which is what the final TS is about. It would seem that this might be a pretty diverse grouping with all together.

Apparently the current acronymn round here is LGBTQA (Q = Queer, A = asexual). Maybe we need something a bit less unwieldy? 'Alternative sexualities' might work, but would probably offend some people by implying that there was such a thing 'normative' sexuality.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

However, there are a lot of assumptions in those paragraphs:

1. There is a direct causal link between a conservative view of sexuality and suicide.

...

I'd disagree with all of those assumptions.

If you think that is an "assumption" you can simply choose to agree or disagree with as if it were a mere matter of opinion, then you have a lot of self-educating to do before you are in a position to contribute meaningfully to this thread. Spending a little time with someone who has survived precisely such an experience will demonstrate that that "link" is very real whether or not you recognize or "agree" with it. Until then, perhaps it might be wise to take your own advice, bow out, and spend some time listening.

[ 16. June 2010, 17:16: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Apparently the current acronymn round here is LGBTQA (Q = Queer, A = asexual). Maybe we need something a bit less unwieldy? 'Alternative sexualities' might work, but would probably offend some people by implying that there was such a thing 'normative' sexuality.

As new modes of being sexual (or not sexual) assert their existence and importance, the acronym will continue to grow. Soon breeders will be in the minority. It remains to be seen if the LGBTQAMOXD7$ are as merciful (or not merciful) to the breeders as they were to the LGBTQAMOXD7$ in their day.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Peterson Toscano, sometimes of this Ship, said what must me the last word on things like:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
LGBTQAMOXD7$

in his show Queer 101—Now I Know My gAy,B,Cs

And its really, really funny.
[Smile]

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

Was it Tertullian who said "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" or am I getting muddled?

I think homosexuality might be more accepted in the mainstream church if there were one or two gay martyrs. People have certainly died for saying they're Christians - and I guess that's why people are so touchy about martyrdom and suicide being mentioned in the same sentence - hence the spat we saw earlier in this thread between orfeo and Johnny S. Happens to the best of us!

We know of people who have died for Christ - but who do we know who has died for being gay? Alan Turing? Harvey Milk? Playing up the legends of these people a bit more is the way to go, in my opinion.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Was it Tertullian who said "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" or am I getting muddled?

Yes, I think it was.

If by "martyr" you mean "person who was killed merely because of their belonging to an identity group," then there are lots of gay martyrs. Matthew Shephard is probably the most visible case here.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If by "martyr" you mean "person who was killed merely because of their belonging to an identity group," then there are lots of gay martyrs. Matthew Shephard is probably the most visible case here.

Incidences such as this are exactly that caused me to think more about the subject, and in so doing to eventually change my mind on the issue.

Growing up in a very conservative area, I witnessed exactly what happens to those who don't conform to the predominant religious expectations. The issue of gay people doesn't come up a whole lot around here, presumably because they know exactly how the community would react. Because it doesn't come up, few people have to confront or change their pre-set opinions on the issue.

Also, being an active and interested member of a denom that recently has struggled with this very issue has helped shape my own opinion.

In American society, I think the media has played a large part in changing opinions. People were scandalized that NBC would run a show with a premise such as Will and Grace, and yet that show went on to be quite high-profile, and to gain an audience beyond anyone's expectations when the show started. Ellen DeGeneres's sitcom was quickly canceled after she came out, but now she is one of America's most beloved talk show hosts, and this in the short course of 10 to 15 years.

As a result of this media acceptance, there are now more and more people willing to be "out" in smaller towns and communities. As we discover that these people are our neighbors and friends, it becomes easier to reinvestigate previously closed opinions. Where many communities once could possibly have been capable of such hate crimes as that of Matthew Shephard, I think an increasing number of communities would not tolerate it.

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
[QUOTE]... positive examples are something that most of us never saw when everyone was forced into the closet.

My own itinerary might be of interest here. From my early adolescence on, I was involved with the arts (primarily literature, theater, and music). I went to my first gay people's party at sixteen. I've always known many gay men; fewer lesbians, but a fair number. So I have had many positive role models. It is true that many of the gay people I knew lived precariously, on the fringes, because they were gay. Then again, I have always had something of a taste for the fringes, the dicey neighborhood, the things that get put down as "different."

Where I didn't see gay people was in church. So, though I think I never lost my belief altogether, I put "church and Christendom" into one watertight category and "gay people, music, arts, and literature" into another. Then I wavered back and forth for years, because, as I thought, one couldn't do both. You had to be straight, preferably married, narrowly middle-class, and a Philistine altogether in taste and opinions to be a Christian.

Well, perhaps one can't do both after all. It certainly seems to be harder than many of us thought it was going to be, back in the Nineties. However, by now literally everyone I know has changed their minds about homosexuality, from my late grandmother and my parents on down. Prejudicial remarks about gay people have become career-enders in academia and anywhere else educated people tend to gather. (That wasn't always the case!)

So the determined stand that most branches of Christendom* are making against gay people does not bode well for the future of Christendom, I think, in that the stand it is making is against the "creative class" altogether, and in favor of a certain kind of lower-middle-class mean-spiritedness, a rejection not only of gay people but of any kid of imaginative spirituality, or intellect, or excellence, or beauty of form.

* I've borrowed Kierkegaard's term, but I don't evaluate it as he did. There's much to be said for Christendom, I think, as for any form of high civilization.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
So the determined stand that most branches of Christendom* are making against gay people does not bode well for the future of Christendom, I think, in that the stand it is making is against the "creative class" altogether, and in favor of a certain kind of lower-middle-class mean-spiritedness, a rejection not only of gay people but of any kid of imaginative spirituality, or intellect, or excellence, or beauty of form.

I'm confused -- how is it a stand against the entire "creative class"? I'm sure you don't think that the creative class is made up entirely of gays. What do you mean by the creative class, and how does a traditional stance on the (im)morality of homosexual acts constitute taking a stand against it?

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
So the determined stand that most branches of Christendom* are making against gay people does not bode well for the future of Christendom, I think, in that the stand it is making is against the "creative class" altogether, and in favor of a certain kind of lower-middle-class mean-spiritedness, a rejection not only of gay people but of any kid of imaginative spirituality, or intellect, or excellence, or beauty of form.
I'm confused -- how is it a stand against the entire "creative class"? I'm sure you don't think that the creative class is made up entirely of gays. What do you mean by the creative class, and how does a traditional stance on the (im)morality of homosexual acts constitute taking a stand against it?

"Creative class" is the urban planner Richard Florida's term for innovators in any field. The members of the "creative class" drive the economic engine because their innovations create wealth and jobs for everyone.

But they are choosey about where they live. They want to settle where there are others like them and where their innovative, out-of-the-box thinking will be appreciated, not squelched.

In other words, they look for an environment that appreciates creativity, diversity, non-conformity, innovation --because that environment will get behind them and support their creative ideas. Florida claims that one index to the sort of environment that will nurture creative class members is the visible presence of gay people. Environments that repress or drive out gay people will also repress or drive out people given to other forms of divergent thinking or non-conformist behavior.

Ergo, If gay people aren't welcome, the message being sent is: Creative Class, don't let the sun set on you here.

Interesting for me to type this out yesterday, because I hadn't quite realized it before I said it, but, yes, that's the problem I have with church. Narrow, inward-looking, conformist, lower-middle-class, snoopy, censorious, frightened of difference, averse to risk, old. All of which is signaled by the desire of most churches to drive forth openly gay people.

I don't think that lower-middle-class thinking is all bad, by the way. There's nothing wrong with taking coupons to the grocery store or paying your bills on time. And nothing in the above means I think contemporary culture (or whatever passes for it) is somehow preferable. (Casinos, drug addiction, Miley Cyrus, reality shows, pr0n? NO.)

In fact, contemporary culture is what happens when spiritual and physical realms no longer communicate with one another. The church walls itself off from the life of the culture, desiccates, and dies; the culture turns into a brainless, wretched, formless sprawl. Usual cure: import the formless sprawl into the church, via powerpoint, praise bands, etc.

Don't know where this leaves us, really. Would be nice if something could heal the split.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Yes.

I wanted to join this thread earlier, but I struggle with what to say. I never had an opinion about 'Gay people' ... I cared about the rights of people who seemd to be getting a raw deal, whatever kind of objection whoever in authority (law, or by other strength) was having, but I didn't have an opinion 'about' them as such. Then both my daughters came out as gay, and I struggled for a bit. What if someone was right and I should have somehow stopped it happening? (alright, stop laughing) I mean, while I was very supportive of them as people... (one was struggling, id wise, the other was just in love with her girlfriend and we could all deal with it. [Big Grin]

)...about a year later I struggled with the idea that if it were a sin of any kind , I should have encouraged or discouraged, or provided some other kind of influence or model or... you see? Earlier in the thread Josephine says, marvellously, about homosexuality being of no more import than gossiping - but I would discourage gossiping, not celebrate it.

So I had to go through a fair bit of pointless agonising, to know where to stand. It's easy for the parent of a hetrosexual kid to simply hope that the relationship they are in, or may eventually be in, will become a marriage. If your kid is gay, according to a distressing number of churches, all you can hope for is that your kid's relationship will break up, and they live the rest of their lives in celebacy. Who actively wishes that for their child's happy ever after??

So I got very distressed at a recent lent class in which casual homophobia was used as if speaking on behalf of us all What if I'd brought my daughter along? What if someone there was gay, or who's child was gay, and I hadn't been there to speak out, and make it clear that the man at the front was NOT speaking for all of us?

And then I discovered that a distressing number of people agreed. That they they thought it a sin - not a huge, all encompassing sin, they wanted gay people in the church, they loved them, but felt they were wrong. And couldn't answer my question 'so what are you praying for? What is your happy ending? That the relationship breaks up and they live alone?'

no one can seem to see that it makes a difference if they (the majority) believe it's a sin.

please excuse excessive use of dynamics. I just really struggle sometimes, with the way that people don't understand the huge and fundamental difference.

I'm not struggling so much with the concept anymore though - I don't believe it's a sin, but in the end what I think doesn't matter anyway. Their souls are entirely between them and God.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

sorry. preview post should be my friend.

dynamics = italics.
and I want to point out that I'd be very distressed if they were having casual relationships of any kind. It'd still be none of my business, I guess, but I'd talk to them about it, and worry about it, and hope and pray that they'd stop having casual relationships. I would pray that they would find a person they could really love and grow with, and stick to through thick and thin, and I'd hope that ultimately they would marry them in a spiritually based ceremony.

and given our cultural norms, that would be good and ok things to want and work towards, if only by prayer.

And when I was struggling, I didn't know what to want. Is that clear to anyone??

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Perfectly clear to me. And on the sort of level that my conflicts were on (although without the dimension of having daughters involved).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
In other words, they look for an environment that appreciates creativity, diversity, non-conformity, innovation --because that environment will get behind them and support their creative ideas. Florida claims that one index to the sort of environment that will nurture creative class members is the visible presence of gay people.

I don't understand why, though. Can you explain some of his thinking on this issue? What is the link?

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
In other words, they look for an environment that appreciates creativity, diversity, non-conformity, innovation --because that environment will get behind them and support their creative ideas. Florida claims that one index to the sort of environment that will nurture creative class members is the visible presence of gay people.
I don't understand why, though. Can you explain some of his thinking on this issue? What is the link?

I'll let him do it himself.
Here's a 2002 article from the Washington Monthly.

You can also reference his first book, Rise of the Creative Class, or his website.

His ideas have considerable currency among urban planners, especially people who are trying to improve their cities' economies. Lakeland, Florida is among the unlikely candidates for "creative class destination" these days. They've worked very hard at putting Florida's ideas into practice, and -- well, they've had some success. No thanks to the local Episcopal church, though!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Here's a 2002 article from the Washington Monthly.

Fascinating article! Thanks.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

IOW, if you put conscious effort into keeping gays out or marginalising them, you are distracting yourself from the point of whatever it is you are doing. The major example of this is the churches that are waging war over the mere existence of gays (let alone SSMs) and who are seen by the younger generation as being totally irrelevant because they (the churches) don't live out their core message of "Love your neighbour"

Even in the small rural high school where I still work a bit, the president of the student council is openly gay. He won election by being happy and creative and having a lot of friends of both genders.

But he, and his creative friends, won't stay within 500 miles of here when he does move out, any more than my own daughters did.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

My experience echoes Orfeo's. Like him, and indeed like Harry Williams before either of us, I chose life abundant rather than life resisting, including occasional sex. Far too occasional, but that's an entirely different debate.

Posted by fluff (# 12871) on :

Yes I do get the impression that some of the posters here seem very gung-ho about recommending the virtues of martyrdom and misery for other people.

Posted by Masha (# 10098) on :

I'm following this thread with interest!

I've not really changed my mind as such, I never agreed with the conservative stance of my first few churches, but I have been thinking lately.

One of the factors I don't think anyone's addressed on this thread is the 'why?' question. As far as I can see God tends not to give rules for no good reason, for instance, 'love one another' works in the world. It makes it a better place. So, why would God decide against loving, committed homosexual relationships? Is he contrary for the sake of it?

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

You're assuming first century blokes whose writings pleased councils of fourth century blokes equal God. In my view, they don't. There is no good reason for denying gay people loving and committed relationships, any more than there is for slaves obeying their masters and women obeying their husbands.

These rulings are artefacts of a society which, even when it made some nods to groups like women and slaves, still privileged men and made assumptions about men (especially citizens and those born free) being the more rational and hence more easily continent gender, who were theoretically less enslaved by their base 'passions' in the jargon of the anthropology of the time.

So for a man to take a female role and to allow himself to be penetrated or for a woman to take a 'male' role (as they would have construed to be happening in lesbian sex), showed a worrying inversion of the sexual roles they believed to be needed (on the basis of false anthropology) for a household to be governed in a orderly fashion and sex to be kept within continent, 'properly' regulated, babymaking bounds.

Unfortunately while there is a great principle in there (a nicer version of monogamy than the ancient norms) a lot of this rests on dodgy assumptions made by first century heterosexual blokes puffed up with the superior virtues their world ascribed to them (which I kid you not, would have thought blokes were better at being celibate as they had those big brains and stronger faculties of reason for subduing their passions, unlike 'weak' women).

God has nothing to do with it. He just carries the can for the way the blokes of the early church shaped Him in their image.

L.

[ 11. October 2010, 19:49: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Masha:
One of the factors I don't think anyone's addressed on this thread is the 'why?' question. As far as I can see God tends not to give rules for no good reason, for instance, 'love one another' works in the world. It makes it a better place. So, why would God decide against loving, committed homosexual relationships? Is he contrary for the sake of it?

God's rules tend to reflect the values of whoever happens to be speaking for Him. One could just as easily wonder what God has against mixed fiber fabrics, or why God said you should eat fish once a week when speaking through a group of Galilean fishermen.

Posted by Masha (# 10098) on :

Indeed Louise, I would agree!

I don't believe that God gave us that particular rule, for the record I'm fully supportive of homosexual relationships. I guess I meant my question more as a musing, rhetorical question. But I could have made that clearer!

Posted by Masha (# 10098) on :

Darn it, where did my post go?!

Essentially it was: My question was more a musing, rhetorical one than one requiring an answer. I should have been clearer, sorry.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

I'd go a bit further and say that "God" is rhetorical device for convincing others when you have no other plausible argument on hand. Naturally God is always right, and when someone disagrees they're defying the Almighty, not taking issue with human authority. You can see why most authoritarians prior to the twentieth century were big fans of religion.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd go a bit further and say that "God" is rhetorical device for convincing others when you have no other plausible argument on hand. Naturally God is always right, and when someone disagrees they're defying the Almighty, not taking issue with human authority. You can see why most authoritarians prior to the twentieth century were big fans of religion.

While during the twentieth century, authoritarians were just big fans of....well, authoritarianism. And they were so good at it, too - better than ever before in history!

It is interesting, though, that both religionists and non-religionists seem to have begun "changing their minds" about homosexuality at almost exactly the same moment - sometime during the mid-1990s or thereabouts. I wonder why that should be....

[ 12. October 2010, 16:21: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

The ostensibly atheist regimes of the world have been no more supportive of gay people than strongly religious countries. Gay people were singled out and as badly treated in East Germany, Cuba, China as in the "Christian" west.

There were a few therapists, like Freud, who were less hostile than the norm, but mainstream psychology was just as hostile as religion. In fact, the Episcopal Church and other mainline Protestant denominations in San Francisco were lobbying the city authorities for gay rights and holding gay blessings as early as 1962, 11 years before the APA declared that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness.

[ 12. October 2010, 20:22: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Thanks for pointing these things out, Dan. People seem to have lost total track of the reality of the history - or perhaps never knew it in the first place.

While "religious" homophobia can be an especially disastrous and tormenting type, "secular" homophobia hasn't been much to write home about, either. Let's not forget that gay people were treated with electroshock - or force-fed hormones - in those days, too. All that, up into the 1970s....

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

Here is something I don't understand (and perhaps it's due to a lack of knowledge about the history of GLBT people):

I have read that in ancient Greece, it was routine and acceptable for well-established adult men to take younger men under their wing(s), and that these connections sometimes (perhaps often) involved sexuality, though the primary purpose of the connections appears to have been to train the younger men in the social ways of the culture, introduce them to influential others, and give future leaders, wheeler-dealers, and politicos in their society a leg up.

What I've read also suggests that most of these adult men were married householders with children, etc., and that their proteges grew up to do likewise.

I've never known what to make of this information, or misinformation, or disinformation (whichever it may be). If the above ancient-Greek scenario is true, what happened between then and later times? The Romans appear to have "inherited" (or "stolen," depending on your POV) many features from this Greek culture, but not, it seems, this particular practice.

Does anyone know?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I have read that in ancient Greece, it was routine and acceptable for well-established adult men to take younger men under their wing(s), and that these connections sometimes (perhaps often) involved sexuality, though the primary purpose of the connections appears to have been to train the younger men in the social ways of the culture, introduce them to influential others, and give future leaders, wheeler-dealers, and politicos in their society a leg up.

What I've read also suggests that most of these adult men were married householders with children, etc., and that their proteges grew up to do likewise.

As with most facts about "Ancient Greece", it depended largely on where you were, both geographically and socially. The practices of Ancient Athens in this regard are very differnt from Ancient Sparta's or Ancient Corinth's. The situation you describe seems to fit fairly well with the practices of the Ancient Athenian aristocracy. There is some debate among scholars about whether the same sort of arrangement was common in the Athenian lower classes, largely due to the fact that most depictions of such relations that survived to modern times take place between members of the upper classes. To me this has always seemed like arguing that since Jane Austen and similar early nineteenth century novelists mostly portrayed romantic love between members of the wealthy classes that no one else in the era had such emotional bonds.

At any rate, the Athenian model was that true emotional intimacy and love was only possible between equals, and that men and women were simply too inherently different to be considered "equal" in the ways that mattered to the Ancient Athenians. Thus relationships between men were supposed to be for romance and emotional fulfilment, while relations between husband and wife were about procreation and maintaining a household.

Age disparities between partners were common, with the older partner (the erastes) supposed to take an interest in the education and advancement of the younger (the eromenos). Relations between age-peers was not unthinkable, however. Although there's no firm evidence that the Athenian tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton were lovers, the fact that they were often regarded as such in subsequent Athenian popular culture shows such relationships were socially acceptable.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

From what I've read that relationships between men of the same age were frowned upon and ridiculed because the passive partner was supposed to be passive, which wasn't an appropriate role for a mature adult male in Athenian culture. If relationships between men of the same age existed at all, they tended to be across class divisions, with the passive partner being of a lower class than the active one.

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

Thanks for the response. Here is something that bothers me about this scenario among Athenians (or whoever) of old: it seems to me to suggest more "plasticity" in sexual attraction than I can quite grasp.

While a number of straight (though usually also homophobic) people I know claim that sexual preference is a matter of choice, none of the gay people I know buy this. I'm straight, and I don't buy it either; I just can't muster up any enthusiasm for getting sexual with someone of my own gender.

Yet this Athenian model (for lack of a better term) suggests that, in the absence of prejudice and/or cultural teaching against homoeroticism, people could easily opt for either or both.

Maybe I'm just too acculturated to a homophobic society?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Thanks for the response. Here is something that bothers me about this scenario among Athenians (or whoever) of old: it seems to me to suggest more "plasticity" in sexual attraction than I can quite grasp.

While a number of straight (though usually also homophobic) people I know claim that sexual preference is a matter of choice, none of the gay people I know buy this. I'm straight, and I don't buy it either; I just can't muster up any enthusiasm for getting sexual with someone of my own gender.

Yet this Athenian model (for lack of a better term) suggests that, in the absence of prejudice and/or cultural teaching against homoeroticism, people could easily opt for either or both.

Maybe I'm just too acculturated to a homophobic society?

Well, people DO even today "opt" for homoeroticism - prisoners, for instance. At least, that's what we all hear.

Anyway, what I've read suggests that Greek (and Roman) men who took the "passive" role were looked strongly down upon - which makes partnerships between "equals" pretty unlikely.

In fact, reading about this (at Wikipedia, so who knows? but this article does seem reasonable to me) makes me think that the prohibition of male/male sexual relations in the New Testament might be speaking to this very issue....

[ 13. October 2010, 14:52: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Thanks for the response. Here is something that bothers me about this scenario among Athenians (or whoever) of old: it seems to me to suggest more "plasticity" in sexual attraction than I can quite grasp.

While a number of straight (though usually also homophobic) people I know claim that sexual preference is a matter of choice, none of the gay people I know buy this. I'm straight, and I don't buy it either; I just can't muster up any enthusiasm for getting sexual with someone of my own gender.

Yet this Athenian model (for lack of a better term) suggests that, in the absence of prejudice and/or cultural teaching against homoeroticism, people could easily opt for either or both.

Maybe I'm just too acculturated to a homophobic society?
Well, people DO even today "opt" for homoeroticism - prisoners, for instance. At least, that's what we all hear.

Anyway, what I've read suggests that Greek (and Roman) men who took the "passive" role were looked strongly down upon - which makes partnerships between "equals" pretty unlikely.

In fact, reading about this (at Wikipedia, so who knows? but this article does seem reasonable to me) makes me think that the prohibition of male/male sexual relations in the New Testament might be speaking to this very issue....

I've heard the same. It wasn't really equal relationships, but a pattern of older tutors screwing their younger tutees. Then there's the whole "sex with men is more fulfilling because it's a real relationship while sex with women is just giving into physical desire" stuff. Christianity didn't invent Stoic attitudes toward lust, though they certainly absorbed a lot of them.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I think that most main stream psychologists assert that most human beings are at least somewhat bisexual. The concept of a fixed "gay", "straight" self-identity is unique to modern western culture, and has to do with our industrial economy and welfare state freeing us from manual labour and the need for large families for social security.

Presumably more same-sex oriented men in Greek culture wouldn't have identified themselves as such and been successfully able to have straight relationships as well. Those that were less attracted to women probably just grinned and bore it (so to speak.)

Sexual orientation is pretty fixed, but behaviour can be plastic depending on the culture.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I have read that in ancient Greece, it was routine and acceptable for well-established adult men to take younger men under their wing(s), and that these connections sometimes (perhaps often) involved sexuality, though the primary purpose of the connections appears to have been to train the younger men in the social ways of the culture, introduce them to influential others, and give future leaders, wheeler-dealers, and politicos in their society a leg up.

What I've read also suggests that most of these adult men were married householders with children, etc., and that their proteges grew up to do likewise.
As with most facts about "Ancient Greece", it depended largely on where you were, both geographically and socially. The practices of Ancient Athens in this regard are very differnt from Ancient Sparta's or Ancient Corinth's. The situation you describe seems to fit fairly well with the practices of the Ancient Athenian aristocracy. There is some debate among scholars about whether the same sort of arrangement was common in the Athenian lower classes, largely due to the fact that most depictions of such relations that survived to modern times take place between members of the upper classes. To me this has always seemed like arguing that since Jane Austen and similar early nineteenth century novelists mostly portrayed romantic love between members of the wealthy classes that no one else in the era had such emotional bonds.

At any rate, the Athenian model was that true emotional intimacy and love was only possible between equals, and that men and women were simply too inherently different to be considered "equal" in the ways that mattered to the Ancient Athenians. Thus relationships between men were supposed to be for romance and emotional fulfilment, while relations between husband and wife were about procreation and maintaining a household.

Age disparities between partners were common, with the older partner (the erastes) supposed to take an interest in the education and advancement of the younger (the eromenos). Relations between age-peers was not unthinkable, however. Although there's no firm evidence that the Athenian tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton were lovers, the fact that they were often regarded as such in subsequent Athenian popular culture shows such relationships were socially acceptable.

What were the Spartan and Corinthian models like?

[ 13. October 2010, 14:58: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

I can't remember now off-hand, since it's a while since I read about those but I can tell you where you'll find out, James Davidson's, 'The Greeks and Greek Love'. It's very good on the fact that customs varied from city state to city state. You can't assume that you know what is going on in Corinth from what you have on Athens or Sparta.

If that still held true in Paul's time, then people really should abandon their attempts to persecute modern gay relationships from his texts, because we simply can't tell what was going on there in the 1st century and can't reliably extrapolate from elsewhere as to local circumstances.

L.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

I'd take it that the Sacred Band of Thebes was an exception to the general rule about same sex relationships only being between a superior and an inferior. But I don't know how much of an exception.

Back to the original question, if you want a fictionalized -- and I don't know how historically accurate, but it seems right -- account of one of the Athenian older man/youth relationships, get hold of The Last Of The Wine by Mary Renault -- it came out in, I think, the 1950s. What it depicts is an emotional relationship between two men who each, eventually marries, that only becomes physical a good long way after the emotional relationship is well established.

John

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

Ah -- Mary Renault. Haven't read her in ages. I used to love her work. Thanks!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Presumably more same-sex oriented men in Greek culture wouldn't have identified themselves as such and been successfully able to have straight relationships as well. Those that were less attracted to women probably just grinned and bore it (so to speak.)

Sexual orientation is pretty fixed, but behaviour can be plastic depending on the culture.

That last bit is a good point.

If you think about the fact that many men in the last few decades have married and had children before 'coming out' as gay, there's no reason that the reverse couldn't occur as well in a society such as Athens - a man who is heterosexual in preference but successfully engages in homosexual sex, partly because it's the expected thing.

It's also worth mentioning that some of the argument about "what percentage of the population is homosexual" revolves around the difference between engaging in homosexual sex and actually identifying as homosexual in preference. A very large study in Australia in the early 2000s had a percentage up around 10% or more when it came to 'has engaged/does engage in homosexual sex', but the percentage for actually identifying as homosexual was only 2 or 3%.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
You're assuming first century blokes whose writings pleased councils of fourth century blokes equal God. In my view, they don't. There is no good reason for denying gay people loving and committed relationships, any more than there is for slaves obeying their masters and women obeying their husbands.

Aren't you also making a big assumption about utilitarian ethics here Louise?

The notion of 'the good reason' is something I have thought about a bit. On the one hand I agree with you that there must surely be a good reason if God has decreed it. But on the other I have questions about how obvious that 'good reason' should be.

So much of the debate over these issues often leads to a flurry of research and surveys which, allegedly, prove or disprove the case. IMO such an approach inevitably leads to a very short-term form of utilitarian ethics.

Not necessarily saying that you are wrong, just that I'd like to think more about what 'a good reason' might look like. My suspicion is that it is framed in such a way as to be by definition impossible to provide.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

"Hello, we're Beelzebub's Witnesses, we see you have nice evangelical neighbours, we'd like to break up their marriage and stop other filthy evangelicals marrying each other"

Me- "That's not very nice- what's your reason for that?"

BW - "We have here a 1st century document which when you interpret it rightly (ie. Our Way) shows that penal substitionary atonement and praise bands are fundamental signs of uncleaness and marriage is forbidden to those who practice such abominations, and Our Lord himself says so"

Me- "Now wait a cotton picking minute, while I have no inclination myself to burst into a chorus of Shine Jesus Shine, not being that way inclined, you're going to have to show me a damn sight more than your favourite piece of Beelzebubiana to get me to hurt my neighbours"

Them - we have research too!

Me - "Uh-huh let me guess" scrutinises pamphlet "The Infernal Institute of Satanic Studies - 'How to Cure Your Evo Neighbour of their Dreadful Taste in Hymns By Hooking Up Electrodes To Their Genitals by Dr B. L Zebub'. Yeah, thanks guys but no thanks. I'll stick with the loving my neighbour stuff"

Them - "They molest children!"

Me - "Now I'm getting angry - where's the proof?"

Them - "They send them to Sunday School and indoctrinate them to think evangelicalism is a valid lifestyle when actually it's an offence to our Dark Lord and it's bad for the children to be raised in such a perverted way!"

Me -"In other words, they're exercising the same rights that I have to marry, worship and raise children according to their beliefs and you can't show any terrible harm they are doing to justify penalising them legally or maltreating them, while on the other hand I know them well, I've seen them do a great deal of good and I can point to many good things done by evangelical people and to research which for example, shows they are more generous to charity than many other groups. However even if research showed that they tended to be assholes and bit tightfisted and had some unpleasant habits, that still wouldn't be nearly enough to deny them the right to marry each other. You'd have to show that that would lead to something so terrible that normal considerations of fundamental human rights would not apply. Now no thanks and please stop persecuting my nice neighbours!"
____________________________________________

I think I'd be pretty right to set a very high standard of showing proof that your marriage is a very very bad thing to the Beelzebubians if they came along and tried to get me to campaign to legally invalidate your marriage or deny you that right. On what sort of grounds do you think I'd have to concede to them that your marriage should be invalidated or not allowed?

L.

[ 14. October 2010, 22:23: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

[Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
On what sort of grounds do you think I'd have to concede to them that your marriage should be invalidated or not allowed?

L.

That's the point though isn't it?

Your analogy above is about breaking up marriages that have already been recognized by society. That seems a strange comparison to make when we are talking about something that society has not accepted or is in the process of accepting.

(And I'm not sure you've engaged fully with my question about utilitarian ethics either. This is a genuine question for me (and not just about this issue) - do you we just make decisions based on outcomes and also how do we tell if outcomes are good for society?)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
On what sort of grounds do you think I'd have to concede to them that your marriage should be invalidated or not allowed?

L.
That's the point though isn't it?

Your analogy above is about breaking up marriages that have already been recognized by society. That seems a strange comparison to make when we are talking about something that society has not accepted or is in the process of accepting.

(And I'm not sure you've engaged fully with my question about utilitarian ethics either. This is a genuine question for me (and not just about this issue) - do you we just make decisions based on outcomes and also how do we tell if outcomes are good for society?)

I'm inherently worried about any argument that derives its justification from "we were here first"...

[ 14. October 2010, 23:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
On what sort of grounds do you think I'd have to concede to them that your marriage should be invalidated or not allowed?

L.
That's the point though isn't it?

Your analogy above is about breaking up marriages that have already been recognized by society. That seems a strange comparison to make when we are talking about something that society has not accepted or is in the process of accepting.

(And I'm not sure you've engaged fully with my question about utilitarian ethics either. This is a genuine question for me (and not just about this issue) - do you we just make decisions based on outcomes and also how do we tell if outcomes are good for society?)

I don't think it's strange at all, as the issue for me isn't 'Is something already societally accepted or not ' but on what basis would I think it right to campaign to say my neighbours shouldn't have a type of core human right, which I myself have? A right which, not having it as I do, will harm them greatly.

I also think 'utilitarian ethics' is a bit of a red herring. In real life outside the philosophy classroom people don't sit around doing Jeremy Bentham like calculus of what brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number. Well maybe some people do, but it's not my hobby. I might use a principle like that in a group to decide whether we're having a pizza or a chinese takeaway, but in matters of relationships and intimacy there are matters of dignity, human rights, recognising other people as fully human and entitled to the same rights as me. To quote the nice bit from Merchant of Venice before it gets all revengy, Shylock says

quote:
I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?

This is a handy way for me of getting into the empathic side of 'Do Unto others' and 'love thy neighbour'. I need to think carefully about treating my neighbour the same as myself and not saying 'Oh but you can't have the same rights as me because you're a Jew or you're gay or you're a certain sort of Christian'

I've written before of how my own relationship and the intimacy and shared experience and love that came with it changed my life. I'm no more going to deprive my neighbour of access to the same rights as I have in that department than I'm going to mug him in the street. To convince me to go so far against all love and charity you'd need an awfully good argument. Such arguments do exist. The obvious one would be that my neighbour wished to have the right to marry someone against their will and thus to commit a terrible violation upon them. Again you don't have to invoke utilitarian ethics to see that is a terrible way to treat someone.

L.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm inherently worried about any argument that derives its justification from "we were here first"...

That's hardly fair - I was trying to interact with Louise's story.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Aren't you also making a big assumption about utilitarian ethics here Louise?

The notion of 'the good reason' is something I have thought about a bit. On the one hand I agree with you that there must surely be a good reason if God has decreed it. But on the other I have questions about how obvious that 'good reason' should be.

So much of the debate over these issues often leads to a flurry of research and surveys which, allegedly, prove or disprove the case. IMO such an approach inevitably leads to a very short-term form of utilitarian ethics.

Not necessarily saying that you are wrong, just that I'd like to think more about what 'a good reason' might look like. My suspicion is that it is framed in such a way as to be by definition impossible to provide.

If I remember correctly, Johnny S, you have always ignored the possibility that what you and the church think "God has decreed" might be wrong. (In fact, if memory serves you got ticked off and lectured me about how wrong I obviously was about this, rather than even considering the possibility for a second.)

Here's an example of this - a real-life moment when the Church recognized that it needed to change - that seems fairly straightforward to me. Apparently (I'm taking James Alison's word for it) the Catholic Church teaches today, officially, that:

quote:
“Clearly to be rejected also is every attempt at actualization set in a direction contrary to evangelical justice and charity, such as, for example, the use of the Bible to justify racial segregation, anti-Semitism or sexism whether on the part of men or of women. Particular attention is necessary... to avoid absolutely any actualization of certain texts of the New Testament which could provoke or reinforce unfavourable attitudes to the Jewish people”. (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, IV.3)

That's from 1993, and follows from Vatican II's 1965 document Nostra Aetate which says this:

quote:
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

This is clearly in reaction to the long, long history of Christian anti-Semitism, coming mainly out of the "Jews killed Christ" interpretation of the Gospels via various notorious Christian anti-Semitic writers and preachers - and of course to the Holocaust.

So would you classify the Vatican's above actions "utilitarian," then? The greatest good for the greatest number? Or was it perhaps recognizing error and trying to correct it?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm inherently worried about any argument that derives its justification from "we were here first"...
That's hardly fair - I was trying to interact with Louise's story.

I realise that. Nevertheless the point still stands (for any situation, not just this one) that 'one group has something and another group doesn't' isn't an argument. It's a description of the status quo. It's begging the question of whether the status quo is correct.

Even if the status quo was originally correct, it's still necessary to establish whether the status quo is STILL correct. Have circumstances changed, has the available information changed such that the conclusion that led to the status quo is no longer valid?

In any given situation, equity may require that some or all of the 'have nots' are given to, or it may require that some or all of the 'haves' are taken away from.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I don't think it's strange at all, as the issue for me isn't 'Is something already societally accepted or not ' but on what basis would I think it right to campaign to say my neighbours shouldn't have a type of core human right, which I myself have? A right which, not having it as I do, will harm them greatly.

But I'm not trying to prevent anyone from the right to get married. Rather, IMO, marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. If people of the same gender want to live together I agree then I agree that they shouldn't have my morality forced upon them.

I think we may have drifted off topic of this thread here but (ISTM) the goal posts keep moving over same-sex marriage. Society needs to agree on a common definition of marriage first before we start talking about who is denied this right.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I need to think carefully about treating my neighbour the same as myself and not saying 'Oh but you can't have the same rights as me because you're a Jew or you're gay or you're a certain sort of Christian'

I think a rights based way forward is limited also. It opens another can of worms - what happens when rights conflict with each other? In my unintended attempt to refer to as many dead horses as possible in one post I could also mention abortion - the right of the mother to choose is in tension with the right of the baby to live.

Instead of rights I'd rather talk in terms of responsibility. So it is the responsibility of society to make sure that all citizens, regardless of religion, race, gender or sexuality are to be treated fairly.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
If I remember correctly, Johnny S, you have always ignored the possibility that what you and the church think "God has decreed" might be wrong.

Quite the opposite.

I come from the reformed tradition and thus must be open to Semper Reformanda.

My entire theological position is based on the fact that I may well be wrong. If you can convince me from scripture that I am then I am quite willing to change my mind.

I mean that sincerely.

My recollection of our last encounter was your surprise that I didn't simply accept everything you said unquestioningly and even had the temerity to challenge some of your points. It was a while ago though, so I may be mis-remembering.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nevertheless the point still stands (for any situation, not just this one) that 'one group has something and another group doesn't' isn't an argument. It's a description of the status quo. It's begging the question of whether the status quo is correct.

See my reply to Louise - I'm not (yet) convinced marriage is a thing that we can talk about one group having and another group not having.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
If I remember correctly, Johnny S, you have always ignored the possibility that what you and the church think "God has decreed" might be wrong.
Quite the opposite.

I come from the reformed tradition and thus must be open to Semper Reformanda.

My entire theological position is based on the fact that I may well be wrong. If you can convince me from scripture that I am then I am quite willing to change my mind.

I mean that sincerely.

My recollection of our last encounter was your surprise that I didn't simply accept everything you said unquestioningly and even had the temerity to challenge some of your points. It was a while ago though, so I may be mis-remembering.

Actually, you screamed at me, or what passes for it online. "Get it!" you said. "This is what the Bible says."

"Get it!" was the exact phrase, BTW. Later you tried to convince us that lesbians weren't mentioned in Leviticus because it was "understood" that men would convey the "anti-homosexual" message to them. That was hilarious, and I've spoken of that argument fondly ever since!

If what you say about your theological position is true, then why, for God's sake, are you still here arguing about homosexuality years later? I mean, you seem to have no personal stake in it, so why in the world do you find the topic so fascinating? It really looks like you're mainly here to get people riled up and then bow out of the conversation (you did it with me, too, at least two years ago). So what's your angle?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
"Get it!" was the exact phrase, BTW.

Are you sure about that? I don't remember every saying that to anyone in person or in writing so it would be really out of character for me to do so.

I'm happy to be proved wrong (as I have been before) but I'd be really surprised.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Later you tried to convince us that lesbians weren't mentioned in Leviticus because it was "understood" that men would convey the "anti-homosexual" message to them. That was hilarious, and I've spoken of that argument fondly ever since!

I'm glad it has brought you so much amusement over the years. Especially since you were unable to refute it back then.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
If what you say about your theological position is true, then why, for God's sake, are you still here arguing about homosexuality years later? I mean, you seem to have no personal stake in it, so why in the world do you find the topic so fascinating? It really looks like you're mainly here to get people riled up and then bow out of the conversation (you did it with me, too, at least two years ago). So what's your angle?

Just maybe it is what I say it is - dialogue.

I am open to changing my mind on this issue but I only would if I were convinced. If I change my mind on this issue there would be lots of practical changes that would be necessary in my church and ministry. I am willing to make those changes if necessary but would therefore only do so if fully convinced.

I check on this now again because this is possibly the biggest issue (by media column inches) facing the church today and I'm a church minister. I would have thought that discussing this issue should be compulsory for all church ministers.

BTW look back at Dead Horses over the last 6 months - it is not as if I'm posting every day on this issue. If I were here just to stir then first of all I'd be here all the time and secondly I'd certainly not 'bow out' when people got riled. If I was stirring I'd relish that kind of reaction and go looking for more.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nevertheless the point still stands (for any situation, not just this one) that 'one group has something and another group doesn't' isn't an argument. It's a description of the status quo. It's begging the question of whether the status quo is correct.
See my reply to Louise - I'm not (yet) convinced marriage is a thing that we can talk about one group having and another group not having.

A loving heterosexual couple can get married. A loving homosexual couple can not.

This would be QED if love and commitment were seen as the basis for marriage.

I'm genuinely interested to find out what you think marriage is for, if not for the recognition of a committed couple.

The assertion that I see most frequently elsewhere is that marriage is for procreation and the raising of children. Yet even if this might have been true centuries ago, it is clearly not the case now. We allow people to get married who are either known to be incapable of having children or have a clear and stated intention to remain childless.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I was driving at before. If the rationale for marriage no longer centres around procreation, then one rationale for excluding homosexual marriage no longer makes sense.

Similarly, in Western culture at least marriage has moved from a process where your partner was selected for you to a process where you select your own partner on the basis of mutual love.

[ 15. October 2010, 06:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A loving heterosexual couple can get married. A loving homosexual couple can not.

This would be QED if love and commitment were seen as the basis for marriage.

Agreed.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... marriage is for procreation and the raising of children. Yet even if this might have been true centuries ago, it is clearly not the case now. We allow people to get married who are either known to be incapable of having children or have a clear and stated intention to remain childless.

I'm not sure that this is all good. I don't think marriage is only for having children but I think that the desire / intent of procreation is fundamental to it.

I'd be equally confused over the nature of marriage for a couple who got married determined never to have children. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to, just that I wouldn't want to call it marriage.

In my experience of preparing couples for marriage a trend I notice is that some think marriage is about two individuals living together. I don't think it is. It is about two becoming one and so the individual is, to some extent, sacrificed for the couple - and I think nothing cements this reality like having children. I'm not saying that everyone who gets married and doesn't want children fits into this category but I do think the pattern of 'I want to remain an individual and still get married' is certainly there.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
"Get it!" was the exact phrase, BTW.
Are you sure about that? I don't remember every saying that to anyone in person or in writing so it would be really out of character for me to do so.

I'm happy to be proved wrong (as I have been before) but I'd be really surprised.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Later you tried to convince us that lesbians weren't mentioned in Leviticus because it was "understood" that men would convey the "anti-homosexual" message to them. That was hilarious, and I've spoken of that argument fondly ever since!
I'm glad it has brought you so much amusement over the years. Especially since you were unable to refute it back then.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
If what you say about your theological position is true, then why, for God's sake, are you still here arguing about homosexuality years later? I mean, you seem to have no personal stake in it, so why in the world do you find the topic so fascinating? It really looks like you're mainly here to get people riled up and then bow out of the conversation (you did it with me, too, at least two years ago). So what's your angle?
Just maybe it is what I say it is - dialogue.

I am open to changing my mind on this issue but I only would if I were convinced. If I change my mind on this issue there would be lots of practical changes that would be necessary in my church and ministry. I am willing to make those changes if necessary but would therefore only do so if fully convinced.

I check on this now again because this is possibly the biggest issue (by media column inches) facing the church today and I'm a church minister. I would have thought that discussing this issue should be compulsory for all church ministers.

BTW look back at Dead Horses over the last 6 months - it is not as if I'm posting every day on this issue. If I were here just to stir then first of all I'd be here all the time and secondly I'd certainly not 'bow out' when people got riled. If I was stirring I'd relish that kind of reaction and go looking for more.

Yes, I'm sure. I remember it very well, and have decided to avoid you on that basis ever since; I don't see the point in discussing a topic with somebody who won't consider another point of view.

"Unable to refute it"? I don't really think so. I expect that I did point out that it was a rather ridiculous idea, especially since the prohibition against bestiality addresses both men and women, and just a couple of verses down. (Also because, well, it's just such a strange idea; if God means to condemn people to death, wouldn't we expect him to be utterly clear about it? Otherwise, how can we know if we're breaking the law and in danger of our lives or not? Why not just accept that Leviticus doesn't speak to lesbians? Jews accept this fact - and it's the "clear meaning of the text," after all. The same argument goes for the alleged reference in Romans, another point on which you insisted on your own way, even though - once again - God seems to be being awfully coy about lesbians. I'd simply like to see a clear, unambiguous statement so I could know whether I'm going to burn in hell for eternity, or not. Not much to ask, I'd think....)

I shouldn't have questioned your motives, so I apologize for that. I guess the problem is that you seem to ignore what people are saying - I just saw this in your interaction with Orfeo on another thread - in favor of your own view of what the Bible is saying. At least, I haven't noticed that you want to dialogue - you seem uninterested in peoples' experience and only interested in some sort of textual proof. But when offered evidence even from the text itself - if only a negative kind of evidence, of the kind I gave - you become indignant, as you did with me. And you haven't responded to me on this thread, either, BTW.

In any case, as a result of our various interactions, I've come to understand that you're not going to be convinced. I really don't know what could possibly convince you at this point, actually. I mean, it would be just as easy for me to say: well, these are cultural prejudices from another era and we shouldn't bother with them at all. I'm not saying that, though: I'm offering an alternative that still supports Biblical "authority." I'm saying that we're reading the text wrongly, not that the texts are invalid. I'm giving you an out, in other words - but I don't have to. I could say, well the Bible supports polygamy, too, since that was part of the culture, and so it's not a very reliable text. I could say that the Bible is pretty unreliable because of the way it treats women in many places. But I'm not saying any of that; I'm saying that the Church got it wrong.

All of this is fine, though, since lots of other people have been convinced and will continue to be.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
"Unable to refute it"? I don't really think so. I expect that I did point out that it was a rather ridiculous idea, especially since the prohibition against bestiality addresses both men and women, and just a couple of verses down.

I expect that you'll also remember that various people pointed out that penetrative sex is in view here - indeed the verse about animals speaks about men having sex with animals and women 'giving themselves' to have sex with animals.

So I suppose it is a legitimate argument to say that Leviticus didn't even consider women having sex with women as sex at all. But, and I said this at the time, I still can't see how this means the text 'doesn't speak to Lesbians'. Either Leviticus prohibits all homosexual sex or it prohibits gay sex and does not consider lesbianism to be sex at all - i.e. it is not prohibited as much as not an option. The long tedious list from verse 6 onwards (about members of your family you are not supposed to lie with) are all girls - does that mean that the readers would think it was okay to have sex with their brothers/uncles/nephews etc?

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The same argument goes for the alleged reference in Romans, another point on which you insisted on your own way, even though - once again - God seems to be being awfully coy about lesbians. I'd simply like to see a clear, unambiguous statement so I could know whether I'm going to burn in hell for eternity, or not. Not much to ask, I'd think....)

Personally I think Romans 1: 26 is completely clear and unambiguous.

But all this is just rehashing the debate from last time. I agree with you in that it is unlikely that we are going to make progress on this now. At this stage I'm not trying to win you over, just point out that the intransigence is on both sides. Remember I didn't engage you on this thread, and so am rather puzzled as to how come I'm the antagonist here.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I guess the problem is that you seem to ignore what people are saying - I just saw this in your interaction with Orfeo on another thread - in favor of your own view of what the Bible is saying.

What thread would that be? This is the only thread I've replied to Orfeo on for several months.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And you haven't responded to me on this thread, either, BTW.

What have I not responded to?

If you mean the stuff about anti-semitism and the RC church then I didn't follow you at all. I've already said, several times, that admitting that you are wrong and changing your mind is a good thing to do.

I don't see what I haven't responded to.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Well, here's another example of the problem, Johnny S. You seem unable to grasp that the "intransigence" is, truly, all on your side.

For your information, thousands upon thousands of gay people actually have considered the "Biblical prohibition of homosexuality." We had to; we haven't had any other choices until very, very recently. This alleged "prohibition" has led to great destruction, too; it's been responsible for depression and alcoholism and suicide and persecution and years-long (sometimes decades-long) attempts to "go straight." This hasn't been a secret in any way; all you have to do is a little bit of research to find out more about this.

I mean, are you really unaware of the desperate pain this has all caused? Actually, I'd say this is the factor that has changed the most minds on this topic - the fact of the great hatred and destruction of people who really haven't done anything that other people don't think is completely human, and in fact the best part of being human.

This, of course, was my point about the Catholic Church's Vatican-II-and-later documents and teachings. That the Church didn't try to "prove" anything from the Bible; it simply acted because of the great destruction it had allowed to happen.

(P.S. Although I understand better why you think what you do about Leviticus, I'm afraid by your own logic you're clearly wrong, since the women's uncles/brothers/nephews etc. are all by default included in the list. If a man can't sleep with his aunt, that means that a woman can't sleep with her nephew; it's a simple deductive process to get there. All the relationships have already been named. But telling a man he can't sleep with a man has no bearing on whether a woman can sleep with a woman - at least, not according to the text itself (and according to the argument you're making here). As I said, Jews - including Maimonides, BTW - don't think a prohibition against lesbianism is in the Torah. And let's not forget that the death penalty is involved - and that, according to Jewish Law, there have to be two witnesses to the act in order to get a conviction.

So Christians can either follow the "plain meaning of the text" - or not. They just can't have it both ways.

But all this is really secondary to the mess that has been caused in the lives of gay people; if you can't let that a factor in your considerations, then nothing anybody says will make any difference at all. But as I said, this is really OK, since most people are starting to recognize how destructive this all has been and are changing their minds. There will always be those who don't change their minds, but they'll be part of tiny sects eventually.)

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(And, BTW, you're completely missing the point of what I've been saying in the first place.

The argument that Leviticus needs only to address men because sex didn't happen unless a male was present only goes to reinforce the point.

In other words, Leviticus forbids penetration, not homosexuality. If it had meant to forbid physical touching between the sexes - whether or not there's any "sex" happening between women - it would and could have said so. There are lots of other prohibitions in there, after all....)

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

A few decades ago I was the poster child for right wing evangelical Christianity. For some reason Ezekial 16:49 smacked me in the head one day. I did some more research and found that Sodom and Gomorrah was not the hotbed of homosexuality as we were taught and that isn't what got them destroyed. The sin of those cities was they were fat, lazy, filled with pride and didn't take care of the poor. I'm still sorting out what was meant in Leviticus and I've always taken Paul with a grain of salt as he is speaking to specific churches about specific problems in that church.

I'm no longer right wing conservative - more of a fence straddler and I've changed my views on homosexuality. The same percentage of homosexuality is present in all species on the planet. I hold straights and gays to a level of monogamous morality and hope we soon see a permanent end to DADT in our military and the right for gays to marry.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
... The same percentage of homosexuality is present in all species on the planet. ....

Some of us hold humans to a higher standard than animals.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
... The same percentage of homosexuality is present in all species on the planet. ....
Some of us hold humans to a higher standard than animals.

Don't be shy, sharkshooter. Do tell us exactly what the "higher standard" means for homosexual humans.

Should we marry heterosexuals? Maybe you can help with this; do you happen to know any heterosexual men willing to marry a lesbian? Matter of fact, will YOU marry me? (Why or why not?)

And can you help my gay male friends out by finding them heterosexual females for mates? I'm sure straight women would absolutely adore having a partner that had no real interest in them at all. Perhaps you can be a marriage broker for us all, so you can really live out your "high standards" for us to the fullest.

Or perhaps you mean we should all remain celibate for life? Well, I'm sure we would - if we could only find good role models in this endeavor. Why not step forward and volunteer for the job yourself? If you can do it, we can do it, I'm sure.

Do let us know how we can live up to your high standards - and do let us know how you personally intend to sacrifice so that we can.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Matter of fact, will YOU marry me? (Why or why not?)

...

I'm already married, and believe bigamy is wrong.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Matter of fact, will YOU marry me? (Why or why not?)

...
I'm already married, and believe bigamy is wrong.

Oh, gosh - too bad. But that was easy, wasn't it?

Maybe you should sacrifice, though; I'm sure your wife would understand. This is the crucial issue of our time, after all - what to do with the homosexuals....

Well, even if not: maybe you can still organize the marriage broker thing, and line up your unmarried pals for duty? Let us know; we're all so very eager to live up to your standards - whatever they are!

[ 15. October 2010, 19:30: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think marriage is only for having children but I think that the desire / intent of procreation is fundamental to it.

I'd be equally confused over the nature of marriage for a couple who got married determined never to have children. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to, just that I wouldn't want to call it marriage.

Johnny S,

So what do you want to call my relationship with my husband then?

And can you back up your assertion that we should not be married from Scripture?

FWIW, I got married because, having decided to give up my independence to share my life with Figbash, I wanted to ask for God's blessing on us and to celebrate such a momentous occasion with our friends and families.

I also wanted the relationship to be legally recognised, with the benefits that that brings.

Joanna

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... This is the crucial issue of our time, ..

Here I thought feeding the poor, looking after the sick and elderly, nuclear disarmament, climate change, etc. were the crucial issues of our time.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... This is the crucial issue of our time, ..
Here I thought feeding the poor, looking after the sick and elderly, nuclear disarmament, climate change, etc. were the crucial issues of our time.

Me, too. So I wonder why are there 500 "Dead Horse" threads about homosexuality, and why American Evangelicals (at least) haven't been able to think about anything else for the past 30 years....

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think marriage is only for having children but I think that the desire / intent of procreation is fundamental to it.

I'd be equally confused over the nature of marriage for a couple who got married determined never to have children. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to, just that I wouldn't want to call it marriage.

Johnny S,

So what do you want to call my relationship with my husband then?

And can you back up your assertion that we should not be married from Scripture?

FWIW, I got married because, having decided to give up my independence to share my life with Figbash, I wanted to ask for God's blessing on us and to celebrate such a momentous occasion with our friends and families.

I also wanted the relationship to be legally recognised, with the benefits that that brings.

Joanna

I know quite a number of people who've gotten married "determined never to have children." Most, because they came from hideous backgrounds of addiction and alcoholism and they didn't trust themselves to be parents. (Actually, some later did have children - but just imagine them having to have counseling from a pastor who "wouldn't want to call it marriage"!)

If I didn't feel compelled to belong to the church - and I do - statements like that one would certainly send me packing....

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think marriage is only for having children but I think that the desire / intent of procreation is fundamental to it.

I'd be equally confused over the nature of marriage for a couple who got married determined never to have children. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to, just that I wouldn't want to call it marriage.

Johnny S,

So what do you want to call my relationship with my husband then?

And can you back up your assertion that we should not be married from Scripture?

FWIW, I got married because, having decided to give up my independence to share my life with Figbash, I wanted to ask for God's blessing on us and to celebrate such a momentous occasion with our friends and families.

I also wanted the relationship to be legally recognised, with the benefits that that brings.

Joanna
I know quite a number of people who've gotten married "determined never to have children." Most, because they came from hideous backgrounds of addiction and alcoholism and they didn't trust themselves to be parents. (Actually, some later did have children - but just imagine them having to have counseling from a pastor who "wouldn't want to call it marriage"!)

And ditto for me. How nice that when my fiancé and I get married you wouldn't call it a marriage. But thanks for reminding me that people like us are untermenschen/second class citizens in some churches too.

L

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, here's another example of the problem, Johnny S. You seem unable to grasp that the "intransigence" is, truly, all on your side.

For your information, thousands upon thousands of gay people actually have considered the "Biblical prohibition of homosexuality." We had to; we haven't had any other choices until very, very recently. This alleged "prohibition" has led to great destruction, too; it's been responsible for depression and alcoholism and suicide and persecution and years-long (sometimes decades-long) attempts to "go straight." This hasn't been a secret in any way; all you have to do is a little bit of research to find out more about this.

I mean, are you really unaware of the desperate pain this has all caused? Actually, I'd say this is the factor that has changed the most minds on this topic - the fact of the great hatred and destruction of people who really haven't done anything that other people don't think is completely human, and in fact the best part of being human.

Your argument here seems to cut to the heart as to why the Ship exists in the first place. You seem unable to conceive that given a) the research into these topics and b) the pain experienced by the gay community over the years that anybody could possibly still disagree with your position.

But if you open you open your window for a moment there are clearly many who still do. Now you can demonise your opponents if you want to and assume that none of them have any integrity in looking at the texts and all of them are indifferent to the suffering of homosexuals - but if that is what you want to do I'm puzzled as to why you'd want to do that here, on the ship. Especially in dead horses where the whole point about the topics is that there is a large degree of intransigence over them.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
This, of course, was my point about the Catholic Church's Vatican-II-and-later documents and teachings. That the Church didn't try to "prove" anything from the Bible; it simply acted because of the great destruction it had allowed to happen.

I have a lot of respect for the RC for admitting they were wrong in this area but being a Protestant I'm hardly going to leap to their methods in getting to this position. You seem to think this is some kind of silver bullet since you keep on returning to it - I honestly don't see any significance here other than it is a good thing to admit it when you are wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(P.S. Although I understand better why you think what you do about Leviticus, I'm afraid by your own logic you're clearly wrong, since the women's uncles/brothers/nephews etc. are all by default included in the list. If a man can't sleep with his aunt, that means that a woman can't sleep with her nephew; it's a simple deductive process to get there. All the relationships have already been named. But telling a man he can't sleep with a man has no bearing on whether a woman can sleep with a woman - at least, not according to the text itself (and according to the argument you're making here). As I said, Jews - including Maimonides, BTW - don't think a prohibition against lesbianism is in the Torah. And let's not forget that the death penalty is involved - and that, according to Jewish Law, there have to be two witnesses to the act in order to get a conviction.

Again, we've had this argument before. Jews are by no means agreed on the interpretation of Leviticus 18 and Maimonides wrote in the middle ages and so is hardly in a much better position (than us) to comment on how ANE Israelites would have read it. Your only argument remains that lesbianism was not addressed because the Israelites did not consider that it was possible for women to have sex with one another. I still fail to see how this passage opens the door to lesbianism.

At worst it condemns it, at best it thinks it something that can't happen.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But as I said, this is really OK, since most people are starting to recognize how destructive this all has been and are changing their minds. There will always be those who don't change their minds, but they'll be part of tiny sects eventually.)

I hope that you are right about society considering more and more the harm that has been done to the gay community. This was clearly wrong and I hope the 21st century gets better.

However, if you are talking about the Christian church embracing it as a whole then the evidence seems to counter your comment about tiny sects. This is obviously a generalisation but the parts of the church that changing their stance on sexuality tend to be where their denominations are losing adherents and the parts of the globe where the church is growing rapidly tend to be very conservative on sexuality.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... This is the crucial issue of our time, ..
Here I thought feeding the poor, looking after the sick and elderly, nuclear disarmament, climate change, etc. were the crucial issues of our time.

To be fair to TM I was one who used that expression ... but I did qualify it with 'according to media column inches'.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Johnny S,

So what do you want to call my relationship with my husband then?

And can you back up your assertion that we should not be married from Scripture?

I've got to go out now but I'll get back to the comments about marriage later. Hopefully tonight, but certainly over the weekend.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Matter of fact, will YOU marry me? (Why or why not?)

...
I'm already married, and believe bigamy is wrong.

I'll marry you Tuba.

I'm also already married. But, so what? How can I have a problem with polygamy when it is clearly practiced in scripture? Besides, I'm in a liberal diocese so few will care.

Also, Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar is also a priest. Congregations are used to having a priest and a priest's wife. Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar cannot be in two places at once. So, I find myself in need of a second wife.

You would be a good wife for an episcopal priest. You are intelligent, like church, and have a good voice.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Johnny S: I hate to mention it, but loftily telling me to "open my window for a minute" (just another of the really quite rude comments I've so far been treated to during our interactions on this board) does not really make me feel positively disposed to having any further discussions with you - believe it or not. If you would like to talk about the issues sometime - and could pretend for about 10 minutes that you didn't consider me an idiot - I'll be all ears. If not, that's perfectly OK, too.

FYI, it's not "demonizing" people to point out what the facts actually are. You can disagree all you like, and facts will still be facts; I'm sorry you don't like this, but there's nothing much anybody can do about it. (BTW, you might like to check out this article about what's happening in gay rights in Africa - including some information about what's going on in the churches; all quite positive. Well, from my point of view, anyway.)

One good thing, though: I've recently come across a group of Evangelicals who are living proof that there is something better than the conventional cultural/political moralism that's been the essence of Protestantism/Evangelicalism since I've been looking at it. They are centered in the "theology of the cross" and really and truly accept that grace is for everybody. The wonderful result is that all the usual pinched and parched hectoring and judgmentalism drops away, and we can all discuss faith instead, and how it actually works in our lives for healing. What a breath of fresh air, really, to find something authentic arising from the dust! It's a group of people who've been battered and abused by the church themselves - and they're not even gay! - and are now trying to be part of building something better. What's been amazing to me is the growing realization that the Christian church can actually be an instrument of healing itself, rather than an inflicter of pain and suffering! But then, of course, Christ's ministry was almost completely focused on healing, so what's really surprising is that the church has been so bad at it for so long.

I realized just tonight during this "conversation" how different the approach is - and your comment about "what could be considered marriage" really put it in stark relief. In any case, it's wonderful to be in touch with something that's life-giving - yes, really and truly - in the Christian church!

So, good things are actually happening everywhere.

[ 16. October 2010, 04:35: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

I think the title of this thread itself points to some clues about the "debate" and where if anywhere it is going. The more and more I try to engage in it myslelf, the less and less I think there is one. When I hear the PB referring to "faithfully held" wrongheaded positions on homosexuality, I find it increasingly hard to think in those terms. Because it seems to me that a "faithfully held" position would be consistent and would be responsive to the fundamental flaws inherent in itself. Instead, when I ask people to explain why a same-sex relationship should be immoral, all I ever get is special pleading. All of the relevant conclusions have already been drawn. We've concluded (in the Anglican churches at least) that genitalia are not a barrier to the sacraments: we did so when we began ordaining women. We've concluded that procreation, while central to the development of the theology of marriage, is not inseparable therefrom: we do so when we marry infertile couples and when we recognized that family planning could be practiced responsibly e.g. by couples of finite economic resources. So the "debate" consists of tortuous reasoning for why we should apply those conclusions to heterosexual relationships and pretend to forget we reached them when it's gay relationships under consideration. It's understandable that (some) straights should wish to believe that they and their relationships are special, but when the evidence isn't there the person of integrity revises their opinions. And the more Swiss cheese-like the traditional position begins to look the harder it is to make the charitable assumption that those who do not do so are acting with "integrity."

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Matter of fact, will YOU marry me? (Why or why not?)

...
I'm already married, and believe bigamy is wrong.
I'll marry you Tuba.

I'm also already married. But, so what? How can I have a problem with polygamy when it is clearly practiced in scripture? Besides, I'm in a liberal diocese so few will care.

Also, Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar is also a priest. Congregations are used to having a priest and a priest's wife. Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar cannot be in two places at once. So, I find myself in need of a second wife.

You would be a good wife for an episcopal priest. You are intelligent, like church, and have a good voice.

Thanks, Beeswax Altar. But obviously, by your own statement, your wife will also need a wife, and that might really get confusing.

[Biased]

I'm an alto, BTW; hope that's OK....

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
It's understandable that (some) straights should wish to believe that they and their relationships are special, but when the evidence isn't there the person of integrity revises their opinions. And the more Swiss cheese-like the traditional position begins to look the harder it is to make the charitable assumption that those who do not do so are acting with "integrity."

I actually DO think that heterosexual relationships are special - but then so are homosexual ones. Each has something important to offer. (Yes, a bit Pollyanna-ish, I agree, but I do really think this.)

I agree with you in general about the "debate," though; I'd say it's all over but the shouting at this point, and even the shouting has calmed way down. I'm happy to "live and let live" with people who still think homosexuality is wrong - just like I can live with, say, teetotalling Baptists (do they still exist?), or or tongue-speaking Pentecostals - but it won't stop me from arguing the issue (AKA "demonizing," I guess) if that's what's going on.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(It does chap me quite a bit, I admit, though, to see Johnny S continually misrepresent what I've been saying, I guess in order to avoid actual discussion of the issue.

The whole "opening the door to lesbianism" claim, for instance, which is something I've never once argued. The whole point - and I've said this at least a dozen times - is that if the Leviticus writers had wanted to condemn same-sex behavior, they could easily have done so, but that they didn't. They instead condemned only some form of male/male same-sex activity - which by definition is not a condemnation of same-sex behavior (AKA "homosexuality"). In modern terms or in ancient terms, this is not what you'd expect. So there's some mystery here - which is actually kind of interesting, when you think about it.

And the fact that "Jews disagree" is still another example of - yes! - ambiguity in the matter. I mean, nobody (including me, which I've also said numerous times) seems to be sure what's at issue here - except Johnny S, of course.

And I'm "intransigent"! Sheesh. Same exact thing, two #(*$)@ years later....)

[ 16. October 2010, 06:02: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

And the fact that "Jews disagree" is still another example of - yes! - ambiguity in the matter.

The relative ease of rabbinical Judaism's accommodation of same-gender unions is illuminating in general.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Good old Romans 1:21-32.
In it, as we know, Paul condemns (on behalf of God, he says) :
wickedness
evil
covetousness
malice
envy
murder
strife
deceit
craftiness
gossip
slander
God-hating
Insolence
Haughtiness
boastfulness
rebellion against parents
foolishness
faithlessness
heartlessness
ruthlessness
homosexuality

And here we are in 2010, with SO many Christians thinking they've passed all of God's tests and are fit to judge others. Why? Because they've avoided only the last one by being born non-LGBT, oh and probably the one about murder. Amazing how we've re-ranked them according to our own view of God (i.e. that which most people think they can match up to), rather than what Paul said.

Hmm.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

And the fact that "Jews disagree" is still another example of - yes! - ambiguity in the matter.
The relative ease of rabbinical Judaism's accommodation of same-gender unions is illuminating in general.

Well, it's ludicrous to argue that there's an obvious condemnation of lesbianism in Leviticus; it just simply isn't there. I mean, you have to actively imagine in - and at that point, you can't possibly be arguing to the "plain sense of the text" anymore. One or the other, please, as we've been arguing for years now.

But actually, I think Jews looked at all the negative consequences I talked about earlier, and fairly quickly and easily made the decision that something was wrong with the original interpretation. You simply can't deny a person intimacy and the hope of love for a lifetime based on - what? - I don't even know anymore. What's the problem, anyway, with Christians?

Maybe it's simply about power; Christians in our societies worked so hard to maintain the status quo, just because they could. They didn't have to know anything they didn't want to know - but I'd think it would be a good thing to know what reality is. This is an incarnational religion, as we continue to point out, not a theoretical one; the facts of the world are important to us. So I would have thought evidence of the way things work would be considered really very important.

Well, live and learn....

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I know quite a number of people who've gotten married "determined never to have children." Most, because they came from hideous backgrounds of addiction and alcoholism and they didn't trust themselves to be parents. (Actually, some later did have children - but just imagine them having to have counseling from a pastor who "wouldn't want to call it marriage"!)

And ditto for me. How nice that when my fiancé and I get married you wouldn't call it a marriage. But thanks for reminding me that people like us are untermenschen/second class citizens in some churches too.

L

Yes. This seems to me to happen because of the difference between the two approaches I talked about above.

In conventional Christianity (AKA "moralism"), there is no notice taken of the actual facts of peoples' lives; there's one (alleged) standard for everybody, and then, basically, to hell with any outliers (like people "determined never to have children" and homosexuals). Christianity is viewed, it seems, mainly as a conventional moral code; there are "rules" to be followed and if you follow the "rules" you are allowed to be a member of the group. (My new Evangelical friends consider this "Law-centered Christianity.")

By contrast, "Gospel-based Christianity" is centered in the "theology of the cross" - a phrase coined, I think, by Martin Luther. And the central tenet, as far as I can tell, is that we are all outliers - that all human beings suffer in our various ways from the various deformities of our lives. This approach argues with Paul that "we ought to know nothing but Christ crucified" - and the grace and love of God. And when you get to that point, there's no time or inclination to judge, either yourself or others; you simply accept, gratefully, God's grace and mercy - and then extend it to others yourself.

It's basically Lutheran, as far as I've been able to tell - and here I don't mean the denomination, but the religious philosophy. And it really does seem to work; "grace" turns out to be a very central concept, and accepting the need for grace - and the free gift of grace from God - does seem to work changes on the soul and in the personality. It helps you begin to really empathize with other people, and to recognize that we are all messed up just because we're human beings.

It's taken me quite a while to actually get the point of this, in fact - I thought I was being slow, but others have said the same thing - but it's a breath of real fresh air in the dry dust of the current church environment. Christianity can actually help heal people at a deep level! It's the last thing I would have expected, given my personal experiences with the church - but I started to realize this is really the first thing Christ was concerned about.

Actually, I've been re-reading William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience," and am discovering that deep frustration with the church is nothing new; he said almost exactly the same thing over a hundred years ago. That the church was a complete failure in helping people get healed, and had been a failure for centuries. So we are not the first people with this complaint!

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Matter of fact, will YOU marry me? (Why or why not?)

...
I'm already married, and believe bigamy is wrong.
I'll marry you Tuba.

I'm also already married. But, so what? How can I have a problem with polygamy when it is clearly practiced in scripture? Besides, I'm in a liberal diocese so few will care.

Also, Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar is also a priest. Congregations are used to having a priest and a priest's wife. Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar cannot be in two places at once. So, I find myself in need of a second wife.

You would be a good wife for an episcopal priest. You are intelligent, like church, and have a good voice.
Thanks, Beeswax Altar. But obviously, by your own statement, your wife will also need a wife, and that might really get confusing.

I'm an alto, BTW; hope that's OK....

The choir could use a good alto. It is already pretty good but not St. Mary the Virgin or St. Thomas Fifth Avenue. Mrs. Mother Beeswax is a harder case. Her congregation would prefer she have a husband to be in the men's group and do some of the sexton's work. She could use a man who was a competent organ player and willing to help fold bulletins. So if you know a gay man who fits the mold...

On the actual issue...

At this point, opposition to same sex unions really has become a most unique situations. Most people can recognize that same sex couples benefit from being in long term relationships just as much as heterosexuals. The only reasons given for opposing same sex unions is that Paul, in passing, vaguely objects to homosexuality and we've never done it before. Why did Paul object to them? I'm almost positive Paul wasn't thinking of anything life a same sex couple living together in a monagamous relationship. Does the Church as a whole say still hold the same presuppositions that Paul held? I don't think we do.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

In conventional Christianity (AKA "moralism"), there is no notice taken of the actual facts of peoples' lives; there's one (alleged) standard for everybody, and then, basically, to hell with any outliers (like people "determined never to have children" and homosexuals).

This is actually quite a striking feature of "contra" arguments. An alarming number of interlocutors have seen their task as beginning and ending with demonstrating that Paul does in fact mean what he appears to be saying: reconciling the sayings with any recognizably Christian conception of a non-arbitrary God or elucidating their reasons for drawing different conclusions about morally equivalent but anatomically differentiated relationships are things they clearly do not feel obligated to do, for It Is Written and so sorry if that makes your life unliveable. What the outliers are then to do with this information is passed over in silence: the smart ones have figured out that blanket prescriptions of celibacy won't hold up but haven't quite figured out what to put in their place.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You seem unable to conceive that given a) the research into these topics and b) the pain experienced by the gay community over the years that anybody could possibly still disagree with your position.

Yes one does begin to wonder, as the body count this month alone rises dramatically, how much blood needs to be spilled in order for mere human lives to count for the same as Paul's divinely-inspired wisdom. A drama teacher used to advise us: "Don't show me, tell me." People are starting to figure out that "love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't work. If you really object to being accused of indifference to suffering, then you will consider the indifference that you show by plugging your ears and repeating your murderous position as the death toll rises. Merely saying how much compassion you have for gay people will not cover for the destruction that comes will continue in the absence of any change in your behaviour. You can't eat your cake and have it to: compassion takes more than words. If after all that has transpired it is still more important to you to be right about the moral status of your gay neighbour's relationship, fine, but be honest about that choice and don't feed us a line about how it isn't a lack of compassion on your part. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Johnny S,

So what do you want to call my relationship with my husband then?

And can you back up your assertion that we should not be married from Scripture?

I still think you are married to your husband!

I suppose it comes down to the difference between a civil definition of marriage and a religious one.

I am not seeking nor have sought a change to the civil definition of marriage. I'm not trying to impose my view of marriage on others who do not share my religious beliefs.

However, I do think it is appropriate for churches to teach what they think a Christian view of marriage is - for example, in marriage prep classes.

ISTM a Christian definition of marriage includes the possibility of having children. I'm not saying that if it works out that you don't have kids that you've done something wrong and I'm not saying that contraception is wrong. But I do think that traditionally Christians have assumed that marriage intends children and also that this idea comes from the bible.

How can I back up this definition of marriage from scripture? I'm not keen on just proof-texting and would want to look at the overarching themes of both OT & NT. That said I'm not sure I've got the time to do that justice in a post here. Therefore I'm left with proof-texts for now...

I'd look at Genesis 1 & 2 and the two accounts of creation. They seem to be meant to be aetiological stories and chapter 2 (verse 24) seems to point to marriage as a creation intent for humans, and then chapter 1 seems to link that to procreation (especially verse 28).

These ideas are in seed form in Genesis and yet the rest of the OT does seem to pick up the trajectory. Passages like Malachi 2 v 15 stating that God was looking for godly offspring from Israelite marriages. The NT then seems to pick up this trajectory and continue it. For example, the qualities for being an elder listed in the pastoral epistles are interesting in that they seem to require an elder to have children! (I don't think they do, nor that they require him to be married but they surely assume that married people have children.)

So, I want to stress that at our church we never pass judgement or even comment on couples who have no children (I certainly have no window into their souls) but we do say that we think marriage assumes trying to have children.

Which leads me on to Louise's comment ...

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

And ditto for me. How nice that when my fiancé and I get married you wouldn't call it a marriage. But thanks for reminding me that people like us are untermenschen/second class citizens in some churches too.

I don't understand where this response comes from Louise.

Marriage is, by definition, exclusive. If someone turned up at my church who was married to several women then they would be like to feel the same. They'd be welcomed but quickly find that we have a radically different definition of marriage to them. This example seems easier to grasp because bigamy is also illegal - i.e. it is also against the civil definition of marriage.

All you seem to be saying is that you have a different definition of marriage to me. And? Once you define marriage, which we must, there are bound to be differences. However, saying that it makes you feel a second-class citizen does sound (to me at least) as if you are not only disagreeing with me (which is fair enough) but also claiming the moral high-ground in the process.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Johnny S: I hate to mention it, but loftily telling me to "open my window for a minute" (just another of the really quite rude comments I've so far been treated to during our interactions on this board) does not really make me feel positively disposed to having any further discussions with you - believe it or not. If you would like to talk about the issues sometime - and could pretend for about 10 minutes that you didn't consider me an idiot - I'll be all ears. If not, that's perfectly OK, too.

I think this is the real reason why we seem to quickly rub each other up the wrong way. If it wasn't for this I think we might even be able to agree to disagree over this issue.

In your second post to me in this thread you said this:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Later you tried to convince us that lesbians weren't mentioned in Leviticus because it was "understood" that men would convey the "anti-homosexual" message to them. That was hilarious, and I've spoken of that argument fondly ever since!

This is like ground-hog day. Considering this basically your opening exchange after on contact for over a year how is this not treating me like an idiot?

Now at the time I didn't pick up on it, because it doesn't bother me, I'm happy to carry on the discussion. But, just like last time, what I don't get is the way you keep taking umbridge at my sarcasm while dishing it out yourself?

You are quite right to point out my facetious tones at times, but what I just don't get is that you are apparently oblivious to it in yourself.

Similarly, can you explain how this comment ..

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
FYI, it's not "demonizing" people to point out what the facts actually are. You can disagree all you like, and facts will still be facts; I'm sorry you don't like this, but there's nothing much anybody can do about it.

goes with this one?

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And the fact that "Jews disagree" is still another example of - yes! - ambiguity in the matter. I mean, nobody (including me, which I've also said numerous times) seems to be sure what's at issue here - except Johnny S, of course.

I find it hard to work out how they are even written by the same person, never mind just a few posts apart.

I'm not trying to rile you no this one, I'm really not. I promise you that if you do not treat me like an idiot I won't treat you like one.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Last post then I must go ... honest!

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Yes one does begin to wonder, as the body count this month alone rises dramatically, how much blood needs to be spilled in order for mere human lives to count for the same as Paul's divinely-inspired wisdom. A drama teacher used to advise us: "Don't show me, tell me." People are starting to figure out that "love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't work. If you really object to being accused of indifference to suffering, then you will consider the indifference that you show by plugging your ears and repeating your murderous position as the death toll rises. Merely saying how much compassion you have for gay people will not cover for the destruction that comes will continue in the absence of any change in your behaviour. You can't eat your cake and have it to: compassion takes more than words. If after all that has transpired it is still more important to you to be right about the moral status of your gay neighbour's relationship, fine, but be honest about that choice and don't feed us a line about how it isn't a lack of compassion on your part. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I completely agree with this sentiment LQ but am not sure if the 'you' is generic or personal.

If it is generic and a general comment on the church at large I concur. However if it was aimed at me personally I'm lost to how you can judge me over my behaviour just based on my words on a bulletin board. Then it sounds a lot as if you are defining compassion as 'you must agree with me'.

Now, if you did mean the former then I apologise for getting the wrong end of the stick.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Then it sounds a lot as if you are defining compassion as 'you must agree with me'.

In a sense yes: when the fruits of a negative view of homosexuality become so painfully clear one faces a choice between the right to one's opinion and the right to call oneself compassionate: I would suggest that when "disagreeing with me" (even when all of the arguments have been made and refuted) leads to despair and death it does undermine your claim to compassion. A compassionate person would wake up and realize that human lives are more important than their own fixation with a particular hobby horse. Perhaps you are right and God is totally arbitrary and regards it with disfavour when gay people enter into the very relationships he blesses when heterosexuals enter them, but at a certain point you have to ask yourself, is it worth it? Why do I care? Is having my own wildly inconsistent exegesis vindicated more important than sending a message that a gay person's life is worth living?

I understand that you want to separate compassion from affirmation: that you can continue to promote the message of evil that has taken so many lives and still have some kind of theoretical "compassion" but it's becoming glaringly obvious that such an artificial distinction simply doesn't work. The view you espouse has real consequences, and they are anything but compassionate ones - and you must own that if you wish to persevere in them. You can't eat your cake and have it too, claiming your right to your opinion yet seeking to distance yourself from the blood it leaves on your hands. If you don't want the latter, then you have to re-examine how important the former is to you.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Then it sounds a lot as if you are defining compassion as 'you must agree with me'.

In a sense yes: when the fruits of a negative view of homosexuality become so painfully clear one faces a choice between the right to one's opinion and the right to call oneself compassionate: I would suggest that when "disagreeing with me" (even when all of the arguments have been made and refuted) leads to despair and death it does undermine your claim to compassion. A compassionate person would wake up and realize that human lives are more important than their own fixation with a particular hobby horse. Perhaps you are right and God is totally arbitrary and regards it with disfavour when gay people enter into the very relationships he blesses when heterosexuals enter them, but at a certain point you have to ask yourself, is it worth it? Why do I care? Is having my own wildly inconsistent exegesis vindicated more important than sending a message that a gay person's life is worth living?

I understand that you want to separate compassion from affirmation: that you can continue to promote the message of evil that has taken so many lives and still have some kind of theoretical "compassion" but it's becoming glaringly obvious that such an artificial distinction simply doesn't work. The view you espouse has real consequences, and they are anything but compassionate ones - and you must own that if you wish to persevere in them. You can't eat your cake and have it too, claiming your right to your opinion yet seeking to distance yourself from the blood it leaves on your hands. If you don't want the latter, then you have to re-examine how important the former is to you.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

And ditto for me. How nice that when my fiancé and I get married you wouldn't call it a marriage. But thanks for reminding me that people like us are untermenschen/second class citizens in some churches too.
I don't understand where this response comes from Louise.

Marriage is, by definition, exclusive. If someone turned up at my church who was married to several women then they would be like to feel the same. They'd be welcomed but quickly find that we have a radically different definition of marriage to them. This example seems easier to grasp because bigamy is also illegal - i.e. it is also against the civil definition of marriage.

All you seem to be saying is that you have a different definition of marriage to me. And? Once you define marriage, which we must, there are bound to be differences. However, saying that it makes you feel a second-class citizen does sound (to me at least) as if you are not only disagreeing with me (which is fair enough) but also claiming the moral high-ground in the process.

A bigamist or polygamist is not wanting the same rights as you or me - to be allowed to marry at all to share their life equitably with someone - they want something more, something inequitable - to have multiple partners: a situation which has been shown in practice to work to the detriment of women who are expected to make do with a smaller share of the marital cake and young men who can be kicked out of polygamous communities and get, so to speak, no cake at all, to allow there to be more women to go round for the patriarchs with their many wives. That's without even considering bigamy by deception.

Gay people and people like me are not asking you to go along with something inequitable or inherently unfair or damaging to others in our marriages, yet you think by your definition of marriage we should be marked down as people who can't have marriages or whose marriages are not 'proper' marriages like yours. Your reason for looking down upon our relationships, the mutual help, conjugal love and cohabitation in them, comes from putting a hard-line reading of Genesis above the dignity, love and wholesomeness of our relationships.

I can no longer see biblical interpretations, no matter how fancy and ingenious, as a valid reason for doing so. Instead I see them as becoming licences to maltreat other people and to engender prejudice against them. Instead of a means of fighting injustice and callousness, the Bible becomes a weapon to be turned on ordinary harmless decent people who practice love and continency. I cannot go along with that.

L.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Johnny S,

So what do you want to call my relationship with my husband then?

And can you back up your assertion that we should not be married from Scripture?
I still think you are married to your husband!

I suppose it comes down to the difference between a civil definition of marriage and a religious one.

I am not seeking nor have sought a change to the civil definition of marriage. I'm not trying to impose my view of marriage on others who do not share my religious beliefs.

However, I do think it is appropriate for churches to teach what they think a Christian view of marriage is - for example, in marriage prep classes.

ISTM a Christian definition of marriage includes the possibility of having children. I'm not saying that if it works out that you don't have kids that you've done something wrong and I'm not saying that contraception is wrong. But I do think that traditionally Christians have assumed that marriage intends children and also that this idea comes from the bible.

How can I back up this definition of marriage from scripture? I'm not keen on just proof-texting and would want to look at the overarching themes of both OT & NT. That said I'm not sure I've got the time to do that justice in a post here. Therefore I'm left with proof-texts for now...

I'd look at Genesis 1 & 2 and the two accounts of creation. They seem to be meant to be aetiological stories and chapter 2 (verse 24) seems to point to marriage as a creation intent for humans, and then chapter 1 seems to link that to procreation (especially verse 28).

These ideas are in seed form in Genesis and yet the rest of the OT does seem to pick up the trajectory. Passages like Malachi 2 v 15 stating that God was looking for godly offspring from Israelite marriages. The NT then seems to pick up this trajectory and continue it. For example, the qualities for being an elder listed in the pastoral epistles are interesting in that they seem to require an elder to have children! (I don't think they do, nor that they require him to be married but they surely assume that married people have children.)

So, you accept that we are married legally, but should we be regarded as married by the church? Does it make any difference that we were married in church and the service included Communion? Or does the fact that we were agreed back then that we did not want children nullify that?

I looked at Genesis 1 & 2; admittedly God does begin his speech to humankind in Gen 1:28 by telling them to "Be fruitful and increase" but the overriding theme of that section is that people have dominion over the rest of creation. Genesis 2 makes no mention of procreation at all; Eve is created specifically to be a companion for Adam - which is also mentioned as a feature of marriage in Malachi 2.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
I understand that you want to separate compassion from affirmation: that you can continue to promote the message of evil that has taken so many lives and still have some kind of theoretical "compassion" but it's becoming glaringly obvious that such an artificial distinction simply doesn't work. The view you espouse has real consequences, and they are anything but compassionate ones - and you must own that if you wish to persevere in them. You can't eat your cake and have it too, claiming your right to your opinion yet seeking to distance yourself from the blood it leaves on your hands. If you don't want the latter, then you have to re-examine how important the former is to you.

Thanks LQ - this brings us back to Louise's original post which brought me back into this thread once more.

I agree that compassion must never be allowed to become merely an abstract idea. However, I'm still not convinced about the way you use the word compassion.

If you are saying that sometimes the way society has to arrange itself can be abused so that others are harmed then I quite agree. I don't think it is fair to say that making such decisions necessarily denote a lack of compassion though.

Despite Louise's protestations that 'nobody really sits at home doing Jeremy Bentham calculus' I think we do need wider debates about 'the greater good' as well as individual debates about 'the greatest compassion for these two people / this minority group. I don't think it is fair to assume that it means a lack of compassion. Please note that I am conceding some ground in that I agree that I can't wash my hands of the consequences of my decisions. So I agree with you up to a point.

On a few occasions I've talked to someone (heterosexual) who is desperately lonely in their singleness and about to visit a prostitute to ease some of that pain. I've counseled them against that action because I'm convinced of a greater good. Now my understanding of the greater good may be wrong but (as sincerely as I can possibly be) I don't think it was a lack of compassion that led me to advise that.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
A bigamist or polygamist is not wanting the same rights as you or me - to be allowed to marry at all to share their life equitably with someone - they want something more, something inequitable - to have multiple partners: a situation which has been shown in practice to work to the detriment of women who are expected to make do with a smaller share of the marital cake and young men who can be kicked out of polygamous communities and get, so to speak, no cake at all, to allow there to be more women to go round for the patriarchs with their many wives. That's without even considering bigamy by deception.

They are doing that but that is not the reason why they would 'feel a second-class citizen' in my church. That reason would be because they have a different definition of marriage. I don't think that for many people (if any) the idea of 'wanting extra' would even enter their head.

Obviously YMMV. I understand that.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Gay people and people like me are not asking you to go along with something inequitable or inherently unfair or damaging to others in our marriages, yet you think by your definition of marriage we should be marked down as people who can't have marriages or whose marriages are not 'proper' marriages like yours. Your reason for looking down upon our relationships, the mutual help, conjugal love and cohabitation in them, comes from putting a hard-line reading of Genesis above the dignity, love and wholesomeness of our relationships.

But that is why I asked those questions about utilitarianism earlier. I think the jury is still out on the impact that a change in our view of marriage has on society. At the moment all the studies I've read have looked at things at a very micro and short-term level.

This whole issue is a mess. Someone gives me a study 'proving' something one way and then someone else gives me something showing the opposite. (Although I'm now talking about marriage in general than anything to do with homosexuality.)

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I looked at Genesis 1 & 2; admittedly God does begin his speech to humankind in Gen 1:28 by telling them to "Be fruitful and increase" but the overriding theme of that section is that people have dominion over the rest of creation. Genesis 2 makes no mention of procreation at all; Eve is created specifically to be a companion for Adam - which is also mentioned as a feature of marriage in Malachi 2.

The expressed divine purpose of Israelite marriages in Malachi 2: 15 is given as producing godly children though.

Clearly your interpretation of the bible differs from mine. Mine is hardly a minority view though is it? The expectation of children from marriage has been the view of the Christian church since the beginning (I'd argue). Obviously contraception has changed all that. I think the burden of proof actually rests with you to demonstrate that marriage does not assume children.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

ISTM, Johnny, that you are trying very hard not to recognize what is blinding obvioius to at least some people: that your approach to marriage is an active and effective turn-off to many people who wish to live as christians in a christian community.

Compassion as most people would understand it would say that when a belief and policy of the church causes people to commit suicide or be killed by other people claiming to be christian, something more than facile kind words is called for.

Some people would suggest that when you define marriage as being open to having children, you automatically consign to second class status those who can't have children (whether through age or infirmity) or who choose not to (as in my son's case, because his wife is sufficiently emomtionally fragile that having children would be a danger to them as well as to her).

And you don't see it.

You don't even reccgnise what people are talking about.

From my perspective, you're in a box, and happy inside your box, and unwilling even to consider that there is a world and a reality that's not already in your box and slotted into its neat little place where it can't harm anyone in the box.

I'm now talking about how you and your posts come across -- and for me, they're an effective innoculation against ever even considering the approach to faith and to God that you adopt.

John

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Johnny, it's interesting that you brought up Genesis 1:28 - because it says nothing that resembles marriage.

Whereas Genesis 2:23-24, which DOES have something resembling marriage, makes no mention of procreation.

I think the way that people get to 'marriage is for procreation' is by conflating these two passages together, and I don't see the justification for it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

NB Just to be clear, there is a world of conceptual difference between saying 'procreation should happen within marriage' and 'marriage is FOR procreation'.

As for the Malachi passage, it's so clearly part of an allegory about Judah's relationship with God that I find it's not much use in this context. However, even if it referred to regular marriages, it could be read in either of the ways above.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

You're right, Johnny - I have been sarcastic. I resented some of the things you said to me last time we talked, and never got past them, I see now. I felt like you brushed me aside as if not worth bothering with, and that definitely pushes buttons in me. I don't mind being disagreed with and I don't mind debate/argument at all - but I really dislike being summarily dismissed. At that point, I stop taking a person seriously, I'm afraid - and then it just gets worse from there.

It could be that all this was just a misunderstanding on my part. But in any case, I think maybe this medium - the chat board - is not very conducive to reasonable conversation between people who resent each other, for whatever reason.

So if you're OK with it, let's just "agree to disagree" and see if we can meet on some other thread in the future on better terms? I admit my resentment led to my acting out on this one, so I apologize for that.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You're right, Johnny - I have been sarcastic. I resented some of the things you said to me last time we talked, and never got past them, I see now. I felt like you brushed me aside as if not worth bothering with, and that definitely pushes buttons in me. I don't mind being disagreed with and I don't mind debate/argument at all - but I really dislike being summarily dismissed. At that point, I stop taking a person seriously, I'm afraid - and then it just gets worse from there.

It could be that all this was just a misunderstanding on my part. But in any case, I think maybe this medium - the chat board - is not very conducive to reasonable conversation between people who resent each other, for whatever reason.

So if you're OK with it, let's just "agree to disagree" and see if we can meet on some other thread in the future on better terms? I admit my resentment led to my acting out on this one, so I apologize for that.

Thank you so much for this gracious response TM.

Likewise I want to apologise for being flippant at times about a subject that must be very painful for you. Sorry.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
ISTM, Johnny, that you are trying very hard not to recognize what is blinding obvioius to at least some people: that your approach to marriage is an active and effective turn-off to many people who wish to live as christians in a christian community.

While I suppose it is hypothetically possible, I'm having a hard time coming up with a plausible explanation as to why I'd be posting on this thread if I didn't realise that my view of marriage is unpopular to some.

As to 'many' - what do you mean? Many on the ship? Many in the west? Many on the planet? It is an answer to that question that I'm genuinely trying to guage using things like SoF.

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Compassion as most people would understand it would say that when a belief and policy of the church causes people to commit suicide or be killed by other people claiming to be christian, something more than facile kind words is called for.

Wow that is strong.

Are you intentionally raising the stakes here? You are saying that my current position on homosexuality directly is causing people to be killed.

I take the fact that my beliefs may be causing harm to others seriously. However, when people like Dawkins accuse Christianity for being the root cause of violence between RCs and Prots in NI most people are prepared to say that it is slightly more complicated than that. You must be very certain of the direct causal link to make such a claim.

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Some people would suggest that when you define marriage as being open to having children, you automatically consign to second class status those who can't have children (whether through age or infirmity) or who choose not to (as in my son's case, because his wife is sufficiently emomtionally fragile that having children would be a danger to them as well as to her).

Since I specifically went out of my way to make clear that I was not talking about those who could not have children I don't see why you need to say this.

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

I'm now talking about how you and your posts come across -- and for me, they're an effective innoculation against ever even considering the approach to faith and to God that you adopt.

I'm sorry to hear that. The fact that you have that reaction certainly counts for something to me. I'm sure you're not suggesting I base my beliefs only on what other people think of me though, are you?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Johnny, it's interesting that you brought up Genesis 1:28 - because it says nothing that resembles marriage.

Whereas Genesis 2:23-24, which DOES have something resembling marriage, makes no mention of procreation.

I actually said you get that from Genesis 1 and 2 as a whole. They are generally accepted as being etiological and so if you are going to see Genesis 2 as referring to marriage it is hardly much of a leap to link it with Genesis 1.

Note, I'm not saying that it is impossible to interpret it any other way. What I am saying is that it is a perfectly acceptable hermeneutical position and one that has very strong historic precedent in the Christian church.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I think the way that people get to 'marriage is for procreation' is by conflating these two passages together, and I don't see the justification for it.

NB Just to be clear, there is a world of conceptual difference between saying 'procreation should happen within marriage' and 'marriage is FOR procreation'.

You're putting words into my mouth. I did not say that 'marriage is for procreation' - that makes it sound as if that it is it's sole and over-riding purpose. I said that marriage assumes the attempt to procreate. There may be a whole host of reasons why a couple cannot or choose not to have children.

There is a difference between your two options above but I'm not sure it is quite that big.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Johnny, it's interesting that you brought up Genesis 1:28 - because it says nothing that resembles marriage.

Whereas Genesis 2:23-24, which DOES have something resembling marriage, makes no mention of procreation.
I actually said you get that from Genesis 1 and 2 as a whole. They are generally accepted as being etiological and so if you are going to see Genesis 2 as referring to marriage it is hardly much of a leap to link it with Genesis 1.

Note, I'm not saying that it is impossible to interpret it any other way. What I am saying is that it is a perfectly acceptable hermeneutical position and one that has very strong historic precedent in the Christian church.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I think the way that people get to 'marriage is for procreation' is by conflating these two passages together, and I don't see the justification for it.

NB Just to be clear, there is a world of conceptual difference between saying 'procreation should happen within marriage' and 'marriage is FOR procreation'.
You're putting words into my mouth. I did not say that 'marriage is for procreation' - that makes it sound as if that it is it's sole and over-riding purpose. I said that marriage assumes the attempt to procreate. There may be a whole host of reasons why a couple cannot or choose not to have children.

There is a difference between your two options above but I'm not sure it is quite that big.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that marriage is connected to procreation and then say Oh BTW, it doesn't matter if the couple chooses not to have children. Since we do not deny marriage to couples who have no intention on having children, there is no logical reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

As well, both same-sex and heterosexual couples adopt. In that situation, both types of couples are raising children. Would you deny marriage to a heterosexual couple that chooses to adopt rather than to bear their own children?

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Let the twisting commence...

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Compassion as most people would understand it would say that when a belief and policy of the church causes people to commit suicide or be killed by other people claiming to be christian, something more than facile kind words is called for.
Wow that is strong.

Are you intentionally raising the stakes here? You are saying that my current position on homosexuality directly is causing people to be killed.

....

Perhaps, John (Holding, that is, not Johnny S), you could show that only conservative Christians oppose homosexual marriage? Otherwise, it would be difficult to draw the causal link you have drawn.

However, I don't think you can. The news reports of violence against homosexuals certainly do not show that the perpetrators are conservative Christians, and if it could, the media would certainly play up that angle.

[Edit for clarity.]

[ 18. October 2010, 14:00: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
However, I don't think you can. The news reports of violence against homosexuals certainly do not show that the perpetrators are conservative Christians, and if it could, the media would certainly play up that angle.

Well, there's these guys.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Perhaps, John (Holding, that is, not Johnny S), you could show that only conservative Christians oppose homosexual marriage? Otherwise, it would be difficult to draw the causal link you have drawn.

How so? How is the fact that people other than Christians make the same error exculpatory?

Moreover, "conservative Christians" typically oppose not only allowing same-gender couples to marry, but also any form of sex outside of marriage. It's the combination of the two that, apart from being self-evidently contradictory, makes it hard to claim compassion. Neatly stacking the deck so as to ensure that gays are sinning whatever they do is highly disingenuous. It's like making it illegal to drive without car insurance, and then making it illegal for group X (it doesn't really matter which) to obtain said insurance. You might as well just cut to the chase and make it illegal to be a member of group X, excepting those whose life circumstances (geographical, employment, etc) are lucky enough to allow them to abstain from driving - which is simply as a matter of fact not a category that includes all people, or all people in group X. (The "conservative" position, however, having Divine Warrant, is typically not responsive to contradictions presented by mere reality).

And yet you really think that 1500 years of this has no relationship to what is happening now? You really think that if mankind hadn't invented the fanciful notion that God regards gay people's relationships as inferior because they lack the ability to insert tab A into slot B, we would still burying these children?

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
... exculpatory...

I'm not looking for exculpatory - as there is no need.

What I am saying is that it is not the Christians who are causing physical harm, it is non-Christians, so to blame it all on Christian morals/principals/teaching is ludicrous.

The blame lies on those who commit the violence and them alone.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What I am saying is that it is not the Christians who are causing physical harm, it is non-Christians, so to blame it all on Christian morals/principals/teaching is ludicrous.

The blame lies on those who commit the violence and them alone.

Given American demographics it seems unlikely that all, or even most, gay-bashers are non-Christians. Or is this one of those semantic games where someone's Christian membership is revoked when they do something publically embarassing?

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
... exculpatory...
The blame lies on those who commit the violence and them alone.

We're blaming the suicide victims now? Oh, I can't wait to hear this. I'd offer a shovel but you seem to be managing fine.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
... exculpatory...
I'm not looking for exculpatory - as there is no need.

What I am saying is that it is not the Christians who are causing physical harm, it is non-Christians, so to blame it all on Christian morals/principals/teaching is ludicrous.

The blame lies on those who commit the violence and them alone.

Really? So you CAN shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, then - and the resultant chaos is to be blamed solely on people who respond to that shout, and on them alone? That would be news in courts of law, all right.

You might want to take a look at this video. In it, a gay man discusses his reaction, when he was young, to anti-gay preaching in his church. ("Not just that gays were sick and wrong themselves, but that everyone around them were hurt by their presence. That God was willing to wipe out everybody in order to punish the gays.") Sodom and Gomorrah, you know.

Suicide, he thought, was the only answer.

[ 18. October 2010, 16:20: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...
Suicide, he thought, was the only answer.

Well, he was wrong.

If Christianity changes it's collective mind and allows that homosexuality, homosexual acts, homosexual unions being called 'marriage', etc., is all ok, there will be no more violence against homosexuals, and none will commit suicide? I don't think you would get that result. Why? Because it is not Christianity that is at fault here.

Violence (including gay-bashing) is wrong. Suicide is wrong. However, those are both contrary to Christian teaching as well.

What is the root cause of violence against homosexuals? If you say it is Christian teaching, then what about Islam? Does it not also teach that? What about Judaism? Certainly there are other groups as well who hold similar beliefs relating to homosexuality. One could argue that one possible cause is a distorted/wrong understanding of Christianity. My argument is that it is not Christian teaching which causes violence towards homosexuals, because Christianity also teaches loving your neighbour, praying for those with whom you disagree, etc.

A true Christian groups all that teaching into a response towards homosexuals that is based on love, not violence and hatred. That is why I say it is not Christian teaching that causes such violence.

However, love doesn't always mean 'agreeing with'.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Violence (including gay-bashing) is wrong. Suicide is wrong. However, those are both contrary to Christian teaching as well.

<snip>

A true Christian groups all that teaching into a response towards homosexuals that is based on love, not violence and hatred. That is why I say it is not Christian teaching that causes such violence.

And that's why I say Christian teaching is essentially a shell game. Apologists will hand wave away any teaching or behavior they don't personally like as "not really Christian", while others do the same to them for taking contrary positions. In essence this leaves Christianity an empty shell saying nothing beyond "it's nice to be nice".

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

If Christianity changes it's collective mind and allows that homosexuality, homosexual acts, homosexual unions being called 'marriage', etc., is all ok, there will be no more violence against homosexuals, and none will commit suicide? I don't think you would get that result. Why? Because it is not Christianity that is at fault here.

On the contrary, because it has already done the damage.

quote:
What is the root cause of violence against homosexuals? If you say it is Christian teaching, then what about Islam? Does it not also teach that? What about Judaism? Certainly there are other groups as well who hold similar beliefs relating to homosexuality.

Sure - but as I said above, the fact that other groups propagate the same toxic message does not absolve those Christians who do so simply because they're in good company. Again I will ask: are you saying that humans would have come up with the idea of condemning gays on their own had the great world religions not given them an ideological basis for doing so?

quote:
My argument is that it is not Christian teaching which causes violence towards homosexuals, because Christianity also teaches loving your neighbour, praying for those with whom you disagree, etc.

Unfortunately that fine distinction seems to have been lost on Tyler Clementi, Asher Brown, Zach Harrington, Billy Lucas, and the other fallen being memorialized on Wednesday. So you can just repeat louder and louder your insistence that Christianity successfully manages to teach gay people that they are depraved without instilling self-hatred, but the actual facts happening around you belie that position. People are dying, and it simply doesn't do to tell their families "We're terribly sorry for your loss, but you must understand that your child misunderstood our position," particularly when they died precisely because they understood it all too well.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Yet, confronted with inescapable evidence that the "Your an abomination but God loves you" tactic consistently fails - that indeed these children invariably hear only the first part - rather than consider the feasibility of your position, you are reduced to trying to argue with corpses about their level of theological sophistication.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Anti-Christian bigotry illustrated.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

I'm a little bemused. Both Johnny and the Sharkshooter have suggested I am accusing them and conservative christians of causing suicides and murders. As I recall, I accused "the church" of this -- and while conservative CHristians are part of the church, they are neither its whole nor its majority.

I'm also astounded that they seem unaware of the gross damage done over many decades and centuries by people in the church (that's "the church", not the conservative christian version) professing love and compassion while in fact treating certain people in such a way that they are driven to despair and death -- sometimes at their own hands, sometimes at the hands of good "christians" who read the church's subtext as being "get the gayz".

Blaming the victim for not being strong or not realizing that the people who ostracize and maltreat them really love them, deep down, or for running when a posse is chasing after you with clubs -- seems a little...unaware of what has been happening in the real world for a good long while.

Real people have died real deaths because of what the church has said and because of how christians have acted. It would be nice to get some real acknowledgement that this has happened. And that it's not the fault of the victims.

John

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by LQ:
Sure - but as I said above, the fact that other groups propagate the same toxic message does not absolve those Christians who do so simply because they're in good company. Again I will ask: are you saying that humans would have come up with the idea of condemning gays on their own had the great world religions not given them an ideological basis for doing so?

I have no doubt humans would have come up with the idea of condemning gays without the great religions of the world.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that marriage is connected to procreation and then say Oh BTW, it doesn't matter if the couple chooses not to have children. Since we do not deny marriage to couples who have no intention on having children, there is no logical reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

Er, that was my original point that attracted the ire of Louise, Joanna et al.

I said that I thought that marriage assumes children, I just didn't say that marriage = children.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I'm also astounded that they seem unaware of the gross damage done over many decades and centuries by people in the church (that's "the church", not the conservative christian version) professing love and compassion while in fact treating certain people in such a way that they are driven to despair and death -- sometimes at their own hands, sometimes at the hands of good "christians" who read the church's subtext as being "get the gayz".

For the record I am aware of it and I am ashamed. There is no excuse for it. That has been been said before though.

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Blaming the victim for not being strong or not realizing that the people who ostracize and maltreat them really love them, deep down, or for running when a posse is chasing after you with clubs -- seems a little...unaware of what has been happening in the real world for a good long while.

Real people have died real deaths because of what the church has said and because of how christians have acted. It would be nice to get some real acknowledgement that this has happened. And that it's not the fault of the victims.

John

Likewise. It is real. It's not the fault of the victims. When I read stories like the one Croesus linked to I feel genuinely sick that I am being presented with a version of Christianity that I don't even recognise. Again, this has been said before. Does it have to be said every time I post?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And that's why I say Christian teaching is essentially a shell game. Apologists will hand wave away any teaching or behavior they don't personally like as "not really Christian", while others do the same to them for taking contrary positions. In essence this leaves Christianity an empty shell saying nothing beyond "it's nice to be nice".

I suppose that also brings out the contrast between liberal and conservative Christianity.

Liberal Christianity has the advantage of the flexibility to change its mind on this issue. However, I think it also gives way to your criticism in so doing. Only a Christian who has an objective definition of Christianity that they can refer to can legitimately say, "Hey, but that's not Christian!"

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that marriage is connected to procreation and then say Oh BTW, it doesn't matter if the couple chooses not to have children. Since we do not deny marriage to couples who have no intention on having children, there is no logical reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

Er, that was my original point that attracted the ire of Louise, Joanna et al.

I said that I thought that marriage assumes children, I just didn't say that marriage = children.

You are really going to have to explain this a bit more.

Are you trying to say that in your view intention to have children is necessary, but not sufficient?

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

It doesn't ultimately matter, does it, because either way you'd still need to contort some reason why infertile couples do not invalidate the rock-solid requirement of capacity for procreation, unless the cause of their infertility is having gotten two of the same box from the Heavenly Ikea. I once read a comment on Fr Haller's blog that tried passionately to argue that infertile straight couples were still really oriented toward procreation in a way gay couples weren't, because, well, they just are, you know? When he pressed, he grasped at the argument that if worse came to worst, God could always grant a miracle as to Abraham and Sarah - Abraham and Barry being apparently just beyond His capabilities. It was clear to everyone but apparently the commenter himself that he was simply sacramentalizing penile-vaginal intercourse for its own sake. Indeed, it's clear to anyone who does not choose not to see it.

Really, it's the I've got mine-ness of it all that I think I find so viscerally frustrating - such is their regard for marriage that they cannot bear the thought of sharing it with anyone whose relationship fails to resemble their own in one, superficial respect.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...
Suicide, he thought, was the only answer.
Well, he was wrong.

If Christianity changes it's collective mind and allows that homosexuality, homosexual acts, homosexual unions being called 'marriage', etc., is all ok, there will be no more violence against homosexuals, and none will commit suicide? I don't think you would get that result. Why? Because it is not Christianity that is at fault here.

Violence (including gay-bashing) is wrong. Suicide is wrong. However, those are both contrary to Christian teaching as well.

What is the root cause of violence against homosexuals? If you say it is Christian teaching, then what about Islam? Does it not also teach that? What about Judaism? Certainly there are other groups as well who hold similar beliefs relating to homosexuality. One could argue that one possible cause is a distorted/wrong understanding of Christianity. My argument is that it is not Christian teaching which causes violence towards homosexuals, because Christianity also teaches loving your neighbour, praying for those with whom you disagree, etc.

A true Christian groups all that teaching into a response towards homosexuals that is based on love, not violence and hatred. That is why I say it is not Christian teaching that causes such violence.

However, love doesn't always mean 'agreeing with'.

Look at it from this point of view:

As a young gay man, I grew up having these feelings of attraction towards other men. I never had these feelings of attraction towards women.

When another Christian tells me "I love you, but hate your sin", he or she is telling me that my feelings, my emotional state is morally wrong or sick. No matter how much he or she may profess that he or she "loves me", the fact remains that this person will always consider my emotions/mental state in error.

Moreover by demanding that I commit to a life of celibacy regardless of whether or not I discern that that is the will of God, would be to doom me to a life of loneliness and misery because I would be unable to give expression towards my desires for another. Most people have a strong longing towards uniting with another human being. Yes, this longing can only be satisfied in most cases through physical union as well as spiritual and emotional union. A few can fulfill this longing through a life of freely-chosen celibacy. But to impose celibacy on an entire group of people would no regard towards their particular vocation or personal discernment is a recipe for disastor.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you trying to say that in your view intention to have children is necessary, but not sufficient?

Yep, pretty much.

I am well aware that not everyone shares my definition (pace John Holding) but I would argue that it is still very much a mainstream view.

I'm not an Anglican but was married in the CofE. We had a standard ASB service at the time. I'm also very familiar with the BCP. They both explicitly state procreation as one of the purposes of marriage (not the main one, but certainly one of them).

All those Anglicans and Episcopalians out there - what do you feel when that bit is formally said at every wedding?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
It doesn't ultimately matter, does it, because either way you'd still need to contort some reason why infertile couples do not invalidate the rock-solid requirement of capacity for procreation, unless the cause of their infertility is having gotten two of the same box from the Heavenly Ikea. I once read a comment on Fr Haller's blog that tried passionately to argue that infertile straight couples were still really oriented toward procreation in a way gay couples weren't, because, well, they just are, you know?

Can you spell this out more LQ, I don't get it?

Are you saying that being gay is a form of infertility? Or (more likely) I've completely misunderstood you?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you trying to say that in your view intention to have children is necessary, but not sufficient?
Yep, pretty much.

I am well aware that not everyone shares my definition (pace John Holding) but I would argue that it is still very much a mainstream view.

I'm not an Anglican but was married in the CofE. We had a standard ASB service at the time. I'm also very familiar with the BCP. They both explicitly state procreation as one of the purposes of marriage (not the main one, but certainly one of them).

All those Anglicans and Episcopalians out there - what do you feel when that bit is formally said at every wedding?

Right, okay. I can see how you might have interpreted my comments as ascribing a different view to you. Not intentional.

Obviously my view is that it's not necessary.

As to whether your view is a mainstream view... well, it's clearly NOT reflected in the law so you might want to think about how that happened if your view is as mainstream as you think.

And as to the prayer book, when I realised that the critical bit in Genesis 2 says nothing about procreation I went and asked my Anglican Minister about the basis for that part of the marriage service. Didn't get much of an answer. I'm not sure whether I've been to a wedding since I asked him.

I asked about it here on the Ship once as well, I recall getting some responses but nothing terribly definitive one way or the other.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I'd completely forgotten about the fact that an old friend of my mother's is getting married soon.

She retired a couple of years ago, after spending several decades working as a Bible translator. Never married.

The man she's marrying is a widower. He and his wife worked as missionaries. He's got 4 children in his 40s.

I don't think that Mum is in touch enough to go to the wedding (think it will be in another city), but I almost wish I could get her to report on that bit of the service. Will they all have a chuckle about it? Probably.

Will anyone, when given the opportunity to say why the 2 of them shouldn't get married, say something about how it'd take a miracle for their to be any children from the marriage?

I doubt it. But even if they did, how is that any different to the possibility of a miracle for those of us with the wrong combination of plumbing? If God is in the miracle business, he's in the miracle business.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

There is nothing inherently heterosexual about a virgin birth.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

Some people are given to glutony. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches it is a sin?

Some people are given to gossip. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches it is a sin?

Some people are compulsive liars. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches it is a sin?

Some people don't honour their parents, worship idols, covet their neighbour's possessions, etc. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches they are sins?

No. No. No. and No.

So, the causal link you wish to draw between homosexuality being sinful and homosexuals being beaten up and commiting suicide cannot be made logically. The church* is not to blame.

* There may be some who attend church who commit such attrocities, but that action, as I have said, is also condemmed by the church. I would argue, however, that the vast majority of gay-bashing is by non-Christians who have no regard for Christian teaching or principles.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And as to the prayer book, when I realised that the critical bit in Genesis 2 says nothing about procreation I went and asked my Anglican Minister about the basis for that part of the marriage service. Didn't get much of an answer. I'm not sure whether I've been to a wedding since I asked him.

Actually the Genesis 2 bit says nothing about marriage (not as a civil institution that is) - it only talks about sex. I can't really comprehend anyone reading that before about 1960 and not assuming that procreation was a very likely consequence.

And as far as the virgin birth bit goes doesn't it have to happen to be a miracle? I don't think hypothetical miracles count. I'm not being flippant here - God could do just about anything hypothetically. I am aware of couples conceiving 'miraculously' - and the scriptures are replete with them - but I'm not aware of this ever happening to a gay couple. I don't get the point you are making - i.e. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, just confused as to why you think this is significant.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Some people are given to glutony. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches it is a sin?

Some people are given to gossip. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches it is a sin?

Some people are compulsive liars. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches it is a sin?

Some people don't honour their parents, worship idols, covet their neighbour's possessions, etc. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches they are sins?

No. No. No. and No.

To be fair to LQ and others I think that is the point they are making. Doesn't the very fact that other groups generally don't commit suicide suggest that this is a different issue?

It does to me anyway.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...To be fair to LQ and others I think that is the point they are making. ...

Oh, but it is. They clearly have stated that it is due to the church teaching on homosexuality that homosexuals are beaten up and commit suicide.

If that was the case, it would hold true for other things the church calls sins. Since it doesn't hold true, their claim is obviously false.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Er no, stuff like that most certainly does work, what you need to do is single out not a sin which everyone is prone to but one that tars a particular minority group, ask European Jews and Scottish Catholics how that worked. We used to have groups stoning catholic religious processions in the name of religion down til the 1930s under the name Protestant Action and we still have sectarian attacks. There is no doubt that the anti-catholic teaching was started and perpetuated by the church - there was appalling and well documented anti catholicism even among ministers at that time. When the church backed away from it the teaching had been so long and so pervasive in Scotland that it lingered in yahoo football supporters and groups like orange Lodges who still claim their religious connection.

Anti-gay prejudice has worked in a similar manner. the churches which first spread the rot are starting to recover but they've left a hell of a legacy that will take a long time to clear up.

L.

[ 19. October 2010, 12:35: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

The churches don't exclude people from worship for gluttony, sharkshooter. Some of them do s exclude people for living in a gay relationship, or single them out in the congregation for abuse if they do so. I can think of 8 examples without really trying. I can't think of a single example of a church banning someone for the other things or targeting individual people for them. It becomes very, very personal indeed if you're not able to worship because you're gay.

Some churches preach against disability, i.e. disabled people are there to suffer, or disabled people brought it on themselves through sin, or disabled people are possessed by the devil, or disabled people are only disabled because their faith is too weak. I do know of disabled people who have tried to end it all or very seriously considered ending it all after this kind of abuse and rejection from some churches, including me, so there are parallels with other things.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Er no, stuff like that most certainly does work, what you need to do is single out not a sin which everyone is prone to but one that tars a particular minority group, ask European Jews and Scottish Catholics how that worked. We used to have groups stoning catholic religious processions in the name of religion down til the 1930s under the name Protestant Action and we still have sectarian attacks. There is no doubt that the anti-catholic teaching was started and perpetuated by the church - there was appalling and well documented anti catholicism even among ministers at that time. When the church backed away from it the teaching had been so long and so pervasive in Scotland that it lingered in yahoo football supporters and groups like orange Lodges who still claim their religious connection.

Anti-gay prejudice has worked in a similar manner. the churches which first spread the rot are starting to recover but they've left a hell of a legacy that will take a long time to clear up.

You have it in a nutshell.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Sharkshooter: Liars, gluttons, gossips and so on aren't singled out from the congregation in the same way that homosexuals are. Nor do people campaign for gluttons not to be allowed to get married and/or adopt children. People don't twist, distort or invent evidence to make gossipy people look like monsters. Church leaders don't go over to countries where the death penalty is being presented as an option for lying, and give inflammatory speeches on bogus "cures" for lying, in a way that suggests that the most brutal punishments are indeed justified. People don't tend to throw their kids out of the house for gossip. They don't campaign for children to be kept unaware of the existence of fat people so that they don't learn gluttony from them.

There is a weight of evidence to suggest that conservative churches that believe homosexuality is wrong believe that it is much more wrong than these other things: a serious moral and spiritual disease rather than a regular human foible. I have met gay Christians who have been harassed, humiliated and driven out of churches and told never to return because of their sexuality. I have met (straight, as far as I know) Christians who will not so much as say hello to someone they know is gay, even if they're single, in case that basic decency is seen as condoning the sexuality.

This kind of treatment is why gay people often suffer to the point of being suicidal. And this kind of treatment is, in my view, much more damaging in the long run than the risk of being punched at 2am by a drunken lowlife because you're gay. If gossips, liars and so on don't become suicidal I'm pretty sure it's because they aren't treated like this. In many cases, they're put in the top positions in churches and greatly admired.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

And, even: how did the church get into the business of condemning people on the basis of their alleged sins, anyway? And who picks out which sins are especially problematic, BTW?

I seem to remember a little something about not casting the first stone? And, yes: even if you continue to think homosexuality is a sin, that applies here, too. Where is grace? Where is love?

What you're not seeing, at all, is that when you tell people that their feelings of love - their best feelings, that is - are evil, well, then: how can they ever do anything that's good and right? If the best gay people have to offer is total abomination, how can we ever be a positive part of society? If God hates us when we're in love - well, we might as well just jump off the bridge, then, because we can obviously never do anything to make things right. And, as the man in the video said, how can we live with the idea that we are going to be the cause of disastrous harm coming to others? Keep in mind that many, many gay people recognize that they have feelings for others of their own gender when pretty young; I became aware of this when I was about 7 or 8 years old, even though I didn't have the words for it then (partly because at that point it was topic never spoken of).

The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.

Since we obviously understand each other's position, but are at an impasse, I think I will have to sign off.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.
Since we obviously understand each other's position, but are at an impasse, I think I will have to sign off.

Yes, there really isn't much middle ground on this topic, I agree. The Christian churches can either choose to remain oblivious to the pain and death this teaching causes, or become aware of it and stop.

[ 19. October 2010, 14:31: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Yes, there really isn't much middle ground on this topic, I agree. The Christian churches can either choose to remain oblivious to the pain and death this teaching causes, or become aware of it and stop.

I think Sharkshooter's point is that all the extra shit that gays have to deal with and gossips don't does not follow inevitably and necessarily on homosexuality being contrary to a church's teaching. He's not saying that it doesn't exist. He's not saying that it's right. He's saying that it is (at least theoretically) possible for a church to condemn a form of sexual conduct and yet not treat the people who do it in the way that many churches have treated gays.

Louise's point that homosexuality is a 'sin' of a minority group, not a failing common to all humans, is a good one. It means that a Christian minister convinced of the sinfulness of homosexuality, but knowing that neither he nor most of his congregation would be tempted by it, ought to approach the subject with the greatest humility and sensitivity. I don't think that it establishes that the churches all ought to accept homosexuality unreservedly. There's clearly an issue to be addressed, if one takes the Bible as authority, and the case for acceptance is not proven by the mere fact that many non-acceptors have acted appallingly.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Yes, there really isn't much middle ground on this topic, I agree. The Christian churches can either choose to remain oblivious to the pain and death this teaching causes, or become aware of it and stop.
I think Sharkshooter's point is that all the extra shit that gays have to deal with and gossips don't does not follow inevitably and necessarily on homosexuality being contrary to a church's teaching. He's not saying that it doesn't exist. He's not saying that it's right. He's saying that it is (at least theoretically) possible for a church to condemn a form of sexual conduct and yet not treat the people who do it in the way that many churches have treated gays.

Louise's point that homosexuality is a 'sin' of a minority group, not a failing common to all humans, is a good one. It means that a Christian minister convinced of the sinfulness of homosexuality, but knowing that neither he nor most of his congregation would be tempted by it, ought to approach the subject with the greatest humility and sensitivity. I don't think that it establishes that the churches all ought to accept homosexuality unreservedly. There's clearly an issue to be addressed, if one takes the Bible as authority, and the case for acceptance is not proven by the mere fact that many non-acceptors have acted appallingly.

OK. I really do appreciate that you see the deadly consequences of the church's actions; I really do.

But the "temptation" you refer to here isn't anything but the massively ordinary hope and desire to love and be loved in return - and I think you're really underestimating the effects of this kind of prohibition.

The church only really has one choice, as far as I can see, since trying to turn gay people straight quite evidently doesn't work for 99.99% of people - and forcing people into marriages that will almost certainly be marriages in name only isn't really a workable solution either (and could quite often be disastrous for everybody).

That is, the church will have to forbid gay people from ever having a physically-intimate relationship of any kind, ever - and more, even the hope of ever having one. No dating, ever. No first kiss, ever. No holding hands, no loving embrace - ever. This is the Catholic position; that this kind of existence is right and good for gay people (and gay people alone, BTW). In fact, in past decades, I've actually considered this approach "humane" compared to how the rest of the church behaved. The Catholic Church recognized the fact of homosexuality, and said that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it by itself - only that it was "disordered" (which, BTW, many of took to mean "mentally unbalanced," since we're not Catholic theologians) and shouldn't be acted upon.

But do you not see the problem, even here? That - for very little reason - gay people are again singled out as unworthy and punished severely for something that we haven't chosen and that in fact harms nobody else? That we're being asked to live lives that most heterosexuals would consider unlivable and in fact subhuman?

Posted by MrsDoyle (# 13579) on :

The Roman Church goes further than saying we are "intrinsicaly disordered", the current pope added a very nasty caveat :
-Ratzinger, in fact, apparently worried that the 1975 statement did not go far enough. He noted that in the public discussion that followed the Declaration, “an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good.” For the sake of removing ambiguity, he went on to write, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
Even in celebacy it would seem just being gay is not nuetral and we have a greater tendency to "moral evil"

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But do you not see the problem, even here? That - for very little reason - gay people are again singled out as unworthy and punished severely for something that we haven't chosen and that in fact harms nobody else? That we're being asked to live lives that most heterosexuals would consider unlivable and in fact subhuman?

Yes, I do see the problem. And I am not arguing that homosexuality is a sin.

I do think, though, that someone ought to be able to hold the opinion that it is, without being responsible for all the evil stuff that others who have held that opinion have inflicted.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsDoyle:
The Roman Church goes further than saying we are "intrinsicaly disordered", the current pope added a very nasty caveat :
-Ratzinger, in fact, apparently worried that the 1975 statement did not go far enough. He noted that in the public discussion that followed the Declaration, “an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good.” For the sake of removing ambiguity, he went on to write, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
Even in celebacy it would seem just being gay is not nuetral and we have a greater tendency to "moral evil"

Yes. Fortunately James Alison has torn this "reasoning" to shreds.

quote:
Please notice that there are two logical barriers which the ecclesiastical argument cannot jump without falsifying it’s own doctrine. The first is this: The Church cannot say “Well, being that way is normal, something neutral or positive, the Church respects it and welcomes it. The Church only prohibits the acts which flow from it”. This position would lack logic in postulating intrinsically evil acts which flow from a neutral or positive being. And this would go against the principle of Catholic morals which states that acts flow from being – agere sequitur esse. The second barrier is this: the Church cannot say of the homosexual inclination that it is a desire which is in itself intrinsically evil, since to say this would be to fall into the heresy of claiming that there is some part of being human which is essentially depraved – that is, which cannot be transformed, only covered over.

....

[The] characterisation of the gay or lesbian person as a defective heterosexual is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the prohibition, as the authors indicate with the “must be considered” of their phrase. The problem is that, for the characterisation to work properly within the doctrine of original sin and grace, it would have to be the case that the life of grace would lead the gay or lesbian person to become heterosexual in the degree of his or her growth in grace. That is to say, in the degree to which grace makes us more patient, faithful, generous, capable of being good Samaritans, less prisoners of anger, of rivalry and of resentment, just so would it have to change the gender of the persons towards whom we are principally attracted. The problem is that such changes do not seem to take place in a regular and trustworthy way, even amongst the United States groups which promote them with significant funds and publicity. As the senior representatives of such groups indicate: at most, and in some cases, a change in behaviour is produced, but the fundamental structures of desire continue to be towards persons of the same sex.

This then is the conflict: for the prohibition of the acts to correspond to the true being of the person, the inclination has to be characterised as something objectively disordered. However, since the inclination doesn’t alter, unlike desires which are recognisably vicious, the gay or lesbian person would have a desire which is, in fact, intrinsically evil, an element of radical depravity in their desire. And we would have stepped outside Catholic anthropology. Or, on the other hand, the same-sex inclination is simply something that is, in which case grace will bring it to a flourishing starting from where it is, and with this we would have to work out which acts are appropriate or not, according to the circumstances, and we will have stepped outside the absolute prohibition passed on to us by tradition.

[ 19. October 2010, 16:53: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

More from Alison and an article called "Unbinding the Gay Conscience." (And this "binding" has been the fact of gay life vis a vis the church ever since I first came into contact with church teachings on the topic - and that's 30 years or so now.)

quote:
A bound conscience is one which cannot go this way or that, forward or backwards, is paralysed, scandalized. In that sense it is a form of living death, and those afflicted by it are living dead, and many of us are or have been such people. For example: we are familiar with the notion of a ‘double-bind’ or a ‘Catch 22 situation’. A bound conscience is a sense of being formed by a double-bind or a series of double binds. For instance: ‘My command is that you should love-but your love is sick’; or, ‘You should just go away and die-but it is forbidden to kill yourself’; or ‘The only acceptable way for me to live is a celibate life, but if they knew who I really was, they wouldn’t allow me to join’, or ‘Of course you can join, but you mustn’t say who you really are’; or ‘You cannot be gay, but you must be honest’. Many of us have been inducted into such patterns of desire over time. They classically follow the form, ‘Imitate me, do not imitate me’. If you find yourself drawn towards someone, and yet the underlying message is, ‘Be like me, do not be like me’, you will be scandalised, eventually you will judder to a halt, unable to move forwards or backwards.

What I would like to suggest is that in all these cases we are dealing with a self that has been formed by being given contradictory desires without being given any ability to discern where they might appropriately be applied. In other words, two instructions are received as on the same level as each other, pointing in two different directions at once, and the result is paralysis. This is what σκάνδαλον-skandalon-refers to in the New Testament-scandal, or stumbling block. Someone who is scandalised is someone who is paralysed into an inability to move. And the undoing of σκάνδαλα-skandala – which means the unbinding of double binds that do not allow people to be, is what the Gospel is supposed to be about.

I want to make it quite clear that we are dealing with something very basic and central to the Gospel here. It is perfectly possible to present the Gospel in such a way that it is a sort of double-bind. Any sort of presentation of the Christian faith which says, ‘I love you but I do not love you’, or ‘I don’t love you as you are, but if you become someone different I will love you’, is in fact preaching a double-bind, a stumbling block, a pathway to paralysis.

Let’s imagine the conversation between a false god and the self:

False god: I want to love you, but I can’t love you as you are, because you are sinful and objectively disordered.

Self: Well, what then must I do to be loved?

False god: You must become someone different.

Self: I’m up for it, show me how.

False god: Love isn’t something that can be earned, it just is.

Self: Well then how do I become the sort of person who can be loved?

False god: If I were you I would start somewhere else.

Self: That’s a great help. How do I start somewhere else?

False god: You can’t, because even starting off for somewhere else starts from you, and you can’t be loved.

Self: Well if I can’t start off from somewhere else, and I can’t start off from where I am, what can I do?

False god: Give up on the love thing; just obey and be paralysed.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

Louise's point that homosexuality is a 'sin' of a minority group, not a failing common to all humans, is a good one. It means that a Christian minister convinced of the sinfulness of homosexuality, but knowing that neither he nor most of his congregation would be tempted by it, ought to approach the subject with the greatest humility and sensitivity. I don't think that it establishes that the churches all ought to accept homosexuality unreservedly. There's clearly an issue to be addressed, if one takes the Bible as authority, and the case for acceptance is not proven by the mere fact that many non-acceptors have acted appallingly.

Yup, when I was faced with it during the Section 2A referendum in Scotland, it became a real deal breaker for me on biblical authority. There was simply no way I could pretend that it was OK to make decisions on this by referring to 1st century or earlier texts and saying 'Well, that nails it', the gap in cultural context and understanding of sexual orientation and gender roles is just too large.

Later I would find out that during that period when conservative Scots Christians queued to write to the letter pages and denounce gay and lesbian people across the media from TV to tabloid newspaper, the number of attacks on gay people went up. To those of you who want to claim this sort of thing doesn't happen, I can only say, it happened here.

It made me realise that as a historian I couldn't say that we understood the context of the biblical texts in question fully or properly. Even if, suppose we could say that we did, and there was an unambiguous condemnation of what we understand as gay relationships, and that Paul thought it was a 'Bad Thing' I realised that this could still never be enough to make me turn on people I knew to be good and loving and harming no-one. I always think the ultimate check on biblical interpretation should be this - if you are obviously harming your neighbour, and not because you have a duty to protect other innocent people, then somehow, however right you think you are, you're doing it wrong.

This is also why I have little patience with attempts to take us back into the 1st arts philosophy classroom and to claim we have to establish a foolproof basis of all morality before we take our foot off the neck of our neighbour. Firstly, I don't think such a thing exists, so this is pretty much saying 'let's put it off til Doomsday', secondly we don't say 'let's convene a seminar and establish the basis of morality' before we feed the poor or clothe the needy, do we? I bet that's not your normal response, Johnny, to finding out that people about you are suffering. I bet you're one of the first people to help others and probably do a lot more of that than an obsessive historian-type like me who too easily goes chasing historical research in her spare time. I bet Sharkshooter is a far better more practical person who does far more good than me too.

And I suppose this is why the seeming mis-match hurts and bewilders. I do think it ultimately comes down to questions of biblical authority, just as it does on creationism. I find it bewildering that in the face of such a plethora of observational evidence that you can't read Genesis literally, that people still do. I find it bewildering having known lots of 'Out' gay people for over 25 years that anyone can think there is any harm in their relationships or that they're a worthy target for denying love, family and intimacy.

On the other hand, I do see from following these issues for a long time that for some people the idea of biblical authority cuts, if I can put it this way, the Gordian knot of human moral complexity. Instead of wrestling with the fact that there is no one grand over-arching theory of morality which allows us to get everything right, people want to ascribe that value to the Bible, claiming this removes subjectivity,and provides an objective standard of morality.

It doesn't. It simply means you have for whatever reason picked a set menu of texts to follow from which you wish to derive a moral code, where others will not derive their moral code from a single source. You still have to interpret these texts, you still have to use history and linguistics to get at what they mean, these are still subjective endeavours. Also you don't escape the responsibility of subjective human choice, because you've still made a fallible human choice to go for this set text as opposed to other set texts and non set-text models. The trouble with the single ancient set-text model is that if you stick to it too closely, it can't easily correct for errors which come out of historical contexts now almost inaccessible to us. Biblical interpretation needs some external checks and balances.

I could easily sit as a church historian, and list plenty of dreadful and cruel things nice, good, devout people did on the basis of biblical interpretations they thought were sound. That's what troubles me, and in this issue I see it very starkly indeed, that it seems to me that people allow a nice neat theory of authority and morality to blind them to doing things which are obviously cruel, because to admit that the nice neat theory, so fruitful and good for them in other ways, has problems too and is not entirely all-sufficient and infallible is too troubling a thing for them.

Which do you choose, the integrity of your theory or the suffering of your gay neighbour? I decided my off-the-peg system of scriptural morality had to go. The problems of transposing what is right in one ancient historical context into a vastly different culture, time and state of anthropological knowledge made that approach no longer tenable for me, but I know for lots of people that won't be an option

L.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

There's obviously a great deal to cover here, but I want to draw attention to an important point Eliab makes, perhaps unwittingly, but still very astutely.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

I do think, though, that someone ought to be able to hold the opinion that it is, without being responsible for all the evil stuff that others who have held that opinion have inflicted.

Yes - undoubtedly one ought to be able hold that opinion without incurring such responsibility. But the historical record shows that, as a matter of fact, the traditional Christian approach of trying to hold this position as a matter of doctrine while practicing respect and compassion for gay people on the ground, has not worked. The people who feel driven to seek recourse to suicide clearly are not able to navigate successfully the tension between the two hemipsheres of this position. So Johnny and sharkshooter and those who are like minded have a choice: as the bodies pile up they can stamp their feet and protest "But the Church ought to be able to teach this view without causing deaths" or they can say, "Well, whether we ought to or not, obviously we can't in fact do so, so let's get back to the drawing board and re-strategize instead of arguing about the fairness or unfairness of the empirical fact that we are not so able, even if we believe we 'ought' to be." And dead bodies are about as empirical as facts come.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

Are you saying that being gay is a form of infertility? Or (more likely) I've completely misunderstood you?

No, you understand me. While the circumstances of an infertile straight couple and a gay couple are certainly different, they are both in the position of being unable to produce children naturally for reasons for reasons beyond their control or culpability, and so in that sense I cannot say that they are different in a morally relevant sense.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you trying to say that in your view intention to have children is necessary, but not sufficient?
Yep, pretty much.

I am well aware that not everyone shares my definition (pace John Holding) but I would argue that it is still very much a mainstream view.

I'm not an Anglican but was married in the CofE. We had a standard ASB service at the time. I'm also very familiar with the BCP. They both explicitly state procreation as one of the purposes of marriage (not the main one, but certainly one of them).

All those Anglicans and Episcopalians out there - what do you feel when that bit is formally said at every wedding?

Well, in the Anglican CHurch of Canada, at many marriages -- particularly of women past menopause and men past, say, 65 -- it isn't read, in accordance with the rubrics which direct that it not be read in such cases (although I don't believe the rubric limits the omission only to old age). I'm reasonably certain that in the case of a couple which was medically unable to have children, regardless of age, it wouldn't be read. And I'm also reasonably certain that it is frequently omitted for all sorts of reasons as well.

I'm also reasonably sure that, regardless of what the rubrics may say -- that's also the practice in the CofE -- especially considering what shipmates from the CofE have taught me about the zeal and frequency with which rubrics and canons in the CofE are disreagrded and ignored.

John

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

It's the same in the Episcopal Church USA. The section about procreation is optional. Generally when the priest discusses the ceremony with the couple, they make a decision whether to include it or exclude it. [See: Book of Common Prayer: Holy Matrimony (Warning PDF!) page 429, 2nd to the last paragraph.)

I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case in most modern Prayers books throughout the developed world (England's "Common Worship", Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, etc.)

[ 19. October 2010, 20:03: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[See: Book of Common Prayer: Holy Matrimony (Warning PDF!)

I note especially the following prayer, which corresponds to a similar one in the Canadian rite:

quote:
Bestow on them, if it is your will, the gift and heritage of children, and the grace to bring them up to know you, to love you, and to serve you. Amen.

The grace invoked is to "bring them up" - the actual biological act is not referenced. This hardly seems in appropriate: as too many teenagers have learned the hard way, the prerequisites for conception are depressingly trivial compared to the grace required to be a good parent over the long haul. Sadly, there are clearly still those whose theology of marriage is largely reducible to the ability to get it up.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.
Since we obviously understand each other's position, but are at an impasse, I think I will have to sign off.

This is one of the clues that the "conservative" position is not a "faithfully-held position of conscience." Faced with hard questions about their position that they cannot answer satisfactorily, its proponents simply declare an "impasse" (meaning that they've run out of counter-arguments) and offer to "agree to disagree" (meaning to retain their position after it has outlived the arguments they gave in support of it). Sincere positions are discarded when they can no longer be accounted for. I'm reminded of the Jon Stewart joke about the Iraq War: "I'm sure if they knew we would find out there were no WMDs, they would have changed their mind - about the reason they were invading."

The fact is that people have made up their minds that gay relationships are wrong and will simply back-track the evidence to fit that view rather than vice versa. For some reason, discussions of sexuality has a tendency to switch off our reasoning faculties, and in the case of homosexuality causes even otherwise eminent theologians to take positions that wouldn't hold up in a first-year critical thinking class.

The impasse is that want to deny gay people the opportunity to form permanent monogamous relationships, but can't consistently do so in a way that salvages other relationships you wish to sanction but which are just as vulnerable to your arguments as gay ones. The solution to the impasse is to revise your position, and if this were merely an honest intellectual enterprise that's what you would do. But it's clear that the preservation your negative opinion of homosexuality is more important to you than its accuracy - and that is why it cannot be other than a disingenuous argument.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

Later I would find out that during that period when conservative Scots Christians queued to write to the letter pages and denounce gay and lesbian people across the media from TV to tabloid newspaper, the number of attacks on gay people went up. To those of you who want to claim this sort of thing doesn't happen, I can only say, it happened here.

Actually I was living in Edinburgh at the time and I remember it well. I can't remember the name of tabloid at the moment but I do remember the media campaign. From my recollection it would be fair to saying that plenty of Christians were naive in playing the media's game but I don't think it is fair to say that the acts happened because some Christians thought homosexuality is a sin.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
This is also why I have little patience with attempts to take us back into the 1st arts philosophy classroom and to claim we have to establish a foolproof basis of all morality before we take our foot off the neck of our neighbour. Firstly, I don't think such a thing exists, so this is pretty much saying 'let's put it off til Doomsday', secondly we don't say 'let's convene a seminar and establish the basis of morality' before we feed the poor or clothe the needy, do we? I bet that's not your normal response, Johnny, to finding out that people about you are suffering. I bet you're one of the first people to help others and probably do a lot more of that than an obsessive historian-type like me who too easily goes chasing historical research in her spare time. I bet Sharkshooter is a far better more practical person who does far more good than me too.

That is a really good point.

Although I suppose this fits into the "when I feed the poor they call me a saint, but when I ask why they are poor they call me a Communist" type discussion.

You are right that our reaction to suffering should not be theorising but should be action. Therefore the church should be at the fore-front of helping the gay community - especially those close to suicide. The theorising comes in when deciding whether communism is the answer to what's causing it or not.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
This is one of the clues that the "conservative" position is not a "faithfully-held position of conscience." Faced with hard questions about their position that they cannot answer satisfactorily, its proponents simply declare an "impasse" (meaning that they've run out of counter-arguments) and offer to "agree to disagree" (meaning to retain their position after it has outlived the arguments they gave in support of it). Sincere positions are discarded when they can no longer be accounted for.

No. You cannot have your cake and eat it LQ.

On several occasions, even on this thread, I've been asked why I bother posting on this thread if I haven't changed my mind yet. Intransigence and remaining in the discussion has been repeatedly cited as evidence for how callous I must be.

When someone like Sharkshooter treats individuals with respect don't confuse that with copping out of the discussion. This issue is not just about 'communities', it is about individuals too. I may 'agree to disagree' with someone when I can see that they are getting personally distressed by my arguments but that doesn't (necessarily) mean that I'm no longer able to account for my position.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.
Since we obviously understand each other's position, but are at an impasse, I think I will have to sign off.

Because you've hit upon the problem for Christianity and homosexuality. I'm increasingly becoming convinced that there is no way for a Christian to both uphold traditional teaching on homosexuality and be faithful to Christ's command to love God and to love neighbor.

Homosexuality is not the same thing as gossip, gluttony, or any other trait that the Church traditionally condemns. In those cases, the Church provides a pastoral response that allows a person to fully repent of this trait and be faithful to one's integrity. What LGBT people are saying is that to conform to the traditional teaching on homosexuality requires one to violate one's own integrity. In essence you are asking us to violate the commandment to bear false witness to be faithful to Romans 1.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And as far as the virgin birth bit goes doesn't it have to happen to be a miracle? I don't think hypothetical miracles count. I'm not being flippant here - God could do just about anything hypothetically. I am aware of couples conceiving 'miraculously' - and the scriptures are replete with them - but I'm not aware of this ever happening to a gay couple. I don't get the point you are making - i.e. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, just confused as to why you think this is significant.

I think you rather missed the point that many people believe it already HAS happened once.

There's a serious theological question there. If God thinks that heterosexual sex is so incredibly vital and important, why did he completely bypass it himself?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

To put it in similar language to we were using before: God apparently thinks that heterosexual sex might be sufficient for procreation, but it's not necessary.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.
Since we obviously understand each other's position, but are at an impasse, I think I will have to sign off.
Because you've hit upon the problem for Christianity and homosexuality. I'm increasingly becoming convinced that there is no way for a Christian to both uphold traditional teaching on homosexuality and be faithful to Christ's command to love God and to love neighbor.

Homosexuality is not the same thing as gossip, gluttony, or any other trait that the Church traditionally condemns. In those cases, the Church provides a pastoral response that allows a person to fully repent of this trait and be faithful to one's integrity. What LGBT people are saying is that to conform to the traditional teaching on homosexuality requires one to violate one's own integrity. In essence you are asking us to violate the commandment to bear false witness to be faithful to Romans 1.

Also, almost all of the Romans 1 vices are things that are obviously harmful. Homosexuality, at least as we understand it, doesn't physically harm anyone. Push to shove, the only arguments for harm I've heard are existential or posthumous (meaning you go to hell for being unrepentantly gay.) Being a malicious slanderer, gossip, a crafty covetous person, etc. These things are pretty obviously vices, but homosexuality between two people who love each other as if they were functionally married? Even before I decided that there was nothing wrong with being a gay Christian, that one always puzzled me. Might be a Keryg thread there...

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
This is one of the clues that the "conservative" position is not a "faithfully-held position of conscience." Faced with hard questions about their position that they cannot answer satisfactorily, its proponents simply declare an "impasse" (meaning that they've run out of counter-arguments) and offer to "agree to disagree" (meaning to retain their position after it has outlived the arguments they gave in support of it). Sincere positions are discarded when they can no longer be accounted for.
No. You cannot have your cake and eat it LQ.

On several occasions, even on this thread, I've been asked why I bother posting on this thread if I haven't changed my mind yet. Intransigence and remaining in the discussion has been repeatedly cited as evidence for how callous I must be.

When someone like Sharkshooter treats individuals with respect don't confuse that with copping out of the discussion. This issue is not just about 'communities', it is about individuals too. I may 'agree to disagree' with someone when I can see that they are getting personally distressed by my arguments but that doesn't (necessarily) mean that I'm no longer able to account for my position.

Withdrawing from the discussion because your position has not prevailed is not respect, it is copping out. It is the abdication of the responsibility of moral reasoning in order to defend one's ego from cognitive dissonance. No one is distressed by your arguments; we are distressed by your perseverance in your view in the absence of argument, as one by one they are called into serious question, and your only response is an assertion that you are able to account for your position. Well, that's good, but would you like to share that account with the rest of us? Because saying you can do it isn't the same thing.

So if, here on page 5, you can tell me why I am supposed to believe in a sadistic and arbitrary God, who wills that sexual relationships shall only take place within the context of heterosexual marriage, and then allows it to be the case that a certain proportion of people cannot fulfill that commandment, and that if they attempt to make do by forming a union with all of the features of a marriage enumerated in the Liturgy except for half of one ("procreation and bringing up in the fear of the Lord"), He views it as a sinful parody of the genuine penile-vaginal article, if you can tell me why the physical act of procreation is not only integral to the doctrine of marriage but also inseparable from each and every individual marriage - except in those cases where you think it's not - if you tell me that, and give me something, anything to go on in terms of an indication that you have an argument for all of this, then I would be absolutely ecstatic, and I say that without a trace of sarcasm.

If not, then please, just stop. Let gay people do our best to be disciples with the hand we've been dealt, and let our pastors and church families tend to us as they see fit, and take comfort that if your view is right you'll surely find out in the end and have your reward. Otherwise, you are being intransigent, you are tying up heavy burdens you have no intention of shouldering and shutting the gate to others when you will not go in, and you have no right to sit and demand that we accept your good faith as you consistently give us no evidence on which to do so.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Can we just also point out the obvious at this point?

Gluttony, gossip, lying, not honouring parents, coveting neighbour's possessions, etc. are sins because they actually hurt people, undermine trust, destroy relationships and tear apart communities. You don't have to believe in God to figure that out. Most of the atheists on this board would have no trouble agreeing that these things are "sinful" (even if they use another term).

Worshipping idols puts something else (another god?) in place of the real God.

At worst, being in a monogamous gay relationship breaks a purity code. It doesn't harm anyone in any objective, measurable way. It doesn't change the focus of worship from God to another entity.

It's a purity code. Likening it with things that actually cause measurable and objective harm ensures that the conversation/debate is going to break down because they are apples to oranges comparisons.

[ 20. October 2010, 00:46: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Just in case anybody's interested, here's something from the "New Reformation Press": - a PDF of a talk called "The Gospel for those Broken by the Church."

This guy probably isn't exactly pro-gay - he's Missouri Synod! - but at least he's speaking to real faith, and not to moralism. "Those Broken by the Church" might not be on our side, either - but they would understand, at least. At least, I think I understand them, after the experiences I've personally had with the church.

And I hate to say it, but this "Lutheranism" is the only version of Christianity that makes any real sense to me anymore. Actually, the guy says something really funny, something that gay people have been saying for decades: that we're pretty sure the "evangelical" moralists are going to be mighty surprised by who gets into heaven....

[ 20. October 2010, 01:52: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I worked for a Lutheran Missouri Synod church for a couple of years. Although their theology is much more conservative than mine, I was impressed at how conscious they were of how we all sin and miss the mark, and thus they were much less apt to go pointing their fingers at other people. Also, I was with them at the time of Desert Storm. At the outbreak the church had an evening service. It was not just a "protect our brave soldiers" rite. There was meditation on how war, any war, was part of the brokeness of the world. And we prayed that God would help all involved come to a peaceful resolution.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you rather missed the point that many people believe it already HAS happened once.

There's a serious theological question there. If God thinks that heterosexual sex is so incredibly vital and important, why did he completely bypass it himself?

Nobody is claiming that heterosexual sex is vitally important. Jesus was never married and he even said that there will be no sex in marriage.

Heterosexual sex being important for procreation is what I thought we were discussing. I still don't see this as a serious theological question. Surely the conclusion of your argument would be something like - when a gay couple miraculously conceive this would place a divine imprimatur on gay couples having children. I'm not sure it would but isn't that where your argument is heading?

I'm not aware of any Christian seriously applying the incarnation to humanity in such a way as that sex is not really necessary for procreation. It shows that God doesn't need it sure. I can't see how you can leap from that to gay sex though.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Withdrawing from the discussion because your position has not prevailed is not respect, it is copping out. It is the abdication of the responsibility of moral reasoning in order to defend one's ego from cognitive dissonance. No one is distressed by your arguments; we are distressed by your perseverance in your view in the absence of argument, as one by one they are called into serious question, and your only response is an assertion that you are able to account for your position. Well, that's good, but would you like to share that account with the rest of us? Because saying you can do it isn't the same thing.

(IMO) You're just digging the hole deeper here LQ.

This is an internet bulletin board. Last time I checked the posters don't get to decide if an argument is legitimate or not - not in an absolute sense at least. You obviously think that my arguments are not arguments. Your belief may even be shared by other posters on the ship but talking about an absence of argument is nothing more than bluster.

I've got to go away for the weekend tonight - I promise you that my temporary withdrawal is not copping out.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I worked for a Lutheran Missouri Synod church for a couple of years. Although their theology is much more conservative than mine, I was impressed at how conscious they were of how we all sin and miss the mark, and thus they were much less apt to go pointing their fingers at other people. Also, I was with them at the time of Desert Storm. At the outbreak the church had an evening service. It was not just a "protect our brave soldiers" rite. There was meditation on how war, any war, was part of the brokeness of the world. And we prayed that God would help all involved come to a peaceful resolution.

Yeah, that's what I'm seeing, too, and what I really appreciate - the consciousness of brokenness, and that nobody's free of it. That's what these "New Reformationists" are talking about, in fact: their contention is that the "theology of victory" (i.e., what's being preached in the churches is personal victory over sin) is a complete dead end and that the "theology of the cross" (i.e. the recognition of our weakness and brokenness - that there's no such thing as personal victory over sin) is the only way out.

What's always been frustrating to me - and to a not-negligible number of gay people, including I think quite a few on this thread - is that I'm fairly conservative myself, theologically! So I feel often like a fish out of water - not fitting in very well anywhere. Which isn't so bad, it turns out, actually - because I'm free to accept what I find from here and from there and make use of it. I'm not a "New Reformationist" either, really! - although I do believe that their notion of the "theology of the cross" is totally spot-on. There are things I really appreciate about the Catholic approach, too; people told me I'm indulging in "cafeteria Christianity" - but I don't care. The thing I dislike most, though, and am most furious with, is (American, anyway) Cultural Christianity of the alleged "Evangelical" sort. It's not religion - it's actually based on politics and a particular American culture - and has really done so much damage.

Anyway, there seems to be a growing sort of "New Reformation" movement around these days, and I'm for it - even though most of these people probably still think that "homosexuality is sin." At least they've recognized - along with us - how sick a lot of the church is today.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus was never married and he even said that there will be no sex in marriage.

I assume you meant no sex in heaven? [Biased]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
What's always been frustrating to me - and to a not-negligible number of gay people, including I think quite a few on this thread - is that I'm fairly conservative myself, theologically!

We should form a new denomination, or movement, or something. I'm not sure we're as rare as you think...

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:
Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
What's always been frustrating to me - and to a not-negligible number of gay people, including I think quite a few on this thread - is that I'm fairly conservative myself, theologically!
We should form a new denomination, or movement, or something. I'm not sure we're as rare as you think...

Word! I just realized that I'm a minority within a minority: i'm an openly gay Anglican who still fervently upholds the 1962 Book of Common Prayer. I get blamed by some of my heterosexual Anglican friends for being too damn conservative in my theology.

God has a sense of humor and irony.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:
Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
What's always been frustrating to me - and to a not-negligible number of gay people, including I think quite a few on this thread - is that I'm fairly conservative myself, theologically!
We should form a new denomination, or movement, or something. I'm not sure we're as rare as you think...

Oh, no! Not another denomination!

[Biased]

Seriously. Pretty soon, it'll be 1 member per each; not good demographics. But there are movements already, it's true: Affirming Catholicism, for instance, and things like it.

All I can think is that everything's in major flux right now. And given the lack of available middle ground in this particular discussion, I think the whole thing is going to have a pretty interesting effect on the church, ultimately. I think, in fact, that gay people are in the process of teaching the church (maybe even religion in general) something fairly important, although I must admit I'm not sure how it'll all shake out and what the ultimate lessons learned will be.

Probably - hopefully! - something nobody expects....

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Word! I just realized that I'm a minority within a minority: i'm an openly gay Anglican who still fervently upholds the 1962 Book of Common Prayer. I get blamed by some of my heterosexual Anglican friends for being too damn conservative in my theology.

God has a sense of humor and irony.

You're definitely not the only one I'm aware of who finds him/herself in this situation.

Irony indeed....

[ 20. October 2010, 13:45: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

When Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar interviewed at her current church, which said it valued its Anglo-Catholic liturgy (that turned out to be a laugh), somebody asked her if she supported the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church (or some variation of the question). She replied, "Yes. You have to if you value Anglo-Catholic liturgy."

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Last time I checked the posters don't get to decide if an argument is legitimate or not - not in an absolute sense at least.

But Johnny, this just isn't what is happening on this thread. I'm not complaining about illegitimacy, but absence. I'm not playing arbiter of valid arguments, but trying desperately to umpire and ensure that the discussion can be about arguments.

Upthread, I provided an analogy that illustrated and encapsulated the dilemma inherent to the conservative position that prevents me from being able to accept it. Clearly, you do not accept this analogy. But instead of explaining your reasons for rejecting it, you jump right over the argumentation part and straight into the accusation that I am unfairly presuming to judge your as yet pending arguments! After another lengthy post outlining the outstanding issues with your position, you continue to just protest that you "can account" for your position without giving me an inkling as to how you might go about that.

Now, I’m not surprised at this response: it’s a feature I’ve come to recognize as common to all arguments I’ve had with those who espouse your position, and I have long concluded that it is evidence that the arguments in question in fact are not forthcoming. Pre-trial motions are floated: conservatives believe the burden of proof is on those who seek change while gays feel they’re being presumed guilty until proven innocent and wonder why the view that on the surface certainly seems to give them a pretty sad lot in life ought not be held to a higher standard than the one whose potential to hurt the body of Christ is - as Dan notes above - far more obscure. Fine-spun arguments about the significance of reproduction in Thomistic systematic theology are rehearsed, and gay people, nodding throughout at the perfectly correct illustrations of the importance of procreative imagery in the narrative of salvation, but are still basically left scratching their heads asking “...so God thinks I’m a sinner because the family he actually gave me isn’t like the one in Eden like he was supposed to?.” And then, here endeth the lesson; and the conservatives open the hymn book to some familiar, all-purpose tune.

And six years after General Synod was supposed to approve local option, we’re still being assured the arguments are on their way, while the rest of us start to develop an uneasy feeling that you lot are just yanking our balls. Yet this inference is a cause of outrage for you: it is deeply unreasonable, you intimate, for me to conclude an inability to provide a reasonable argument in principle from a mere failure to do so in fact. I should, apparently, be charitable and assume that you are simply saving them for page 7 or so because as Bishop Blackie Ryan says “my kind of Chicago politician never talks business before dessert.”

But far from wishing to exclude your arguments, as your opponent I have a vested interest in hearing and weighing them if I am to hope to formulate my own response. I’m the last one to want to shove your arguments aside. It’s just that it’s the third act, and I’m starting to suspect Godot isn’t going to show.

[ 20. October 2010, 18:34: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
I'm not playing arbiter of valid arguments, but trying desperately to umpire and ensure that the discussion can be about arguments.

Sorry, this came off as more opaque than I meant. Rather, you're quite right that no one poster can pronounce judgement on the validity of an argument, but anyone familiar with the form of an argument can learn whether a post takes that form by reading it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you rather missed the point that many people believe it already HAS happened once.

There's a serious theological question there. If God thinks that heterosexual sex is so incredibly vital and important, why did he completely bypass it himself?
Nobody is claiming that heterosexual sex is vitally important. Jesus was never married and he even said that there will be no sex in marriage.

Heterosexual sex being important for procreation is what I thought we were discussing. I still don't see this as a serious theological question. Surely the conclusion of your argument would be something like - when a gay couple miraculously conceive this would place a divine imprimatur on gay couples having children. I'm not sure it would but isn't that where your argument is heading?

I'm not aware of any Christian seriously applying the incarnation to humanity in such a way as that sex is not really necessary for procreation. It shows that God doesn't need it sure. I can't see how you can leap from that to gay sex though.

I was addressing the idea that (attempted) procreation is necessary for marriage, that's all.

I suppose if you personally are going to exclude/refuse to marry heterosexual couples that can't or won't have children, you don't have a problem to address here.

At least, not on this front. You're totally out of step with the law and with a number of marriages I'm aware of being conducted in churches, though.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus was never married and he even said that there will be no sex in marriage.

I assume you meant no sex in heaven?

Oops.

Freud would have a field day.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

Upthread, I provided an analogy that illustrated and encapsulated the dilemma inherent to the conservative position that prevents me from being able to accept it. Clearly, you do not accept this analogy. But instead of explaining your reasons for rejecting it, you jump right over the argumentation part and straight into the accusation that I am unfairly presuming to judge your as yet pending arguments! After another lengthy post outlining the outstanding issues with your position, you continue to just protest that you "can account" for your position without giving me an inkling as to how you might go about that.

Okay, got you.

Isn't this what happens with DHs though? IMO two reactions arise over time that are in tension with each other:

1. We grow tired of rehearsing the same arguments - we don't want to begin all over again with another poster.

2. We get frustrated when we feel that people are not listening to each progressive step of our argument, and demanding that the debate be on their terms.

Bearing in mind these two common traits I'm happy to give you an inkling on whatever you want.

[ 25. October 2010, 12:34: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're totally out of step with the law and with a number of marriages I'm aware of being conducted in churches, though.

I thought I'd made it very clear that I was not talking about a civil definition of marriage and also that I'm not a huge fan of simply 'doing what they do in other churches.'

Funny that, being a non-conformist n' all. [Biased]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well if you're happy for the civil definition of marriage to be totally separate from the/your religious definition of marriage, you're a heck of a lot more progressive in that sense than a lot of people!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus was never married and he even said that there will be no sex in marriage.

I assume you meant no sex in heaven?

He was prophesying about people with small children.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
you're a heck of a lot more progressive in that sense than a lot of people!

Progressive is my middle name.

Although it is spelt slight differently... alright, with totally different letters.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But (ISTM) that is the point of the OP.
I really wanted to share experiences with others who had changed their minds and see how common the reasons were. Your version of my point really isn't correct, and focuses really rather narrowly on a single sentence of the OP out of context. I didn't have a single point.

In my late teens I had too many gay friends to think of them as being so different from straight people. Though I didn't really have a religious view on it at that time. But I had an adult re-conversion in an evangelical way back to Christianity about 20 or so, and I went along with 'because the Bible says so' for a number of years after that. I can recall conversations with other people - including my gay friends - arguing for the innate wrongness of homosexuality as an orientation.

In my mid-twenties, I found my Bible studying and theological reading leading me into more liberal paths quite naturally. And I felt that our modern understanding of human sexuality was hardly comprehensively treated in the scriptures. It seemed increasingly clear to me that there were serious problems in applying ancient cultural and philosophical restrictions to universal theological issues, such as sexuality, where cultural mores and knowledge of human nature changes and grows.

And therefore it seemed logical to me that we ought to take these new insights on board in our interpretation of scripture.

So I changed my mind. Mainly as a result of studying the scriptures in the light of my experience and understanding of gay acquaintances, and my understanding of the impact of increasing modern knowledge on the scripture.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0