Ship of Fools: The homosexuality debate

Thread: The homosexuality debate - book list request 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=028607

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

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.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

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]

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

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 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality - Daniel Helminiac - RC author who gives a detailed overview - liberal and scholarly.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

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!

Posted by StarlightUK (# 4592) on :

I intend purchasing a copy of They Gay Gospels by Keith Sharpe in the next few weeks.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

"The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart" by Peter Gomes

"Is the Homosexual My Neighbour?" by Scanzoni and Mollenkott

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

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.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Has anyone suggested James Alison's Faith Beyond Resentment ?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by StarlightUK:
I intend purchasing a copy of They Gay Gospels by Keith Sharpe in the next few weeks.

Pity they got Bishop Packer's name wrong.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Has anyone suggested James Alison's Faith Beyond Resentment ?

That is excellent, as are all his books.

Posted by whitebait (# 7740) on :

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.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

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.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

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. [Smile]

Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on :

I'll second thumbs up for Dirt,Greed,and Sex.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

And i will third it.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.)

Posted by Storm (# 878) on :

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.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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!

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Not at all - all grist to the mill!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Living it Out is rich in people's experiences, though it is theology/biblical-lite so would convince people who 'think' with their hearts but would not convert those homophobes who think with their heads.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Yes, I know and it's an over-simplification.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

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.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

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.

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Further information about Andrew Marin and the Marin Foundation on the BBC site

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

How interesting and refreshing.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

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]

Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :

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]

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 ]

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

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]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

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

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

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 ]

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

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.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

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.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
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.

I have met Hallett. Far from abandoning a gay 'lifestyle', whatever that is, he is obssessed by and spends most of his time attending conferences and speaking about it

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.'

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

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.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

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.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

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.

Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :

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!!

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

A book that was recommended to me was The Way Forward, which is an Anglican discussion in light of the St Andrew's Statement (which I'm afraid I hadn't heard of before). If anyone else has read it I would be interested in their reactions, but I didn't like it. My memory is that discussion centered on whether or not anyone can call themselves "gay", and reminded me of some of the less illuminating discussions I've read on the Ship. Hmmmm - maybe a Shipmate or two contributed to the book?

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

ah, the blessed 'gay lifestyle' mantra that gets repeatedly trotted out from kirk sessions, to presbyteries, to the floor of the General Assembly in the CofS.
I want someone, when they get up and use the phrase to explain what they mean by it... surely they don't mean it in the way I'm using it for my interwebz bookmark file 'lifestyle' in which there are sites for gardening, crafting, cooking...?
If people are going to trot out the phrase, at least have the common guts to just say 'by that I mean: 'teh gayz are all utterly promiscuous and do nothing but have 24/7 sexfests'

By the by, I've always been bemused by the fact that even in this dead horse, women are pretty much marginalised and invisible: it's all about blokes and penises.... aka male fear of loss of power and domination.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
If people are going to trot out the phrase, at least have the common guts to just say 'by that I mean: 'teh gayz are all utterly promiscuous and do nothing but have 24/7 sexfests'

Doesn't it just mean "living in a gay relationship, rather than being celibate"?

It may not be a particularly helpful or attractive phrase (and you can slap me if it turns out I've used it on the Ship) but it doesn't necessarily have any hidden meaning.

When ES is talking about someone who "abandoned his gay life style" it seems to be that he means no more and no less than "he stopped having sex or trying to have sex with men (or a particular man, if only one)". Saying "he stopped being gay" is problematic because "gay" can mean something that you are, or identify as, as much or more than it describes what you do - quite possibly the person in question did not "stop being gay". What he stopped doing was sleeping with men. That's all the phrase need mean.

(Not denying that the 'gay lifestyle phrase is not often loaded with homophobic assumptions, just that it isn't necessary to read them into anyone's views on this thread).

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
When I was 21 I took the position "I personally wouldn't marry a man who is shorter than me."

There, you see, my reaction to that is to consider that your 21 year old self was certainly quite odd and at worst a little bit shallow.

I don't assume for a moment that you have some deep hostility to or prejudice against short people. I don't like you any less because you felt that way, and even if I were shorter than you, I wouldn't be offended as much as amused.

Even if, as I presume is not the case, your preference had been based on a moral conviction that sex with short people is forbidden in your holy book, as long as you were willing to permit me to marry a woman taller than me, I don't see that you're doing me any harm. I don't need to agree with you about what your book means. It's just an odd thing about you that you read it that way. It doesn't need to be the basis of some grave injustice, and I'd have no expectation that it would naturally turn into one.

If we could treat moral objections to homosexuality that way, it'd be a better world, IMHO.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Hi Eliab,
I'm on a train and hugely sleep-deprived, so the big nuanced reply will have to come later, but for the love of goodness, 'lifestyle' in this context is a belittling term which demands that people's most intimate loving relationships only be evaluated in stark reductionistic terms of whether they do or do not have sex, and which adds insult to injury with its connotations of trivia and trendiness and optionality. It's as if I suggested there was no harm in me referring to Catholicism as 'Popery', despite repeated objections from Catholics, its historic connection with the persecution of Catholics and its ugly reductionist approach to their faith.

If people insist on using terms like this they are showing either prejudice or ignorance. Would you expect Catholic people to be comfortable with a poster who constantly goes on about 'Popish superstition' and 'idolatry'? 'Lifestyle' in this context is similar term.

L.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Eliab:

quote:
There, you see, my reaction to that is to consider that your 21 year old self was certainly quite odd and at worst a little bit shallow.

I don't assume for a moment that you have some deep hostility to or prejudice against short people. I don't like you any less because you felt that way, and even if I were shorter than you, I wouldn't be offended as much as amused.

I am getting annoyed now so I will probably stop contributing to the discussion after posting this...

My 21-year old self may well have been odd and shallow, but it is not at all unusual to find women who are not prepared to date short men. I know someone like that who is in her early 50s. Paradoxically, she is indignant that many single men are not prepared to date overweight women. These prejudices that you so easily dismiss as 'shallow' are conditioned responses to social expectations that women should marry men who are older and taller than themselves (ideally, also richer) and that all women should be young, thin and beautiful.

Would you feel the same way about women with this prejudice if you were unable to marry the girl of your dreams because she had it? If she was wavering about whether or not to marry you and all her friends and family were advising her against it? ('He's too short for you - he'll never be any taller!') If a good friend of yours was feeling suicidal because he was still unwillingly single at the age of 45, for no other reason than that he is three inches shorter than the average female height?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
'lifestyle' in this context is a belittling term which demands that people's most intimate loving relationships only be evaluated in stark reductionistic terms of whether they do or do not have sex, and which adds insult to injury with its connotations of trivia and trendiness and optionality.

Really? I would honestly never have read those connotations into it at all. If I've ever hear the phrase used to suggest that, then I utterly failed to recognise it.

The negative connotations it carries for me are almost exactly the opposite of that. I've heard it used by conservative Christians to distinguish between types of sins: the "lifestyle" element is there to explain why your long term affair or drug habit or marriage to a divorced person is worse than my violent outbursts or use of pornography or casual fornication. My sins are the sort that I can regret and repent of (until next time) as soon as I've stopped commiting them, but yours are such that you are consenting to them effectively all the time. If you ever seriously repented, you could and would give up the ‘life-style'. So therefore you can't be living a proper Christian life while commiting those sins, but I can despite all of mine.

I read the phrase as asserting that the sin is effectively a whole-life decision, but just a question of sinning at the point of illicit sex, and a serious one, made and kept to in one's sober moments, rather than an impulsive one. A life-style sin can be presented, by conservative Christians, as one that is for special reasons inconsistent with a Christian life-style, unlike, by unsurprising coincidence, all those other sins which the person might himself admit to having committed. I would never occur to me to read in a negative connotation of triviality or optionality.

I couldn't see any reason to suppose that Ender's Shadow (though certainly a conservative Christian) was trying to make any such distinction of sins in his post here. It seemed quite inappropriate to apply the negative weight that the phrase has for me to his post, because it seems at least as likely that he simply picked up the not-uncommon vocabularly to mean no more than "having sex with men". I agree that the phrase is worth avoiding, but I don't think that everyone who fails to avoid it impliedly says all the bad things you or I associate with it - especially as we seem to associate two very different and inconsistent sets of ideas.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
it is not at all unusual to find women who are not prepared to date short men...These prejudices that you so easily dismiss as 'shallow' are conditioned responses to social expectations

Would you feel the same way about women with this prejudice if you were unable to marry the girl of your dreams...If a good friend of yours was feeling suicidal...?

The first part of that suggests I was being too harsh on you by suggesting that you might once have been odd and shallow - the second part suggests I was not nearly harsh enough. I'm now genuinely confused what you think the correct response to this irrationality is, from someone who does not remotely share it. Should I be indulgent because it is apparently so normal, or condemnatory because it is apparently so serious?

I can't say it bothers me much either way. It really is nothing to me whether you'd prefer to sleep with someone who's tall or short, or (in an attempt to drag the tangent back vaguely on topic) male or female. I don't care. If I fell for you, and happened to be of the wrong height or gender, then that's just my bad luck. Life sucks, sometimes, but I don't have a moral right to have you consider me as a sex or marriage partner, and I don't suffer any injustice if for personal reasons I don't meet your idiosyncratic criteria. You are allowed not to go for short men. I'm allowed not to go for men at all. It's only when we start insisting that other people's rights should be curtailed to suit our personal preferences that we've done them an injury.

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
If people are going to trot out the phrase, at least have the common guts to just say 'by that I mean: 'teh gayz are all utterly promiscuous and do nothing but have 24/7 sexfests'
Doesn't it just mean "living in a gay relationship, rather than being celibate"?

It may not be a particularly helpful or attractive phrase (and you can slap me if it turns out I've used it on the Ship) but it doesn't necessarily have any hidden meaning.

When ES is talking about someone who "abandoned his gay life style" it seems to be that he means no more and no less than "he stopped having sex or trying to have sex with men (or a particular man, if only one)". Saying "he stopped being gay" is problematic because "gay" can mean something that you are, or identify as, as much or more than it describes what you do - quite possibly the person in question did not "stop being gay". What he stopped doing was sleeping with men. That's all the phrase need mean.

(Not denying that the 'gay lifestyle phrase is not often loaded with homophobic assumptions, just that it isn't necessary to read them into anyone's views on this thread).

Ah well then, my humble apologies: I suspect I react in the way I do to the term due to having sat through waaaay too many meetings where this phrase has been trotted out rather smugly with the implication being exactly as I noted: for 'lifestyle' read 'promiscuous'.
Mind, while I find the phrase hugely demeaning of people who live in loving long-term same-gender relationships, or those who are single and celibate, perhaps it does just manage to come a little lower down on the annoyance scale compared to having to put up with the term 'they are an abomination unto the Lord', which I've also had the displeasure of having heard in the upper courts of the kirk.
However YMMV...

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Have a look Eliab, at how most gay posters on the boards respond when they hear it -for example see Joan's post but I'm sure there are plenty others. Try plugging it into a Dead Horses search and then looking down the threads in printer view with control F. I guarantee you that you will find that's pretty much how it's heard and understood by the people you're talking to. It is very like trying to build bridges with Catholic posters while wanting to use words like popery, superstition or idolatry and then being surprised if people get frosty, hostile or distrustful with you!

L.

[ 10. October 2011, 13:56: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

Fair point.

It's not a phrase I'm at all inclined to use, but I am not convinced that ES used it on this thread to mean anything except "having sex with men".

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Eliab:

quote:
I'm now genuinely confused what you think the correct response to this irrationality is, from someone who does not remotely share it. Should I be indulgent because it is apparently so normal, or condemnatory because it is apparently so serious?

OK, one last try and then I'm out of here.

I was attempting to use an analogy to explain why people find your use of the phrase 'homosexual lifestyle' so offensive. Being homosexual is like being black, or being five inches shorter than the next man (who may be an asshole, but if potential mates are selecting for height that is not going to help you). It is an essential part of your being WHICH CANNOT BE CHANGED. To most people, 'lifestyle' suggests a way in which you choose to live. If you are sick of the urban lifestyle, you can pack your bags and move to the country. If you are sick of being short (or black, or gay) there is not much you can do about it.

Thank you for the explanation of 'lifestyle sins' - I think you're right about it being a nasty way of suggesting that the mote in your brother's eye is bigger than the beam in yours.

And just for the record, I think the correct response to this irrational prejudice against short men is to challenge it. Also:

quote:
It's only when we start insisting that other people's rights should be curtailed to suit our personal preferences that we've done them an injury.

There we are in agreement. But if you really believe that your holy book says that having sexual relations with other men is wrong for you, why don't you want to persuade all your (male) friends that it's wrong for them as well? Do you think those parts of the holy book were only addressed to you, or that there is some doubt about whether they really mean what you think they do?

And if you're interested in my views, I believe the Bible says having sex with anyone other than my husband is wrong for me. But it offers no other advice on what to do if you're a woman attracted to other women (as Joan Knox rightly points out), so if my husband died I would be free to consider either men or women as potential partners.

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

Eliab:

quote:
Fair point.
It's not a phrase I'm at all inclined to use, but I am not convinced that ES used it on this thread to mean anything except "having sex with men".

which brings us back to reductionism as per Louise:

quote:
'lifestyle' in this context is a belittling term which demands that people's most intimate loving relationships only be evaluated in stark reductionistic terms of whether they do or do not have sex

Now, while the idea of 24/7 sexfests might sound a grand/ or debauched thing depending upon one's point of view, personally, I wonder how if this were the case, that I'd pay my mortgage, write my thesis, buy the groceries.... dang, I'm also pretty poor at diy, and haven't shaved my head recently.
Actually, I'm a very poor advert for the lifestyle: I'll just get my leather jacket and hand my gaycard in at the door. [Disappointed]

With regard to the example ES provided, and following up again on Louise's comments: so, hurrah for the good gay man who heroically sacrifices himself upon the altar of heterosexuality...the absolutely splendid thing about the case given was that 2 children were created during the union, effectively saving the wife via childbirth.
Heterosexism: saving women through childbirth down through the centuries...???

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I'm sorry - I thought this was a thread about books. Have I got something wrong?

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

[sigh] No, Robert Armin, you are quite right [/sigh]

Even I had not noticed that the thread has drifted into tangent.

Back on course, please, everyone. There are other threads available to discuss the boring subject further ...

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

To be honest, I only noticed because I mentioned a book that I thought other people might have read, and was hoping for some thoughts on it. If my ego hadn't been involved I doubt I would have noticed the drift either [Big Grin]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

Tangent continued and enlarged upon here.

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Thanks, Eliab - good move

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0