|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The homosexuality debate - book list request
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Starting afresh, after a mis-judged attempt at light heartedness (for which I consider myself duly chastened, so please don't kick my arse on this one too).
Thanks to Think² and Qoheleth for some pointers on the aforementioned error thread.
If anyone else has suggestions for informative, balanced investigations/treatments of the whole thorny subject of homosexuality and the bible/Christianity, I would be grateful for pointers. Either web articles or books/papers available commercially. Ideally stuff which approaches it from as neutral position as possible, in terms of not setting out to "prove" the case one way or the other, but to examine what's actually there, and how it does/doesn't mesh with the wider message of the gospel/Christianity.
I'm also open to reading good stuff that does have an axe to grind, but would rather not shell out readies for it if it's clear that the person writing it is putting their axe above, for want of a better word, academic objectivity when it comes to looking at text/context.
Does that make sense?
I accept that it's probably an area where very few are truly objective, because we're all coloured by our backgrounds, personal viewpoints, teaching we receive and so on, but I'm hoping there's some stuff out there which walks the line. I'm also aware that there's unlikely to be a killer definitive answer that will bring about global Christian harmony; I'm not looking for that, just some solid exegesis/commentary.
And, to try and avoid pre-supposition as to what the above might mean about my own personal views, I'm on the liberal continuum rather than the conservative. Exactly where on that continuum is probably a relative rather than absolute thing.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
I'm currently reading "Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality - Explode the Myths, Heal the Church" by Jack Rogers. I've not got very far with it but it's been recommended to me by a friend I trust as a well-argued and scholarly book. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Thanks. The (solitary) Amazon review isn't too complimentary, although obviously comes from a rather particular viewpoint. There are some interesting possibilities following the chain of "People who bought this ..." though, and I'm intrigued by the original too.
[ 08. September 2011, 19:35: Message edited by: Snags ]
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
On the closed thread, Qoheleth mentioned Some issues in human sexuality (Church House Publishing, 2003)......given the nature of the debate, they are probably going to be as even-handed as you'll get.
This book is NOT even-handed. It misquotes authors, e.g. my friend Philip Budd's Hebrew commentary on Leviticus to make him sound ANTI gay when he is pro.
The not-so-hidden agenda is to use scholars to prove that homosexuality is forbidden in scripture. To do so, it has an editorial bias against liberals.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
Try George Hopper's book, Reluctant Journey, which is available online.
He does come from one point of view, but in the book he recounts the reasoning that took him to that point of view from the opposing one.
And it's free!
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Quite honestly, I suspect that the best that can be done on this issue is to read books written from as many shades of opinion as you can, or can cope with reading, and then form your own position. I'm not convinced that a truly even-handed account is possible, because the issue engages so many different questions, and thus prejudices, in any author.
For me, the novels of Michael Arditti are a peerless articulation of the gay perspective. My favourite remains his first, "The Celibate". Michael Vesey's book "Strangers and Pilgrims" retains a special place in the discussion, given that he was an evangelical who attempted to take seriously the idea that homosexuality is admissible in God's eyes, and that this struggle arguably cost him his life. What makes it particularly special to me is that I took part in a discussion with him on the process he had been through not that long before he indeed ended his life. Something of the martyr's relic about it therefore, to me at least.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
whitebait
Shipmate
# 7740
|
Posted
Jeramy Townsley has a link page to his and others research into some of the biblical issues.
He is pro-gay, but handles opposing views very even handedly.
I found his pages very helpful when I was working through some of the issues myself.
--------------------
small fry on a journey
Posts: 151 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
A very good book for untangling the entire Mosaic code (including homosexuality) is L. William Countryman's "Dirt, Greed and Sex". It was a big help is making the Mosaic code seem less arbitrary.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by whitebait:
Jeramy Townsley has a link page to his and others research into some of the biblical issues.
Lots of very interesting reading there. Thank you.
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
I'll second thumbs up for Dirt,Greed,and Sex.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Try Love is an Orientation by Andrew Marin
He runs The Marin Foundation . He says he was a bible-banging homophobe but he and his wife now live in Boystown, Chicago. His organisation exists to build bridges between the church and gay communities by what he calls 'elevating the conversation'.
I think his book's v. good on dealing with differences and Christlike love. He gets flak from some conservative types.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Try Love is an Orientation by Andrew Marin
While I would highly recommend that book, it is not an analysis or presentation of the case for or against acceptance of homosexuality. It is a personal (and compelling) account of an attempt to life the gospel given that there are people alienated and hurt by attitudes on an issue which is controversial within the church, not a contribution to or an assessment of that controversy.
(Which I think is its value. Most of the time, straight people don't actually need to hold or express a view on the ethics of other people's sexuality.)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Storm
Apprentice
# 878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
While I would highly recommend that book, it is not an analysis or presentation of the case for or against acceptance of homosexuality. It is a personal (and compelling) account of an attempt to life the gospel given that there are people alienated and hurt by attitudes on an issue which is controversial within the church, not a contribution to or an assessment of that controversy.
(Which I think is its value. Most of the time, straight people don't actually need to hold or express a view on the ethics of other people's sexuality.)
On this kind of note, I would also recommend Exchanging the Truth of God for a Lie by Jeremy Marks of Courage UK (used to be an "ex-gay" ministry and caused a minor scandal when it became an affirming the evangelical ministry instead) -- it's pastoral/narrative rather than expository and it is from someone who clearly has come to a firm conclusion himself on the matter, so it doesn't meet your requirements. But it's written from a firmly evangelical position and in many ways is about cristians who are explicitly evangelical wrestling with these issues, so I would describe it as useful -- if sometimes painful -- reading about the wider context of the debate.
Posts: 18 | From: a place called vertigo | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Thanks all - there's some interesting sounding stuff coming through, and I can see my shopping basket and web reading is going to be fulsome in the near future.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Try Love is an Orientation by Andrew Marin
He runs The Marin Foundation . He says he was a bible-banging homophobe but he and his wife now live in Boystown, Chicago. His organisation exists to build bridges between the church and gay communities by what he calls 'elevating the conversation'.
I think his book's v. good on dealing with differences and Christlike love. He gets flak from some conservative types.
There is a piece on him on the BBC's online magazine today and a broadcast on the World Service coming up over the next few days.
I was contemplating starting a thread on him, saw him mentioned here and thought perhaps my interest in the topic was close enough to the OP to be added. I'd be interested to hear of any first-hand experience of the guy, and/or shipmates' reaction to the article or the programme as and when it's broadcast. Snags, I hope you don't mind!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I'd recommend Living It Out Rachel and Sarah Haggger-Holt, Canterbury Press, 2009
http://www.livingitout.com/
It is by two evangelical lesbians with accounts of the experiences/opinions of various LGTB Christians (although only L and G as far as I could tell.)
I was one of the G contributors. It made me revise my views of evangelicals.
And James Allison is wonderful also, as someone said above.
If I can find this thread again after mass, I'll post something about Liz Stuart.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
leo -
There quite a bit of scriptural exegesis, but it is primarily a work of witness.
You seem to imply two hard and fast dichotomies: head/heart, pro-gay/anti-gay: if something is not one, it must be the other. Life isn't that simple.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
We've had Andrew Marin to speak at Spring Harvest the last couple of years. He's been good at stimulating our guests to listen and engage with the stories of LGBT people, and his work is rooted in that culture in Chicago. All part of elevating the conversation without necessarily finding agreement.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
A thorough historical and scholarly review of the practice and thought of early Christianity (ie up to 400 CE) is Peter Brown's The Body and Society.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Further information about Andrew Marin and the Marin Foundation on the BBC site
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
All part of elevating the conversation without necessarily finding agreement.
From this gay man's point of view:
There is a certain amount of hostility towards Marin amongst non-straight folks, and especially those who identify as not-straight and Christian, precisely for that reason. Marin is viewed as having a secret agenda and potentially just another strain of the vile ex-gay view. Because his is not forthright with his actual views (though we all suspect it's the traditional line), some refuse to trust him or engage with him.
"Look at that nice, straight white Christian boy living amongst those horrible, sinful gay people in Chicago. He's a saint." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
I highly recommend this book, "Bulletproof Faith" by Candace Chelew-Hodge. Not only have I read it but I know the author. She used to be a member of my church and was ordained by my church's senior pastor.
Short Link - as requested
I apologize for the long link. I still don't know how to do the short ones. Gotta read up on that! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Hie thee to the Styx and try it on the UBB Practice Thread. Use the URL button below the text box, enter the link and then the text. Seemples - nyet? TK
[ 30. September 2011, 19:17: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
igeek said
"There is a certain amount of hostility towards Marin amongst non-straight folks, and especially those who identify as not-straight and Christian, precisely for that reason. Marin is viewed as having a secret agenda and potentially just another strain of the vile ex-gay view. Because his is not forthright with his actual views (though we all suspect it's the traditional line), some refuse to trust him or engage with him."
Marin's stated reason for not giving a view is that, once you give a view, others know what you believe and know how they should treat you.
What's the reason for him being thought an ex-gayer? He seems quite poker-faced. I would have thought that as his organisation is disparate, it's not really possible for it to have a theological position and function in the way it does.
I heard him talk at Spring Harvest. Someone asked him about ex-gay stuff. He said that what that tended to achieve was modified behaviour, moving people slightly along the spectrum of sexuality rather than switching people over.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
There is a certain amount of hostility towards Marin amongst non-straight folks, and especially those who identify as not-straight and Christian, precisely for that reason. Marin is viewed as having a secret agenda and potentially just another strain of the vile ex-gay view. Because his is not forthright with his actual views (though we all suspect it's the traditional line), some refuse to trust him or engage with him.
I've heard him speak 3 times and spoken with him once, and if he isn't wholly sincere, he's doing a better job of faking it than anyone I know.
At Spring Harvest this year he gave his "actual views"* in response to a public direct question (homosexual orientation cannot ever be a sin, homosexual acts might be), so I don't think he does keep his personal opinions secret so much as feeling that they are not the contribution he is called to make. He doesn't think it's his job to judge people for having a different personal sexual ethic (whether more liberal or more conservative than his).
I don't see that this can fairly or charitably be made a ground of suspicion. After all, it's how many Christians routinely approach other aspects of sexual morality. I personally think that pre-marital sex is wrong, but none of my friends who disagree with that (ie. almost all of them) expect me to be hostile or judgemental to them as a result. I'll explain and defend my personal ethic to someone who wants to debate me on the point, but I'd think it absurd to make disagreement about that a reason to break a friendship or exclude from a church. Why not apply that sort of approach to homosexuality? The relationship between the two sides ought to matter more than their disagreements.
* I think you misrepresent the case by using the phrase "actual views" here. It implies that the view of the ethics of homosexual conduct is primary, and the decision about how to treat homosexuals follows from it. I am pretty certain that Marin has it (rightly) the other way around. His real ‘actual views' are that non-straights are as important, loved by God, and worth listening to as anyone else, and that the church urgently needs to learn and convey that fact. His personal sexual ethic is very much secondary to that.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Right, well that's the "The Good Book", "Dirt, Greed and Sex", and "A new kind of Christianity" ordered.
The Marin was out of stock, but if anyone wants to get it for me as a present, that'll be just fine ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
I don't see that this can fairly or charitably be made a ground of suspicion. After all, it's how many Christians routinely approach other aspects of sexual morality. I personally think that pre-marital sex is wrong, but none of my friends who disagree with that (ie. almost all of them) expect me to be hostile or judgemental to them as a result. I'll explain and defend my personal ethic to someone who wants to debate me on the point, but I'd think it absurd to make disagreement about that a reason to break a friendship or exclude from a church. Why not apply that sort of approach to homosexuality?
But that's not a fair comparison, Eliab. The dim view of pre-marital sex didn't stigmatise all straight people except a tiny group of celibates (who even then would be regarded as dodgy or to be pitied, despite the supposed orthodox line on it). Views on pre-marital sex didn't uphold or support continuing widespread discrimination against straight people as a class. The 'acts versus orientation' line on homosexuality has mostly been a cover story for a blanket prejudice akin to racism, where this line is used to provide a fig-leaf.
There are people who are sincere in taking this line with the best possible motives, but it is still a position akin to holding that black people are nice people, they just mustn't ever be allowed to marry whites and mix the races because that is wrong. Would you really expect your black friends to just overlook that as a wee Christian peccadillo that shouldn't get in the way of friendship?
These positions come with historical baggage. Good people who take this position align themselves with a history of systematic discrimination. Fair enough it may be as far as someone can in conscience go, but that doesn't mean that gay people should be expected to wholeheartedly embrace someone whose conscience only goes thus far. It's very graceful and forgiving of them if they do, in my opinion.
cheers,
L
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I'm fairly sure that debate about gays/lesbians is a massive displacement exercise to avoid looking at divorce, male masturbation, artificial contraception and pre-marital sex.
[ 30. September 2011, 20:39: Message edited by: venbede ]
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
In my tradition, these days only the first and last are likely to be even remotely delicate or "hot" subjects. And the first is accepted, the last seen as wrong.
If it's a screen for anything, it's for ducking avarice, usury, gossip, selfishness etc. Although to be strictly fair, I don't go to a church that particular exercises itself over the sexual stuff - most of it is just a given, and the day to day concerns and teaching are more balanced. I suspect my views on sexuality would not be in the majority if and when it does come up, mind.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
I don't see that this can fairly or charitably be made a ground of suspicion. After all, it's how many Christians routinely approach other aspects of sexual morality. I personally think that pre-marital sex is wrong, but none of my friends who disagree with that (ie. almost all of them) expect me to be hostile or judgemental to them as a result. I'll explain and defend my personal ethic to someone who wants to debate me on the point, but I'd think it absurd to make disagreement about that a reason to break a friendship or exclude from a church. Why not apply that sort of approach to homosexuality?
But that's not a fair comparison, Eliab. The dim view of pre-marital sex didn't stigmatise all straight people except a tiny group of celibates (who even then would be regarded as dodgy or to be pitied, despite the supposed orthodox line on it). Views on pre-marital sex didn't uphold or support continuing widespread discrimination against straight people as a class. The 'acts versus orientation' line on homosexuality has mostly been a cover story for a blanket prejudice akin to racism, where this line is used to provide a fig-leaf.
There are people who are sincere in taking this line with the best possible motives, but it is still a position akin to holding that black people are nice people, they just mustn't ever be allowed to marry whites and mix the races because that is wrong. Would you really expect your black friends to just overlook that as a wee Christian peccadillo that shouldn't get in the way of friendship?
These positions come with historical baggage. Good people who take this position align themselves with a history of systematic discrimination. Fair enough it may be as far as someone can in conscience go, but that doesn't mean that gay people should be expected to wholeheartedly embrace someone whose conscience only goes thus far. It's very graceful and forgiving of them if they do, in my opinion.
cheers,
L
A conservative married Evangelical friend of mine successfully discomfited his bishop, who is relatively gay friendly; know the proposed subject of the meeting, the bishop was expecting the usual simplistic rhetoric. Having made clear his opposition to gay sex, he then admitted that he struggles with gay tendencies (his wife was aware of the situation before they married and it seems to be working out - they've two children). It's the existence of such people - who tend to keep their position quiet - as well as any number of other gays who live celibate lives from religious conviction - that makes that sort of point scoring obnoxious. Your approach is as delegitimising as the total rejection of all with a gay orientation in the past - and equally unfair.
My book recommendation therefore has to be Martin Hallett's Still learning to Love which is the story of the founder of the True Freedom Trust, who abandoned his gay life style after becoming a Christian; the personal testimony of someone who has made a very big sacrifice as a result of his faith.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I don't know what a gay life style is meant to mean. Letting a man you love lean on your breast during supper with other friends?
And silly gay promiscuity is just as silly, potentially hurtful or harmless as straight promiscuity.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't know what a gay life style is meant to mean. Letting a man you love lean on your breast during supper with other friends?
And silly gay promiscuity is just as silly, potentially hurtful or harmless as straight promiscuity.
The gay 'lifestyle' is arguing about which brand to buy in the supermarket, which TV channel to watch, who can go to the bathroom first, which way round the toilet paper goes.
In short, very much like the 'straight lifestyle.'
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
A conservative married Evangelical friend of mine successfully discomfited his bishop, who is relatively gay friendly; know the proposed subject of the meeting, the bishop was expecting the usual simplistic rhetoric. Having made clear his opposition to gay sex, he then admitted that he struggles with gay tendencies (his wife was aware of the situation before they married and it seems to be working out - they've two children). It's the existence of such people - who tend to keep their position quiet - as well as any number of other gays who live celibate lives from religious conviction - that makes that sort of point scoring obnoxious. Your approach is as delegitimising as the total rejection of all with a gay orientation in the past - and equally unfair.
My book recommendation therefore has to be Martin Hallett's Still learning to Love which is the story of the founder of the True Freedom Trust, who abandoned his gay life style after becoming a Christian; the personal testimony of someone who has made a very big sacrifice as a result of his faith.
Someone bisexual choosing a partner from one sex and being faithful to them is not that uncommon. That doesn't legitimise insisting that gay relationships are wrong or invalid, or in anyway make that position harmless.
But if you're wanting to claim that the person in question has no or little attraction to his wife and that it is somehow wonderful that he's forced himself into marriage and that this is what gay people should do, then attitudes like that are precisely why, much as I argued above to Eliab, this position can not be classified à la Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy' as 'mostly harmless'. Even more so if you want to use cases like that to try to delegitimise the experience of gay people who are happily married to each other.
Eliab, that position may seem on the surface 'mostly harmless', but what it actually involves is gay people as a class being asked to do the equivalent of drinking a big bottle of poison, and then because there's a handful of people who are so constituted as to survive poisoning, the traditionalists of this world will decree that they must keep on drinking it, generation after generation. That's why I don't concur with you that it "can't fairly or charitably be made a ground of suspicion." Bear in mind, that it when it ends up with gay people being talked into heterosexual marriages as their only sanctioned route to family life, that for the very few cases that the ex-gay ministries et al. can show off, there's a trail littered with damage to both husbands and wives.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
A favourite book is "Dreaming of Eden", a compilation edited by Kathy Galloway and published by Wild Goose for the Iona Community. It's more about homosexual people than homosexuality. Another, rather unusual one, is by a woman from a fundamentalist background coming to terms with her son's sexuality, "No Ordinary Child", by Jacqueline Ley, also published by Wild Goose. Perhaps you could call it folk theology, but it works.
The Presbyterian Church in Canada had a General Assembly Special Committee study the subject, and their report was published in 2003 along with a study guide called "Listening...". Of course, it was controversial, but looks pretty harmless at this distance. Some sections of the report were included in the PCC's Social Action Handbook. The policies of the PCC are more conservative than these reports would lead you to expect, but that's church for you.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...Martin Hallett's Still learning to Love which is the story of the founder of the True Freedom Trust, who abandoned his gay life style ...
This is how I know you are speaking bollocks.
I for one won't be abandoning who and what I am. Living in truth and authenticity is is not only more Christlike, it's healthier.
Your odious framing (about which you know nothing from first hand experience) stinks like a pile of excrement.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...Martin Hallett's Still learning to Love which is the story of the founder of the True Freedom Trust, who abandoned his gay life style ...
This is how I know you are speaking bollocks.
I for one won't be abandoning who and what I am. Living in truth and authenticity is is not only more Christlike, it's healthier.
Your odious framing (about which you know nothing from first hand experience) stinks like a pile of excrement.
WTF is the "Gay Lifestyle" anyway? I guess that means as a lesbian, I'm expected to secretly desire to be a man and/or have a penis, am expected to hate all men and be good with power tools. And for a Gay man, he naturally will want to buy antiques all the time and/or operate a hair salon. He'll know ALL about fashion and celebrity gossip and like to garden with a flowered bonnet on his head.
Why don't we ever hear about the "Heterosexual Lifestyle"? That would be where the men control their women and treat them like property and the little wifey only wants to stay at home and raise twelve children... yeah, ridiculous, right? God save me from ignorant and self-righteous breeders!!
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
The policies of the PCC are more conservative than these reports would lead you to expect, but that's church for you.
What aggravated me about the non-concurring Presbyterian study at the time was that it spent pages and pages noting the various problems with the status quo and then in the conclusion flipped back 'But we're sticking with it anyway'. My English teachers taught us to read our essays to make sure we hadn't talked ourselves out of our thesis in the course of the body: this read like that hadn't been done.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
But that's not a fair comparison, Eliab. The dim view of pre-marital sex didn't stigmatise all straight people except a tiny group of celibates (who even then would be regarded as dodgy or to be pitied, despite the supposed orthodox line on it). Views on pre-marital sex didn't uphold or support continuing widespread discrimination against straight people as a class. The 'acts versus orientation' line on homosexuality has mostly been a cover story for a blanket prejudice akin to racism, where this line is used to provide a fig-leaf.
I agree with that as a general point, but in discussing Andrew Marin, who could not possibly be more explicit that is utterly opposed to stigmatising and discriminating against gay people and spends his working life telling Christians that they need to listen to gay people and genuinely value their experiences and contributions to any consideration of sexuality, an assumption of prejudice seems mean-spirited in the extreme.
quote:
There are people who are sincere in taking this line with the best possible motives, but it is still a position akin to holding that black people are nice people, they just mustn't ever be allowed to marry whites and mix the races because that is wrong. Would you really expect your black friends to just overlook that as a wee Christian peccadillo that shouldn't get in the way of friendship?
A moral judgement against homosexuality doesn't imply that homosexual relationships "mustn't ever be allowed". You also need to conclude that it's sufficiently wrong that prohibition is justified, that it's the sort of wrong that the law should prevent, that in terms of practical policy the law could be passed and enforced, and that the benefits of doing so outweight the harms. None of those are at all obvious even if you think that gay sex is a sin.
If there's a comparison with racism at all, it's more like taking the position "I personally wouldn't marry outside my own race". It's even more like saying "I personally wouldn't marry outside my own religion", which a fair number of people in fact do say, and many who think it is odd do indeed tend to overlook it as a harmless idiosyncrasy.
quote:
These positions come with historical baggage. Good people who take this position align themselves with a history of systematic discrimination.
Yes, but unfortunately so. It ought to be possible to say "I've read the Bible and I do think it would be wrong for me in any circumstances to have sex with another man." Saying that really doesn't harm anyone. Except possibly the man I might be having sex with, and he'll get over it.
I think I do have an obligation, if I take that line, not to be a tacit supporter or condoner of discrimination. I ought to recognise that views like mine can lead to injustice, and can be exploited to give comfort to bigots. I don't think that they become untenable as moral views because they have been so exploited
The comparision with pre-marital sex indicates that without the history of discrimination, my personal sexual ethics do not have to translate into injustice to people who have different view. I can be thoroughly opposed to discrimination against gays (and ought to be) whether or not I would think it morally acceptable to have gay sex myself, and whether or not I think it's my place to share my views on the matter with others.
The association between a conservative sexual ethic and personal homophobia is, at most, what the law would call a rebuttable presumption. It may, unfortunately, be true that lots of people with conservative views have been and still are homophobes, but it is definitely not true that they are necessarily homophobes. It might be fair enough to ask for some evidence of good faith, but once you have it, it absolutely is not fair enough to continue to suspect some hidden agenda or insincerity. Once there's evidence against the presumption of homophobia (as there assuredly is in Mr Marin's case) it is unfair to persist with the suspicion anyway, for exactly the same reason that it's unfair to suspect anyone of grave wrong without credible reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
And for a Gay man, he naturally will want to buy antiques all the time...
Liking antiques doesn't make you gay. At most, it makes you buy curios.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Eliab: quote:
It's even more like saying "I personally wouldn't marry outside my own religion", which a fair number of people in fact do say, and many who think it is odd do indeed tend to overlook it as a harmless idiosyncrasy.
When I was 21 I took the position "I personally wouldn't marry a man who is shorter than me."
Then I met the man I wanted to marry, who was (and is) about an inch shorter than me. If I had stuck to my principle I would have made two people miserable. I don't know exactly how miserable, because we've been married for 22 years now and are (still) happy. Maybe we'd have got over it. Maybe I'd have met someone else I could have loved as much who was a couple of inches taller.
I didn't want to take the risk. I am glad I didn't.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
