Thread: Homosexuality - living as an ethical conservative 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=028610
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
This continues a tangent from the homosexuality book request thread here. A brief summary of the discussion points there that interested me:
- iGeek's contention that a Christian writer and speaker (Andrew Marin) who argues for better understanding and dialogue between Christians and gays may have a hidden agenda on the basis that he (probably) has a conservative sexual ethic.
- Louise's argument that to take a conservative position, especially one based on an acts/orientation distinction, is to align oneself with a tradition of prejudice and discrimination and therefore to invite suspicion.
- A discussion on what exactly are the negative connotations of phrases like "the gay lifestyle" and whether it is reasonable to presume that someone using the phrase intends to endorse those negative views.
- JaneR's question "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?"
If anyone thinks that this summary misrepresents their stated position, then I speak subject to their correction.
I want to take those issues a bit further in this way:
Suppose I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's authoritative word (infallible/inerrant, if you like, but the essential point is that I acknowledge some sort of overarching obligation to do what, properly understood, the Bible tells me). If it makes the empathy any easier, you may add that I also accept to some extent the authority of the Christian church's tradition as a means or guide to interpreting scripture.
Suppose that, having those views, I read Leviticus, and Romans, and the rest of the homosexuality verses, and it looks to me that they do intend mean, and are intended to mean, that every instance of sexual activity between persons of the same sex is forbidden. I find my view supported by a historical Christian tradition.
Suppose that I then go on to consider, in good faith, all context and the counter-arguments, every reasonable other interpretation, and find nothing to convince me. I do genuinely understand what is being argued against the conservative position, but I cannot in good conscience accept it. I feel that to do so would be an attempt to evade the consequences of what my best judgement of what the Bible says would require.
The question is - what are my obligations having (hypothetically) reached that position?
I'm aware that the position itself has been argued against (on occasion, by me) but for this discussion I want to take it as a given. Is it possible that, holding those views, one could live out one's principles in a consistent, ethical, loving and Christian way? Is it right, or possible (or even desireable) that any person holding those views has a right to be treated by gay people without hostility or suspicion? If so, in what circumstances?
Or is it the case that the conservative position is inherently wrong, or inherently damaging? That it is not, and ought not, to be acceptable to gay people (and their sympathisers) for others to even hold it as a private opinion, just as we would condemn privately-held racist opinions?
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?
What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I think that the conservative position is inherently wrong and inherently damaging.
So I would ask those who hold to it to re-think their position. Just as I would anyone who holds racist views.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Is it possible that, holding those views, one could live out one's principles in a consistent, ethical, loving and Christian way? Is it right, or possible (or even desireable) that any person holding those views has a right to be treated by gay people without hostility or suspicion? If so, in what circumstances?
Or is it the case that the conservative position is inherently wrong, or inherently damaging? That it is not, and ought not, to be acceptable to gay people (and their sympathisers) for others to even hold it as a private opinion, just as we would condemn privately-held racist opinions?
I think this question comes down to how much the "it's my religion" excuse absolves one of having to answer for one's morality. I think your suggested analogy with racism is a fairly decent one. The amount of leeway we give to privately-held homophobic opinions sincerely based on religion should be about the same as the leeway we grant to privately-held racist opinions sincerely based on religion.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Or privately-held sexist opinions sincerely based on religion.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Suppose I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's authoritative word (infallible/inerrant, if you like, but the essential point is that I acknowledge some sort of overarching obligation to do what, properly understood, the Bible tells me). If it makes the empathy any easier, you may add that I also accept to some extent the authority of the Christian church's tradition as a means or guide to interpreting scripture.
Suppose that, having those views, I read Leviticus, and Romans, and the rest of the homosexuality verses, and it looks to me that they do intend mean, and are intended to mean, that every instance of sexual activity between persons of the same sex is forbidden. I find my view supported by a historical Christian tradition.
Suppose that I then go on to consider, in good faith, all context and the counter-arguments, every reasonable other interpretation, and find nothing to convince me. I do genuinely understand what is being argued against the conservative position, but I cannot in good conscience accept it. I feel that to do so would be an attempt to evade the consequences of what my best judgement of what the Bible says would require.
The question is - what are my obligations having (hypothetically) reached that position?
Having reached that position, you have an ethical choice.
On one hand you can love your neighbour as yourself, and treat other people as you would be treated.
On the other hand you can do unto others that which would be hateful unto you. You can act against love and against charity. You can judge and cast stones.
Your choice. And as said above if you've been carefully enought taught to believe in and practice religious based bigotry, I don't care whether it's racism, sexism, or homophobia.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The question is - what are my obligations having (hypothetically) reached that position?
Not to go around buggering other men.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Is fellating allowed?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Is fellating allowed?
Depends on if you're giving or receiving. That may sound like a joke, but I've known men who claim there's a difference, theologically speaking.
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on
:
Eliab, as a Gay man in a long term realtionship who happens to be in ordained ministry what do I ask of conservative Christians? I work alongside theologically conservative people, I even teach and minister to some of them!
Simply that they relate to me as a person, get to know me and people in my position as people. A brother for whom Christ died if I want to get pious about it. Some cannot accept my ministry, ok but never treat me as a non person.
Also that debates about the issue respect and show care for those of us who are Christian and Gay, Lesbian, Bi or Trans.It is mightily unpleasant to be at the receiving end of a rant! Or to be treated as if I were invisible to avoid the most simple of pleasantries.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Brilliant post.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Is fellating allowed?
Depends on if you're giving or receiving. That may sound like a joke, but I've known men who claim there's a difference, theologically speaking.
Is kissing allowed:
a) with tongues?
b) without?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Is kissing allowed:
Allowed? It's practically a Christian requirement.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
a) with tongues?
b) without?
Depends if your Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
My answer would be: How would you treat others who arguably violate Scriptural and traditional prohibitions, but seem to be committing no objective harm to others?
What about those who accumulate [many] possessions? Charge interest on a loan? Are in an interfaith marriage, or in a second marriage while the first partner still alive? Or those who use birth control?
Would you obligate all wealthy people to sell their possessions and give the money to the poor and to stop storing up treasures on earth, as Jesus commanded? Would you invoke 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and tell all remarried people to reconcile with their first partner or choose lifetime celibacy? Or use church tradition to argue against usury or family planning?
Even if one believed that scripture condemns all forms of same sex activity, why would one treat gay Christians any differently than all other sinners who may disagree with your interpretation of Scripture and tradition out there? Why would they be under different obligations than others?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Even if one believed that scripture condemns all forms of same sex activity, why would one treat gay Christians any differently than all other sinners who may disagree with your interpretation of Scripture and tradition out there? Why would they be under different obligations than others?
It's been observed that certain strains of Christianity, particularly among evangelicals and fundamentalists, have reduced the whole of Christian ethics to opposing abortion and making life hard for homosexuals. One of the things that makes this kind of "genital Christianity" so attractive is its simplicity and the fact that it mostly involves condemning sins committed by other people.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Agreed. I'd also assert that it's wrapped in patriarchy in a way that the other sins aren't.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One of the things that makes this kind of "genital Christianity" so attractive is its simplicity and the fact that it mostly involves condemning sins committed by other people.
Except not really. What I find so baffling about the assertion that SSUs are sinful (apart from the lack of harm noted by Dan) is that it's so difficult to tease out what "sin" the homosexual is committing that his married heterosexual accuser is not committing. In order for one type of union to be sanctifiable and the other not, there has to be a moral quality that is a feature of only and all heterosexual relationships and absent from only and all homosexual ones - or vice versa. And try as they might, "traditionalists" can never find that smoking gun.
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
Eliab, Boogie’s response to your post is illustrative of the problem the conservative view has connecting with other views.
The conservative evangelical response might be something along the following lines.
The conservative view isn’t primarily a question of sexual ethics, it’s a consequence of the view of the inerrancy and authority of scripture. The authority of scripture goes to the heart of the conservative evangelical view of what it means to be a Christian. To abandon the conservative position on sexuality would involve rejecting the authority and inerrancy of scripture. Some in the conservative position might go further and say that homosexuality being on Paul’s List of Bad Things makes it a question of salvation and that people need to be told so, that any alternative theological view is ‘false teaching’ (it’s for your own good), or that while non-Christian’s are not expected to toe the line Christians are.
This is all very well, but the outworking of that theological position will be anathema to people who don’t share its starting point.
I think Marin’s suggestion is to let God do the judging, show Christ-like love, and gay people to discern his plan for them (whatever that might be). Within that, you might hold a theologically conservative position, but reconciliation should not mean capitulation to that position. Similarly, seeing Marin as a kind of Trojan Horse for conservatism is again like reconciliation meaning capitulation. Knowing a person's views means you then know what you should think about them and how you should treat them.
The Bible says what it says. Personally, I think there’s plenty of room for looking at the big picture stuff, being a good neighbour and not being judgemental. There are lots of tensions in being a Christian (e.g suffering v loving God); maybe this is one where the Bible needs less to be an instruction manual and more a map.
My answer to your questions (Eliab) are:
1. Humility, one might feel that it would help if others understood the conservative view but I don’t think one should expect it.
2. nothing.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
I would ask a Christian conservative how restoring the quasi-marital blessings of same-sex partnerships that the most conservative parts of the church performed for hundreds of years (in a few remote corners, I gather, still do) would not be a conservative thing to do.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
To abandon the conservative position on sexuality would involve rejecting the authority and inerrancy of scripture.
Well, no. It would involve abandoning a particular interpretation of what the words in Scripture actually mean.
Sorry to pull you up on this one sentence, but it's one of my major bugbears. I consistently get the message that if you believe the Bible is the Word of God, etc etc, then you can't possibly accept homosexuality.
Whereas the basis of my acceptance of homosexuality is that more than one interpretation of is open, and that the interpretation that what the Bible condemns is homosexual rape, homosexual ritual orgies and homosexual exploitation fits far better than the interpretation that all homosexual sex is inherently wrong.
That doesn't involve any rejection of the authority and inerrancy of scripture.
EDIT: Later in your post, you say "The Bible says what it says". What it says is a mere starting point for figuring out what it means.
[ 14. October 2011, 01:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
Orfeo said: Sorry to pull you up on this one sentence, but it's one of my major bugbears. I consistently get the message that if you believe the Bible is the Word of God, etc etc, then you can't possibly accept homosexuality.
You're right, but that's how conservatives often see it.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?
Would you mind shutting up and going away, please?
quote:
What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?
Should we take care not to let the door hit us in the ass on the way out?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?
Would you mind shutting up and going away, please?
quote:
What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?
Should we take care not to let the door hit us in the ass on the way out?
Why are the answers different?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?
Would you mind shutting up and going away, please?
quote:
What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?
Should we take care not to let the door hit us in the ass on the way out?
Why are the answers different?
What, you're suggesting that perhaps the conservatives should be asking the gays to shut up and go away, for example?
I think the answers are different because the history of verbal, psychological and spiritual abuse between Christian conservatives and gay men and women has been something of a one way street. Provide me with anecdotes or statistics on how many Christian conservatives have been driven to self harm or suicide by the oppressive teaching of gay men and women, and I might change my mind.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...What, you're suggesting that perhaps the conservatives should be asking the gays to shut up and go away, for example?
...
I'm suggesting that what is fair and reasonable is that each treat the other with equal respect. If I am expected to shut up and go away, how do you hold me to a standard of treating you with respect?
That is unreasonable.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Sharkshooter, they are different because in the one case, conservatives may be expressing an opinion on the relationships of gay people. In the second case, gay people are not, in general, passing any judgement on "the heterosexual agenda" as it were. When that starts to happen, then it would be quite in line for conservatives to tell gays to stop banging on about how perverted and depraved they find straights.
As ken pointed out upstream, if you hold what, for the sake of argument if not accuracy, we shall call a conservative view of homosexuality, then no-one is obliging you to engage in it.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think this question comes down to how much the "it's my religion" excuse absolves one of having to answer for one's morality. I think your suggested analogy with racism is a fairly decent one. The amount of leeway we give to privately-held homophobic opinions sincerely based on religion should be about the same as the leeway we grant to privately-held racist opinions sincerely based on religion.
That's not exactly what I meant by ‘privately-held' since (according to the link) the movement you cite generally supports racial segregation. If so, they have moved from the private sphere to the public with their view.
If they didn't do that, but supported full legal equality for all races, I think I would still consider it reprehensible to believe that people of one race are worth more than those of another. Racism is an injustice in itself - you have the right to be considered a human being in the full sense whatever your race, and I don't need to actively discriminate to deny you that right.
It seems to me that there is a distinction between acts and orientation for homosexuality which there isn't for race. I am well aware that the distinction has been abused, and from the parent thread to this one, it seems that even raising the issue can invite suspicion of homophobia, but that doesn't mean that it is not valid. Orientation is analogous to race, but conduct isn't. Judging a person to be worth less because of their sexuality is unjust for the same reason that racism is unjust, and thus inherently wrong.
But disapproving of sexual behaviour isn't in the same class, it seems to me. Everyone in the world has the right to have me ascribe basic human dignity to them, but no one in world (except possibly my immediate family) who needs or is entitled to my endorsement of their sexual ethic. Nobody is required to seek my approval before having sex, and no one is wronged if I (privately) withhold that approval. I can agree that someone has the right to decide for themselves who to have (consensual, non-abusive) sex with, and at the same time think their decisions in that area while none of my business, are such that I would not, for moral reasons, have taken them. And I can say so (sensitively) if asked.
Matariki's response above, as well as being enormously gracious and thoroughly Christian, also implies that while conservatives may not accept his ministry, he does not need their approval. And he doesn't. He has his own vocation to pursue and if he (and those to whom he ministers and is accountable) see no problem between that and a partnered gay home life, then what any outsider thinks is irrelevant. Would it be unfair to him if I said "Fine, and I hope God blesses you, but I personally would not seek ordination if I were in a gay relationship, and would not begin or continue a gay relationship if I were ordained.*"? Would it injure or demean him to know that I had a different sexual ethic and would make different choices? I think not.
The weakness in that is that it seems so hard to stop at mere polite disagreement. I don't think there is any necessary progression from "I wouldn't live in that way if ordained" to "Ordained people should not be allowed to do this" to "We need to get rid of all gay priests". But it seems to happen a lot, especially on this issue. Living with disagreements seems to be something that Christians find it hard to do.
(*For clarity - this is a hypothesis. I wouldn't say that, not least because I have, as far as I can tell, little inclination to homosexuality, and no call to ordained ministry, so I don't know what I would do. The liberal arguments about the gay verses in the Bible seem plausible, but not compelling to me - I genuinely do not know how much I would dare to rely on them if I were gay, but I have a strong disinclination to judge any Christian facing that decision, whichever way he or she makes it.)
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...
As ken pointed out upstream, if you hold what, for the sake of argument if not accuracy, we shall call a conservative view of homosexuality, then no-one is obliging you to engage in it.
What you are looking for is a one-sided debate on the issue. As long as one side is free to express their opinion, the other side will continue to exercise the same freedom.
If both sides agree to shut up, that is fine. I am ok with that.
So, for example, if you want to say "any discussion of homosexuality is off limits" I'm good. But you cannot let the "pros" talk and expect the "cons" to sit idly by.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...
As ken pointed out upstream, if you hold what, for the sake of argument if not accuracy, we shall call a conservative view of homosexuality, then no-one is obliging you to engage in it.
What you are looking for is a one-sided debate on the issue. As long as one side is free to express their opinion, the other side will continue to exercise the same freedom.
If both sides agree to shut up, that is fine. I am ok with that.
So, for example, if you want to say "any discussion of homosexuality is off limits" I'm good. But you cannot let the "pros" talk and expect the "cons" to sit idly by.
Sorry, lack of clarity of expression. the "it" to which I refer in the sentence you quote is homosexual activity, not debate about it.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...
As ken pointed out upstream, if you hold what, for the sake of argument if not accuracy, we shall call a conservative view of homosexuality, then no-one is obliging you to engage in it.
What you are looking for is a one-sided debate on the issue. As long as one side is free to express their opinion, the other side will continue to exercise the same freedom.
If both sides agree to shut up, that is fine. I am ok with that.
How about treating each side as they generally advocate treating others? Loving who we want to on the gay side. And denouncing the Conservative side as wicked, perverted, and sex-obsessed. Throwing them out of churches. I could go on.
Now I don't think that the cons entirely shutting up is what should happen. But I do think that handwringing that these people are being mean in suggesting it is intensely hypocritical.
[ 14. October 2011, 11:36: Message edited by: Justinian ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...What, you're suggesting that perhaps the conservatives should be asking the gays to shut up and go away, for example?
...
I'm suggesting that what is fair and reasonable is that each treat the other with equal respect. If I am expected to shut up and go away, how do you hold me to a standard of treating you with respect?
That is unreasonable.
I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
I get it. The best way to stop you beating us up is for us to go away.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
Let's see. In one corner we have people wanting to live together and get married. In the other corner we have people sometimes going so far as to try to pass laws to kill them. The linked law was inspired by Conservative Christians.
Your side is doing active and direct harm to the other. From raping them to jailing them to killing them. Are you seriously saying that they shouldn't be protesting against this?
And if you aren't suggesting that they should roll over and let themselves literally be killed by groups of homophobes such as Conservative Christians, how the fuck dare you suggest that they shut up. How the fuck dare you suggest that they allow your people to advocate that they be killed without pushing back?
The serious heat is coming from the homophobic side of the debate. Your side is leading to deaths. To rapes. It is therefore only your side that can back down. Your side can stop persecuting. Can stop lining up and throwing stones.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
I get it. The best way to stop you beating us up is for us to go away.
If you were treated with respect, that would stop the beatings? No?
Are you really saying that unless we are silent, you will get beaten up? That our speaking on the issue is the cause of the beatings?
That's a load.
There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian.
Obviously there is no room for discussion here, so, have fun.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It seems to me that there is a distinction between acts and orientation for homosexuality which there isn't for race. I am well aware that the distinction has been abused, and from the parent thread to this one, it seems that even raising the issue can invite suspicion of homophobia, but that doesn't mean that it is not valid. Orientation is analogous to race, but conduct isn't. Judging a person to be worth less because of their sexuality is unjust for the same reason that racism is unjust, and thus inherently wrong.
If you prefer to analogize with religious discrimination, that's fine with me. The distinction between orientation and conduct seems an artificial way to obscure hatred. For example, if someone claimed to be perfectly okay with Jewish belief (for example), but had strenuous objections to Jewish conduct (wearing a yarmulke or tallis, keeping kosher, attending synagogue, learning Hebrew, etc.) most of us would see that as a distinction without a difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The weakness in that is that it seems so hard to stop at mere polite disagreement. I don't think there is any necessary progression from "I wouldn't live in that way if ordained" to "Ordained people should not be allowed to do this" to "We need to get rid of all gay priests". But it seems to happen a lot, especially on this issue. Living with disagreements seems to be something that Christians find it hard to do.[/QB]
Part of the reason is that most conservative formulations of Christianity also posit that it is the duty of all believers to actively spread their beliefs and "rescue" those who violate God's Will™ from an eternity of torture at the hands of their Merciful Deity. Under that kind of reasoning just about anything done to homosexuals is justified, provided it turns at least one of them from his/her course.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian.
Ahem.
quote:
Assault Complaints Filed after Incident at Church
A gay Gibson County couple said they were assaulted when they tried to attend church services at the Grace Fellowship Church in Fruitland last Wednesday.
"I went over to take the keys out of the ignition and all the sudden I hear someone say 'sick'em,'" said Gibson County resident, Jerry Pittman Jr.
Pittman said the attacked was prompted by the pastor of the church, Jerry Pittman, his father.
"My uncle and two other deacons came over to the car per my dad's request. My uncle smash me in the door as the other deacon knocked my boyfriend back so he couldn't help me, punching him in his face and his chest. The other deacon came and hit me through my car window in my back," said Pittman. He said bystanders did not offer assistance. He said the deacon yelled derogatory homosexual slurs, even after officers arrived. He said the officers never intervened to stop the deacons from yelling the slurs.
That Scotsman sure gets around.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If you were treated with respect, that would stop the beatings? No?
Are you really saying that unless we are silent, you will get beaten up? That our speaking on the issue is the cause of the beatings?
That's a load.
I have already provided a link showing that Conservative Christians preaching what they do leads to people trying to make being gay punishable by death.
quote:
There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian.
Except when it is the behaviour of a group of Conservative Christians including the pastor. And that was earlier this month.
quote:
Obviously there is no room for discussion here, so, have fun.
There is room for discussion. There is room for discussion about whether it is possible to be a Conservative Christian and a civilised human being. You seem to be the main advocate in this thread for it to be impossible to be both.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
Ahhhh... the old "both sides do it" fallacy.
I don't have to go to Africa to find many, many, many instances of Conservative Christians doing their upmost to make life hard for gay people. It's happening here in North America.
Last time I checked it isn't gay people who are trying to pass laws barring Conservative Christians from applying and holding jobs free from discrimination based on who they are. It isn't gay people who are sponsoring amendments to stop Conservative Christians from getting legally married. It isn't gay people that were demonstrating against anti-bullying initiatives that made it safe for Conservative Christian kids to go to school free from harassment. It isn't gay people who are setting up "ministries" in order to convert straight Conservative Christians to homosexuality (while ignoring repeated statements from professional psychological and psychiatric societies that state out how emotionally harmful this kind of therapy is.)
And all too often I turn on the news to watch Conservative Christians demonize gay people, inciting hatred toward us. These self-identified Conservative Christians tell the most outrageous lies (yes lies) about us with a so-called "straight" face, for Jesus (!). Gay people aren't trying to put laws in place to make being a Conservative Christian illegal, but some pretty mainstream Conservative Christians still advocate reinstating "sodomy" laws (and some even advocate Levitical punishments.)
I just watched all of this lying for Jesus happen (again) here in New York State during the gay marriage debate (after witnessing it in Canada in 2004). Pentecostal pastors and Roman Catholic bishops alike were making the most un-Christian, untrue statements about gay people and our lives. It made me (again) embarrassed to be a Christian. These lies are even written into denominational papers and statements by influential mainstream Conservative Christian denominations as broad as the Roman Catholic Church, LDS and Southern Baptist Convention.
We don't do this stuff to you. We don't organize to take your rights away. We don't tell baldface lies about what your lives are like. Many of us came from Conservative Christian families. Some gay people are still Conservative Christians themselves.
Everything we've gained; repealing "sodomy" laws; enacting anti-discrimination laws; enacting domestic partner/civil union and ideally marriage laws that give our relationships equality before the law; anti-bullying programmes that make it possible for gay kids to get support if they are bullied in school; or protection from violence based on perceived sexual orientation. All these things that make our lives bearable happened ]b]despite[/b] Conservative Christian opposition. We have never, as a community, done this to you.
The "both sides do it" assertion is just an emotional dodge to make bigoted people feel better about themselves by pretending that this is a debate by equal partners on equal terms. It isn't. It's about you attempting to manage how we live our lives, not us attempting to manage how you live yours.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
[An Aside]
I figured out why I had a difficulty with people who used Romans 1 and Leviticus 22 to condemn all homosexuality.
No one interprets the story of David and Bathsheba to mean a condemnation of all heterosexual behavior. It would not matter in that case if David was straight or gay. The sin was cheating with another person's partner and getting that person killed in an attempt to cover up that sin. The fact that David is a man and Bathsheba is a woman is of no consequence to the primary message of the Scripture.
No one is necessarily saying that Paul is "wrong" in Romans 1. What we are quibbling is whether or not Paul's argument in Romans can be fairly applied to the LGBTs living today. This isn't a matter of Scripture being "outdated", its a matter of whether or not we can extrapolate a condemnation of an entire segment of people based on a scripture passage written in an entirely different historical context.
[ 15. October 2011, 02:27: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...There is room for discussion. There is room for discussion about whether it is possible to be a Conservative Christian and a civilised human being. You seem to be the main advocate in this thread for it to be impossible to be both.
There is only room for discussion if all accept your definition of "civilized". Sorry, not interested.
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
Ahhhh... the old "both sides do it" fallacy.
I don't have to go to Africa to find many, many, many instances of Conservative Christians doing their upmost to make life hard for gay people. It's happening here in North America.
Last time I checked it isn't gay people who are trying to pass laws barring Conservative Christians from applying and holding jobs free from discrimination based on who they are. It isn't gay people who are sponsoring amendments to stop Conservative Christians from getting legally married. It isn't gay people that were demonstrating against anti-bullying initiatives that made it safe for Conservative Christian kids to go to school free from harassment. It isn't gay people who are setting up "ministries" in order to convert straight Conservative Christians to homosexuality (while ignoring repeated statements from professional psychological and psychiatric societies that state out how emotionally harmful this kind of therapy is.)
And all too often I turn on the news to watch Conservative Christians demonize gay people, inciting hatred toward us. These self-identified Conservative Christians tell the most outrageous lies (yes lies) about us with a so-called "straight" face, for Jesus (!). Gay people aren't trying to put laws in place to make being a Conservative Christian illegal, but some pretty mainstream Conservative Christians still advocate reinstating "sodomy" laws (and some even advocate Levitical punishments.)
I just watched all of this lying for Jesus happen (again) here in New York State during the gay marriage debate (after witnessing it in Canada in 2004). Pentecostal pastors and Roman Catholic bishops alike were making the most un-Christian, untrue statements about gay people and our lives. It made me (again) embarrassed to be a Christian. These lies are even written into denominational papers and statements by influential mainstream Conservative Christian denominations as broad as the Roman Catholic Church, LDS and Southern Baptist Convention.
We don't do this stuff to you. We don't organize to take your rights away. We don't tell baldface lies about what your lives are like. Many of us came from Conservative Christian families. Some gay people are still Conservative Christians themselves.
Everything we've gained; repealing "sodomy" laws; enacting anti-discrimination laws; enacting domestic partner/civil union and ideally marriage laws that give our relationships equality before the law; anti-bullying programmes that make it possible for gay kids to get support if they are bullied in school; or protection from violence based on perceived sexual orientation. All these things that make our lives bearable happened ]b]despite[/b] Conservative Christian opposition. We have never, as a community, done this to you.
The "both sides do it" assertion is just an emotional dodge to make bigoted people feel better about themselves by pretending that this is a debate by equal partners on equal terms. It isn't. It's about you attempting to manage how we live our lives, not us attempting to manage how you live yours.
Amen, brother! Can I copy this and show it to my pastor and other folks on our church staff??! I go to a mostly Gay church in Atlanta, GA. Our senior pastor is Gay and everyone on staff is too. What you wrote is Amazing. Heartfelt. Angry. Right on target. Again I say, amen to you, brother. From one queer to another, with love.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The "both sides do it" assertion is just an emotional dodge to make bigoted people feel better about themselves by pretending that this is a debate by equal partners on equal terms. It isn't. It's about you attempting to manage how we live our lives, not us attempting to manage how you live yours.
Amen ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I think that one thing that a gay Christian may reasonably ask a conservative Christian is that they look out for the fruits of the Spirit in the lives of the gay Christians around them.
There's a nominalist approach to morality, in which the moral rules are the moral rules, and if they get in the way of human flourishing, so much the worse for human flourishing. God makes the rules, or the moral law is binding on all rational creatures regardless of happiness (secular Kantian variant), and humans just have to obey. On that nominalist approach, whether gay people show signs of goodness, justice, love, peace, joy, etc is irrelevant. But I don't think a nominalist approach to morality is sustainable on philosophical or pastoral or even Biblical grounds.
If someone's not a nominalist, then the quality of gay people's lives should be counted as evidence towards which interpretation of the Biblical and traditional material the conservative favours. I think gay Christians (and non-Christians in a less direct way) can reasonably ask conservatives to be receptive to that way of thinking.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...There is room for discussion. There is room for discussion about whether it is possible to be a Conservative Christian and a civilised human being. You seem to be the main advocate in this thread for it to be impossible to be both.
There is only room for discussion if all accept your definition of "civilized". Sorry, not interested.
My definition of civilised: Does not whip up hatred against an oppressed group. Does not knowingly lie and call it debate. Which of these are you disagreeing with?
You claimed "There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian." It's pretty hard to claim they don't when earlier this month violence was orchestrated by a pastor and included the deacons and happened outside a Church.
Your statement was wrong. Flat wrong. And ignorant. And this has been comprehensively demonstrated. That's OK. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone gets gets things wrong. This is a big world and no one can know it all. However, when your premise has been shown to be clearly wrong then you must rethink and reevaluate or else you become a stone cold liar. Knowingly and willingly lying just because you hate being shown to be wrong and would rather bask in your self-righteous arrogance.
Also you pled an equivalence that isn't there. Toujours Dan has spectacularly eviscerated you on this point.
If you are shown to be wrong in your fundamental premises, you have two choices. The first is to go away and reevaluate. This involves dropping out of the debate and listening. It involves rethinking and checking your assumptions. The second involves doubling down. It involves basing your arguments on assumptions you know to be wrong. And based on false assumptions you can reach any conclusion you like - so if you know your assumptions are false, your opinion is worthless. (And for the record, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "lalalala I can't hear you" is a version of option two).
Which is it? Are you going to rethink and accept that Conservative Christians are responsible for some homophobic violence, and that you line up alongside these people or are you going to stop, shut up, and re-evaluate? Do you follow the prince of lies or do you strive towards truth?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
... Are you going to rethink and accept that Conservative Christians are responsible for some homophobic violence, and that you line up alongside these people or are you going to stop, shut up, and re-evaluate? ...
Here's what I will admit: Some people are responsible for violence against homosexuals, and some of those people claim to be Christians. And I condemn it as much as I condemn the violence against homosexuals by liberal Christians and non-Christians. I also condemn violence against non-homosexuals by anyone, Christian or not.
Such violence is sinful, and unacceptable. However, to label that violence as being a result of Christian faith is wrong, because much violence is also dished out by non-Christians. This violence is the result of sin, and all of us are sinners, conservative Christian or otherwise.
Is that clear enough for you?
However, to say that in order to be an ethical conservative Christian you must accept homosexuality and/or homosexual acts as non-sinful is wrong.
Ethics is a much larger issue than non-violence against homosexuals.
I think you can be ethical and have more than one option in the homosexuality debate.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
However, to say that in order to be an ethical conservative Christian you must accept homosexuality and/or homosexual acts as non-sinful is wrong.
The thing that bothers me is that people can claim to follow someone as INclusive as Jesus - then come out with such EXclusive statements as this.
If you call someone sinful for who they are - something they have no choice about - how is that any different from calling them sinful for being black or tall or fair haired?
Jesus didn't condemn people for being human - but conservative Christians who call homosexuality sinful are doing just that imo.
You may as well call me sinful for being born a heterosexual woman.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
...
If you call someone sinful for who they are ...
Sin is what one does (not what one is). Being sinful is performing sinful acts. All of us sin, and therefore, all of us are sinful.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
... Are you going to rethink and accept that Conservative Christians are responsible for some homophobic violence, and that you line up alongside these people or are you going to stop, shut up, and re-evaluate? ...
Here's what I will admit: Some people are responsible for violence against homosexuals, and some of those people claim to be Christians. And I condemn it as much as I condemn the violence against homosexuals by liberal Christians and non-Christians. I also condemn violence against non-homosexuals by anyone, Christian or not.
Such violence is sinful, and unacceptable. However, to label that violence as being a result of Christian faith is wrong, because much violence is also dished out by non-Christians. This violence is the result of sin, and all of us are sinners, conservative Christian or otherwise.
Is that clear enough for you?
1: You claim to "condemn [violence against homosexuals] as much as I condemn the violence against homosexuals by liberal Christians and non-Christians". You should condemn it more for two reasons.
The first is that Conservative Christians are your own people - people listen to their own far more than they listen to outsiders. So if you are actually interested in changing minds and behaviours, deal with the groups that you are accepted in.
The second is that I'd be interested in seeing the homophobic attacks made by liberal Christians. Evidence that they happen at all would be nice. Because the teachings of liberal Christians are not ones that lead to people having anything against gay people. The teachings of Conservative Christians do.
And just because other people than Conservative Christians preach homophobic bigotry of a sort that leads to violence doesn't let Conservative Christians off the hook for being one group that does this any more than the Indian caste system and untouchables means that Klansmen aren't responsible for racist violence. There can be more than one cause - and one cause is Conservative Christian teachings.
2: You claim to condemn violence against homosexuals by people that aren't conservative Christians as much as violence against homosexuals by people that are conservative Christians. But on this very thread you yourself posted "it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian". So before this thread you did not condemn Conservative Christians for homophobic violence because you didn't believe it existed.
Which leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either you did not condemn homophobic violence by Conservative Christians or you did not (and for all I do still do not) condemn any homophobic violence. Which is it?
quote:
[b]However, to say that in order to be an ethical conservative Christian you must accept homosexuality and/or homosexual acts as non-sinful is wrong.
Ethics is a much larger issue than non-violence against homosexuals.
I think you can be ethical and have more than one option in the homosexuality debate. [/QB]
Oh, indeed.
However there are several other debates going on here at the same time. Ones you appear to be doing your best to ignore. Off the top of my head, two of them are "is all bigotry wrong?", and "what should we do with groups that preach bigotry that leads to violence?" Or don't you like there being more than one ethical opinion on these debates?
And if all of us are sinful, then let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And if you can't do that, then stop chucking stones at groups that aren't yours.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
]Sin is what one does (not what one is). Being sinful is performing sinful acts. All of us sin, and therefore, all of us are sinful.
Exactly right.
So if you say it's not sinful to be homosexual - then you can't also expect people to deny who they are, unless you'd be willing to do exactly the same.
So you'd have to be willing to deny your own sexuality if you were expecting others to do just that.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You [Sharkshooter] claimed "There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian." It's pretty hard to claim they don't when earlier this month violence was orchestrated by a pastor and included the deacons and happened outside a Church.
Strictly speaking this particular pastor seems to be using his son's homosexuality as a justification to beat him and his partner up, but, it isn't the real reason. I did a bit of a check and the pastor is in the midst of a nasty separation/divorce from his wife (he has also been arrested from stealing from his wife's company). I suspect the son sided with his step-mother. Admittedly this attitude is probably worst in that it assumes that justice should overlook a beating because the victims were gay (it also seems to have worked initially).
I note the recent US Pentagon decision to _allow_ military chaplains to preside over unions between same-sex couples in the US jurisdictions that recognize these unions. The conservative Christians are reacting as though chaplains are being forced to do so (they are not, the decision to officiate has always been up to the chaplain and his denomination [e.g., no Catholic military chaplain has to marry non-Catholics or divorced people]) and want the Pentagon to forbid all chaplains from officiating over same-sex unions even when the chaplain has no problem.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...
Which leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either you did not condemn homophobic violence by Conservative Christians or you did not (and for all I do still do not) condemn any homophobic violence. Which is it?
...
Really, I must pick one of your choice of answers? Sorry, no.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What you are looking for is a one-sided debate on the issue.
Nobody's "looking for" it, it just is. There are, in fact, no homosexual couples trying to tell heteros that the rules don't apply to them and that they must cast off their families to be disciples. It's one-sided because it only goes one way.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
However, to say that in order to be an ethical conservative Christian you must accept homosexuality and/or homosexual acts as non-sinful is wrong.
Perhaps, but to be a consistent Christian it doesn't really do to tell other people to put away their husbands and wives if you've no intention of doing so. As I said upthread, until and unless "conservatives" can locate in same-gender unions some quality that doesn't apply equally to them, they're not "arguing" an "opinion," just spinning their wheels.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I think you can be ethical and have more than one option in the homosexuality debate.
If you indeed offer an opinion, and offer it consistently to hetero- and homosexuals. No conservative, except possibly the Shakers, meets that description. So, is it in theory possible to be a person of integrity who rejects same-gender unions? Perhaps. That doesn't mean there are in fact such persons of integrity.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
...
If you call someone sinful for who they are ...
Sin is what one does (not what one is). Being sinful is performing sinful acts. All of us sin, and therefore, all of us are sinful.
So all are equal, but homosexuals are especially equal.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...
Which leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either you did not condemn homophobic violence by Conservative Christians or you did not (and for all I do still do not) condemn any homophobic violence. Which is it?
...
Really, I must pick one of your choice of answers? Sorry, no.
Then kindly explain the meaning of your claim that homophobic violence by Christians doesn't exist combined with your claim that you condemn homophobic violence by Christians as strongly as you do by other groups. If neither fits, explain what does. Explain how you have been condemning Conservative Christian homophobia at the same time as claiming it doesn't exist.
And the Pastor might have been going through a messy divorce, using homophobia as an excuse. But that in no way excuses the deacons and the rest of the church. (It doesn't excuse the pastor either for turning domestic violence into a hate crime).
[ 15. October 2011, 17:54: Message edited by: Justinian ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I think he's invoking the "No true Scotsman" defence at this point.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I think he's invoking the "No true Scotsman" defence at this point.
There's always the possibility he could surprise me. Not much chance I think, but a possibility. And I always like nice surprises that make me reevaluate things.
And the more he ducks, dodges, and weaves the more flagrantly obvious it is that his arguments are empty.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...Then kindly explain the meaning of your claim that homophobic violence by Christians doesn't exist ...
THat's not exactly what I said, but perhaps my words could have been interpreted that way. For being unclear, I appologize.
Here's what I said... quote:
There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian.
Perhaps, to be more clear, it should have read...
quote:
it is not Christian behaviour, even though some Christians participate in it.
I will make one more attempt...
I believe divorce is a sin. I also am coming to believe that remarrying is also a sin (just not quite there yet). Now consider the fact that I am divorced and remarried.
That makes me a sinner. I accept that I have sinned, and perhaps continue to sin. I have confessed my sin and asked for forgiveness. And, do you know what? People accept me anyway. The difference is, I do not require them to believe my actions were/are not sinful. They are free to hold to their beliefs that I sinned.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
I have a friend, an insulin-dependent diabetic, who still hasn't really come to terms with his condition. From time to time -- fairly often, in fact -- he will eat a bowl of ice cream because he likes ice cream, and he hates the fact that his illness controls what he eats and when and how much.
I wish he wouldn't. It's seriously bad for him. He's already got some degree of diabetic retinopathy. He's going to end up blind, or with a foot amputated, because of the ice cream.
But he's an adult. He knows exactly what he's doing, and what the consequences are likely to be. If I were his mother, his wife, his daughter, his doctor, his priest, his godmother, his confessor, then maybe -- maybe -- I would say something to him about it. But I'm not. So I keep my mouth shut.
One of my uncles separated from his wife many years ago. They couldn't divorce -- the only grounds at the time were adultery, abandonment, incarceration, or insanity, and neither of them were willing to lie to get the divorce. Eventually (many years later, after all the kids were grown) my uncle took up residence with another woman.
I am quite certain that everyone in the family considered my uncle an unrepentant adulterer. But he was an adult. He knew what he was doing. Again, if I were his wife, his priest, his mother, his daughter, maybe I would have a reason or a right or a responsibility to talk with him about what I considered the rights and wrongs of his behavior. But I wasn't. So I kept my mouth shut.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...Then kindly explain the meaning of your claim that homophobic violence by Christians doesn't exist ...
THat's not exactly what I said, but perhaps my words could have been interpreted that way. For being unclear, I appologize.
Here's what I said... quote:
There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian.
Perhaps, to be more clear, it should have read...
quote:
it is not Christian behaviour, even though some Christians participate in it.
Straight down the line No True Scotsman Fallacy. Right. Gotcha.
If it is that done by Conservative Christians lead by Conservative Christian pastors and Deacons and at a Conservative Christian Church then it is Conservative Christian behaviour. And it is a consequence about preaching about the sins of the other rather than the sins of the self.
quote:
I will make one more attempt...
I believe divorce is a sin. I also am coming to believe that remarrying is also a sin (just not quite there yet). Now consider the fact that I am divorced and remarried.
That makes me a sinner. I accept that I have sinned, and perhaps continue to sin. I have confessed my sin and asked for forgiveness. And, do you know what? People accept me anyway. The difference is, I do not require them to believe my actions were/are not sinful. They are free to hold to their beliefs that I sinned.
You know, that whole argument would cut a lot more ice if you were busy pontificating about the sin of divorce (one Jesus actively preached against) rather than about sins you yourself don't indulge in.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
But, sharkshooter,you aren't being physically attacked for being whatever kind of sinner, you aren't being actively and maliciously attacked from the pulpit about the sin you have committed (and presumably still are) and you aren't by nature inclined to being divorced and remarried in the first place.
Gays are physically attacked, gays are routinely condemned from the pulpit, and gays are by nature oriented as they are (as confirmed by the former ex-gay preacher)
Why are you so dedicated to attacking gays yourself?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...Then kindly explain the meaning of your claim that homophobic violence by Christians doesn't exist ...
THat's not exactly what I said, but perhaps my words could have been interpreted that way. For being unclear, I appologize.
FWIW, I read your comment to mean "Violence of that sort is unacceptable, and being a conservative Christian in no way justifies or excuses it". Is that fair?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...Then kindly explain the meaning of your claim that homophobic violence by Christians doesn't exist ...
THat's not exactly what I said, but perhaps my words could have been interpreted that way. For being unclear, I appologize.
FWIW, I read your comment to mean "Violence of that sort is unacceptable, and being a conservative Christian in no way justifies or excuses it". Is that fair?
Yes. Thank you.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
....
Why are you so dedicated to attacking gays yourself?
I have never attacked a gay. Neither verbally nor physically.
With an accusation like that, I'm done here for good.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
Classic re-asserter. When their "reassertion" runs dry and they can't answer objections they pick up their ball and go home.
As I've said before, we seem to bump up against a lack of comprehension about the notion of intellectual obligation. When someone refutes your case, you either a) counter-refute it, or b) change your position. Conservatives seem to want to grasp at a third "override" option, where they can't provide a counter-answer but get to hold onto their counter-factual views by fiat on a cognitive level, with some kind of notwithstanding clause. In the last such thread, a few of us provided JohnnyS with several pages' worth of counter-material, all of which remained undispensed-with by conversation's end. Yet I'm sure if you asked Johnny whether he had changed his mind on the matter he would claim not to have, even though in terms of argumentation he never managed to resuscitate his case.
It's baffling to me that some, like sharkshooter, claim to be offended at the accusation of maligning homosexuals, yet not so offended as to actually stop doing so. This notion that the offense subsists not in its commission (by sharkshooter et. al.) but in its identification (by Bree) is a curious kind of playground logic.
If you think you're offended at having what you're doing pointed out, imagine how offensive the actual doing is to those of us you do it to.
[ 15. October 2011, 23:16: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Conservatives Christians want homosexuals to stop being homosexual. They may as well ask tall people to stop being tall - or to sit down constantly so as to deny their height.
I truly don't get it.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
Whoaaa!
quote:
Classic re-asserter. When their "reassertion" runs dry and they can't answer objections they pick up their ball and go home.
That looks pretty much over the line into personal insult to me.
While attacking arguments is allowed, once it goes over the line into name calling/personal insult that is a C3 violation.
Also please remember that once arguments get personal they MUST be taken to hell or stopped as per C4. This has gotten way too personal. Stop the personal focus or start a Hell thread please
Thanks,
Louise
hosting off
[ 16. October 2011, 03:10: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Louise, I am genuinely puzzled by your comment. And I'm raising it here, rather than in the Styx, because it seems to me to be relevant to this thread.
a) sharkshooter claims s/he is not attacking homosexuals.
b) Various shipmates, who have the courage to be openly homosexual, point out s/he is attacking and that her/his arguments do not stack up.
c) LQ - who is part of b) - gets a warning for using the phrase "Classic re-asserter", which doesn't even register as an insult to me.
Despite the great respect I have for you this doesn't make sense to me. If any offence has been given, I would have thought it was given by sharkshooter. How can this topic be discussed if one side is allowed to make offensive claims, and the other side is not allowed to challenge them?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
It does belong in the Styx, so if you want to take it further, then please do take it there. 'Classic case of re-assertion' would have been fine. But once you say 'classic re-asserter' and add the tag about 'picking up the ball and going home' then you're calling a person something and jeering at them, not the argument. That's the line.
I'm asking people to be aware of that line and not to go over it. If people want to go over it, they simply need to start a Hell thread (which is what I do when I reach that line with someone). It's perfectly possibly to answer without crossing that line, as people have been doing that for most of the thread, but in either case they can answer so long as they pick the right forum for the style they wish to use.
If anyone wants to argue about that/discuss this post, please start a Styx thread.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host.
[ 16. October 2011, 12:21: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
(actually I could have worded the last line of my previous post better - 'This looks like it is getting too personal'. When tempers start to rise, people need to watch where that line is.) In case it's unclear, which in the cold light of day, I see it could be. I'm asking people not to go over that line, not telling them to stop engaging with Sharkshooter's arguments.
cheers,
L
Dead Horse Host
[ 16. October 2011, 12:31: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
'Classic case of re-assertion' would have been fine.
Duly amended, if the -tion suffix is a key distinction. Unfortunately it wouldn't be possible to have the debate without addressing the obstructionist tactics often used, since it's not possible to have it as long as they remain in place.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
LQ, thanks!
/digression
When I'm reading my own posts I check out the same thing - do these words talk about an argument or a person? Are these words more 'things an argument does' or 'things a person does'? Can I be sure I have separated the argument/tactic from the person? If not the posts must then go on a Hell thread. And that is the threshold at which I start a Hell thread- not 'am I raving mad at this person and want to flame them?' but 'Can I frame this post without talking pejoratively about the person or implying that they are a bad person who does bad things? Do these words definitely describe an argument not a person?"
I'm just adding this for clarification as it might be helpful for people to know where and how I draw the line. But discussion would need a Styx thread. I've digressed enough now!
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
Thinking about what I think would be my duty if I were persuaded of the conservative view, I'm going to offer the following as a suggestion of conservative ethics:
1. The ethical conservative Christian will differentiate between acts and orientation.
I was uneasy about putting that it, because as has been said it is often used to mask hatred, and is unpopular, but I think that without it, Boogie's critique that we'd be telling tall people not to be tall is unanswerable.
2. The ethical conservative Christian will assume good faith in her opponents, and will be courteous to them.
Simple application of the Golden Rule. She would rather not be considered a homophobe and a bigot, or be told that her interpretation of scripture is based on prejudice, so she will avoid saying (or thinking) that gays are perverted or depreaved, or that the interpretations of scripture which favour them are based on worldliness or convenience. She will assume that they are arguing from positions of integrity.
3. The ethical conservative Christian will not argue guilt by association, or associate with the guilty on ‘her' side.
She will never use arguments that class homosexuality with bestiality, incest and paedophilia, or that place it on a sliding scale leading down to those offences. She will not consider the hateful, discriminatory and violent anti-gay advocates to be her allies on this issue, and will think that their lack of charity divides them from her much more than agreement on a point of sexual ethics could ever unify.
4. The ethical conservative Christian will be humble.
He will be aware firstly that people have been badly damaged by this issue, and that some of the loudest voices which proclaim homosexuality to be wrong are those of abusers. He will also be aware that he personally is a sinner, and that there are gay people closer to God than he is.
5. The ethical conservative Christian will be sensitive.
He will recognise that this is an issue of tremendous personal importance, that to comply with the conservative ethic could, for a gay person not called or inclined to celibacy, only be done at enormous cost, and that there is an unavoidable risk, whenever the issue is discussed, of inflicting pain and giving offence. Sometimes, these considerations will lead to him keeping his mouth shut.
6. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay rights in areas outside the church.
This seems obvious to me, even though it clearly is not the majority conservative position. People outside the church are (in general) not Christian, and there is no sense in asking them to conform to an ethical injunction which is valid (if at all) only within a Christian context. Employment rights, free speech and expression, age of consent laws, and so on ought not to discriminate against gays. All Christians should be concerned with basic issues of justice.
7. The ethical conservative Christian MIGHT oppose those actively engaged in homosexual activity from exercising public ministry in a conservative church.
I put that in with some misgiving, but I think it is, in fact, a fair extension of the conservative sexual ethic that the public face of the church should live consistently with its teachings in that area. Of course, the ethical conservative Christian will acknowledge that not all churches do so teach, and the argument only applies to conservative churches. Obviously consistency in application is essential - a church which does not routinely exclude all those which by its teachings are unrepentent sinners from leadership, it has no business making an exception for gays.
8. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay marriage.
Again, some misgiving about that, since so few of conservative Christians seem to, and I wouldn't want to call all those that don't unethical, but I can't avoid it. The conservative Christian wishes his own opinions and choices to be respected, and his personal commitments to be recognised, and cannot consistently deny the same consideration to others. The harm of denying legal recognition to gay couples is so obvious and so great, and the harm to others of permitting it is so speculative and intangible, that there is no utilitarian argument that could over-ride that consistency of principle.
It doesn't follow that he will support church recognition of gay marriage. A conservative church cannot endorse what it thinks is forbidden by God (it can pray for domestic happiness for sinners, of course, but not in a way that implies that domestic arragnements are hallowed when by the church's best judgement they are sinful). A liberal Christian or church, so my hypothetical conservative might think, is very welcome to pray for and express approval of a gay marriage, but should not purport to bless a union on behalf of the whole Church of God, because a substantial part of the whole Church believes that God has commanded us to avoid such relationships. The ECC should have no problem with a church saying "we, as a local Christian community, celebrate gay marriage" even if he cannot whole-heartedly join them in that celebration, but would have a problem with them saying "we, Christ's Church on earth/denomination X, celebrate gay marriage" if in fact very large sections of that Church or denomination have serious misgivings.
I'd like to know if there are any things there which the Ship's conservative Christians (whom I generally take to be ethical) if there are any points in my list which they could not in conscience agree to.
And if any of the Ship's gay and pro-gay Christians think that I have left in anything which is completely unacceptable to them (given, of course, that I am legislating for a person who by definition is committed to the view that the Bible authoritatively prohibits homosexual sex).
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
The ECC should have no problem with a church saying "we, as a local Christian community, celebrate gay marriage" even if he cannot whole-heartedly join them in that celebration, but would have a problem with them saying "we, Christ's Church on earth/denomination X, celebrate gay marriage" if in fact very large sections of that Church or denomination have serious misgivings.
But isn't that also true of many other types of marriages across Christendom? Divorced persons remarrying...arranged marriages/marriages of minors in cultures that support those ideas...marriages of the "unequally yoked"...why single out, liturgically speaking, gay marriage as something uniquely repugnant to considerable numbers of Christians when there are a number of marriage practices in various cultures/communities that various Christian sects would object to?
Which begs the larger question of what you think about Christian clergy/worship leaders liturgically speaking on behalf of "The Church" when they're performing any kind of rite with which there's disagreement between Christians. Should such Church-universal verbiage not be used, say, in baptismal or Eucharistic liturgies, then, since those are major areas of theological fistfighting between Christian traditions?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Which begs the larger question of what you think about Christian clergy/worship leaders liturgically speaking on behalf of "The Church" when they're performing any kind of rite with which there's disagreement between Christians.
Yes, you're right. There's a huge can of worms there that gets opened if ethical conservatives object to liberals acting for "the Church". An Anglican priest purporting to solemnise the remarriage of a divorced person on behalf of the whole Church knows perfectly well that the Catholics consider the union to be adulterous, and could raise the same objection to my conservative objecting to gay marriage in liberal churches.
I need to limit the principle - a conservative Christian can object to liberals in the Church doing something if it cannot be done with integrity. Gay marriage MIGHT in some local situations be something that cannot be done with integrity (a faction with bare-majority political support ought not to represent its own agenda as an accurate representation of what the whole church thinks on contentious issues) but is not a special case. And, of course, my ethical conservative is commited to assuming good faith in his opponents if he possibly can, so will prefer to see support for gay marriage as celebrating something which the liberals really believe is hallowed (even if they are wrong) than as an attmept to re-invent the church in their image.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
I'll stick my head above the parapet, and take this injunction seriously:
quote:
I'd like to know if there are any things there which the Ship's conservative Christians (whom I generally take to be ethical) if there are any points in my list which they could not in conscience agree to.
So here goes:
quote:
1. The ethical conservative Christian will differentiate between acts and orientation.
Agree.
quote:
2. The ethical conservative Christian will assume good faith in her opponents, and will be courteous to them.
Seems obvious.
quote:
3. The ethical conservative Christian will not argue guilt by association, or associate with the guilty on ‘her' side.
Yes. It is my biggest issue with Christians I know that they seem rather to jump on the bandwagon of secular homophobia, and think "these people are on our side". They aren't.
quote:
4. The ethical conservative Christian will be humble.
He will be aware firstly that people have been badly damaged by this issue, and that some of the loudest voices which proclaim homosexuality to be wrong are those of abusers. He will also be aware that he personally is a sinner, and that there are gay people closer to God than he is.
Yes.
quote:
5. The ethical conservative Christian will be sensitive.
He will recognise that this is an issue of tremendous personal importance, that to comply with the conservative ethic could, for a gay person not called or inclined to celibacy, only be done at enormous cost, and that there is an unavoidable risk, whenever the issue is discussed, of inflicting pain and giving offence. Sometimes, these considerations will lead to him keeping his mouth shut.
Yes. Added to that, if someone takes a different view on this to you, you can chat about other things in their Christian life and yours without this issue "sitting over" everything. And you will basically never, unless asked, make this a point of a discussion or disagreement with someone gay who is not a Christian.
quote:
6. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay rights in areas outside the church.
This seems obvious to me, even though it clearly is not the majority conservative position. People outside the church are (in general) not Christian, and there is no sense in asking them to conform to an ethical injunction which is valid (if at all) only within a Christian context. Employment rights, free speech and expression, age of consent laws, and so on ought not to discriminate against gays. All Christians should be concerned with basic issues of justice.
Yes.
quote:
7. The ethical conservative Christian MIGHT oppose those actively engaged in homosexual activity from exercising public ministry in a conservative church.
I put that in with some misgiving, but I think it is, in fact, a fair extension of the conservative sexual ethic that the public face of the church should live consistently with its teachings in that area. Of course, the ethical conservative Christian will acknowledge that not all churches do so teach, and the argument only applies to conservative churches. Obviously consistency in application is essential - a church which does not routinely exclude all those which by its teachings are unrepentent sinners from leadership, it has no business making an exception for gays.
Yes. This is, of course, more complicated for churches in mixed conservative-liberal denominations who may (and do) wish to campaign for the denomination to take a particular view. I belong to an independent church, so it is not my business what or who another church appoints as its leader. And yes, if anything, a church should be more likely to exclude someone from leadership for a sin that is extremely prominent in your own community and church - materialism and gossip for example in middle class UK. It's much more important for you to be distinctive in your own community rather than pointing the finger at people you, in likelihood, don't know.
quote:
8. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay marriage.
Hmmm. This is where I stumble slightly. People should be able to legally make whatever personal arrangements they like. I'm not sure "marriage" should be redefined. So perhaps my problem is actually with the state being in control of the definition of marriage. Like I say, I'm not sure. I certainly do not think campaigning against gay marriage as a big ticket issue is good for any group of Christians or individuals.
Can I add, that the ECC should respect and do their best to celebrate the decisions of others who aren't Christians. So the ECC should find a way of celebrating a friend's civil partnership for example.
And finally, the ECC should bend over backwards to actually know and be friends with some gay people, (assuming that there are gay people who want to befriend conervative Christians - it would be understandable if there were those who didn't!) If your theology can only survive in a vacuum of not knowing the people you believe things about it's not worth having. IMHO.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
8. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay marriage.
Hmmm. This is where I stumble slightly. People should be able to legally make whatever personal arrangements they like. I'm not sure "marriage" should be redefined. So perhaps my problem is actually with the state being in control of the definition of marriage. Like I say, I'm not sure. I certainly do not think campaigning against gay marriage as a big ticket issue is good for any group of Christians or individuals.
Can I add, that the ECC should respect and do their best to celebrate the decisions of others who aren't Christians. So the ECC should find a way of celebrating a friend's civil partnership for example.
For the sake of context, I've left in the whole of your considered reply, which I appreciate. The one statement I wanted to call out is this:
quote:
So perhaps my problem is actually with the state being in control of the definition of marriage.
Given that the state provides a whole raft of legal benefits, and legal obligations, to those who are married, I think the state darn well should be able to define (civil) marriage. Or, if that's too radical for the ethical conservative Christian, I would hope the ethical conservative Christian would be campaigning for civil partnerships to carry the same legal rights (and obligations) as marriages.
[ 17. October 2011, 16:33: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
8. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay marriage.
Hmmm. This is where I stumble slightly. People should be able to legally make whatever personal arrangements they like. I'm not sure "marriage" should be redefined. So perhaps my problem is actually with the state being in control of the definition of marriage. Like I say, I'm not sure. I certainly do not think campaigning against gay marriage as a big ticket issue is good for any group of Christians or individuals.
Of course, the state has been in control of the definition of marriage for quite some time now. Despite this, various religious conservatives haven't spent a lot of time and effort trying to create new legal categories for opposite-sex marriages that fall outside their faith's approval. (e.g. Catholics lobbying for re-marriages after divorce to be called "adulterous unions", Orthodox Jews trying to get inter-faith marriages involving Jews renamed "Goyish unions", etc.) It seems as if objections to the state's power to re-define marriage are only raised when it might include homosexuals.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
Crœsos, brilliant.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Or, if that's too radical for the ethical conservative Christian, I would hope the ethical conservative Christian would be campaigning for civil partnerships to carry the same legal rights (and obligations) as marriages.
Yes, fair enough. I do agree with this about civil partnerships; they should be legally the same as marriages IMHO. For better or worse, I can't stop viewing the word marriage through my religious spectacles.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Or, if that's too radical for the ethical conservative Christian, I would hope the ethical conservative Christian would be campaigning for civil partnerships to carry the same legal rights (and obligations) as marriages.
Yes, fair enough. I do agree with this about civil partnerships; they should be legally the same as marriages IMHO. For better or worse, I can't stop viewing the word marriage through my religious spectacles.
Of course, the history of maintaining true legal equality under a legal system that insists on separate categories with theoretically indentical rights is full of all kinds of cautionary tales.
You know what's also "legally the same as marriages"? Marriages. Having a parallel legal code for an unpopular minority is just inviting trouble.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
[tangent] I've not been able to get back to the boards all day, but I would like to thank Louise for her courteous and illuminating reply to my earier remarks. Cheers! [/tangent]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
8. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay marriage.
Hmmm. This is where I stumble slightly. People should be able to legally make whatever personal arrangements they like. I'm not sure "marriage" should be redefined. So perhaps my problem is actually with the state being in control of the definition of marriage. Like I say, I'm not sure. I certainly do not think campaigning against gay marriage as a big ticket issue is good for any group of Christians or individuals.
Of course, the state has been in control of the definition of marriage for quite some time now.
I agree with Lep's response to Eliab's list.
However, I also agree that Crœsos is right to pick him up on his reference to the state.
Of course the state has the right to define marriage how it pleases. However, in a democracy, Christians have just as much right as anyone else to argue what they think that definition should be.
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
Eliab, I don't think I tick the right boxes to be a conservative, but think the difficulty with 5 comes where the conservative Christian considers that Corinthians 6 makes homosexual practice a matter of salvation. What people believe tends to affect their behaviour, and the conservative may think he's doing, say, a Christian in a gay relationship a favour by warning him or her of the 'danger'. Otherwise it's much more possible to accept without affirming.
It puts me in mind of the 'pearls before swine' (not that gay people are pigs, just that the full-on conservative position is gobbledegook to those who don't share it). Perhaps added to your list is a preparedness to trust God to sort things out and hand people's salvation over to him.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So if you say it's not sinful to be homosexual - then you can't also expect people to deny who they are, unless you'd be willing to do exactly the same.
So you'd have to be willing to deny your own sexuality if you were expecting others to do just that.
I actually don't think the "It's the way I was made" argument washes. It's like saying "Well, naturally I lose my temper a lot; to try to curb it would be denying who I am. Being an angry person is my identity".
Just because any of us are born a certain way, does not mean that gives us carte-blanche (translation: white card ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) to use it as an excuse for any old behaviour.
Most people deny their own sexuality for very moral reasons, for example marital fidelity, and abstinence in ministry. By choosing to stay faithful to my wife, I'm denying my 'natural urge' to have sex with other women I might find attractive (assuming that desire is reciprocated!).
I think Orfeo's "Stop the moral panic" thread is another good illustration. If you accept that paedophiles are made that way - they can't do anything about their natural desires, then the only thing you can hope from them, if they're to be moral people, is that they choose to deny their own sexuality, and abstain from acting on their natural desires. This is the expectation that society has of them, and I think it's a reasonable one. So the idea that we can expect someone to deny their natural desires for moral reasons is not a wrong one, IMO (and as I said, most of us do so anyhow).
(to add, I'm not comparing paedophilia to homosexuality in a moral sense, and personally I'm coming from a liberal perspective on homosexuality anyhow. I'm just recognising that an argument often used by people on 'my side', IMO, is a weak one).
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
In terms of the OP, I am proud to count as friends some conservative christians, who think that homosexual acts are sin, but are wonderfully accepting and loving people nonetheless. They have gay and bi-sexual friends, and treat them with respect and hospitality.
For me, the reason they can do this is because they actually get that the gospel is about loving and accepting people, and that overrules the concept of deciding whether or not what someone else does is a sin. They know their own flaws, and they take seriously Jesus' oft-repeated command not to judge people. People often quote Romans 1, but miss the context it's put in by Romans 2. It's up to God to judge; we shouldn't.
So, my opinion is that whether you're an ethical conservative or not, the issue is whether you live out the gospel; something far more important than conservatism, liberalism or whatever. As for what one's obligations are? Well, love your neighbour, don't judge, forgive, be patient... All the tough shit that being a Christian's really about...
In short:
quote:
Is it possible that, holding those views, one could live out one's principles in a consistent, ethical, loving and Christian way? Is it right, or possible (or even desireable) that any person holding those views has a right to be treated by gay people without hostility or suspicion?
Yes, and I've seen it.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Just because any of us are born a certain way, does not mean that gives us carte-blanche (translation: white card ) to use it as an excuse for any old behaviour.
No one wants to use it as an excuse for any old behavior, but for loving and faithful behavior, behavior that harms no one, that enables the participants to appreciate the love of Christ for His Church, and that meets a need acknowledged by God as in "It is not good for the man to be alone."
I doubt that you have any idea what you are demanding when you place an obligation on another person of sexual abstinence lifelong, at least unless you are walking the walk yourself. This is not a scriptural demand.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
No one wants to use it as an excuse for any old behavior, but for loving and faithful behavior, behavior that harms no one, that enables the participants to appreciate the love of Christ for His Church, and that meets a need acknowledged by God as in "It is not good for the man to be alone."
I think you think that I'd disagree with that, but I don't - I agree with it all. I think you missed my point, that being made a certain way is not reason enough, there needs to be more. And those reasons you give are very good ones that I agree with.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I doubt that you have any idea what you are demanding when you place an obligation on another person of sexual abstinence lifelong, at least unless you are walking the walk yourself. This is not a scriptural demand.
Again, I'm not placing that demand on anyone, so I think you've missed my point and are arguing against something I didn't say. The only obligation of sexual abstinence I'd demand is that pedophiles stay away from kids. I happen to think that faithfulness when you're in a relationship is a good idea too. And I think for personal reasons of conscience people choose celibacy, and that's great too. I think that you think that I was saying that people with a homosexual orientation should stay celibate, but I wasn't, and I don't think that at all.
But I was making the point that some criticisms of the conservative position are not valid, because they don't take into account the fact that in other situations we take the same stance as they do, just with different criteria.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I doubt that you have any idea what you are demanding when you place an obligation on another person of sexual abstinence lifelong, at least unless you are walking the walk yourself. This is not a scriptural demand.
One other thing, I think that this is a slight misrepresentation of the conservative view anyhow. They don't place an obligation of sexual abstinence lifelong on anyone, just homosexual abstinence. I'm sure they'd be very happy for opposite-sex jigginess going on (within the confines of marriage of course!).
But in the same way, you and I would expect someone who is attracted to children to curb that desire, but if they wanted to get it on with a consenting adult, then great.
So this is my point. For me, it's not about "I was made that way - it's just the way I am.". That's not good enough on its own, and sees sexuality as a totally individually defined thing, rather than in the context of a relationship. And that's where the weakness in the conservative position is too, because it doesn't allow that freedom within a mutual relationship either.
The danger of one's sexuality being individually defined is that it can only block that process of 'not being alone' that you mentioned. It's sad when someone represses their homosexuality and misses out on being with someone and having that God-blessed relationship. But it's just as sad for someone who has always defined their sexuality as homosexual to miss out on a same-sex relationship in the same way. Sex requires two people (or more!), and IMO sexuality is defined by relationship, not individuals. That's the difference between paedophilia and homosexuality that conservatives consistently fail to grasp. Of course we all have orientations (and I think they're on a scale, not binary), but sexuality itself is much bigger than those orientations.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I doubt that you have any idea what you are demanding when you place an obligation on another person of sexual abstinence lifelong, at least unless you are walking the walk yourself. This is not a scriptural demand.
I'm going to charitably assume that most of the men in the Vatican are living lifelong sexual abstinence. I don't think that makes them much superior to conservative Protestant preachers.
The important thing isn't really what walk I'm walking, but whether I'm really paying attention and listening to how yours is going.
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?
What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?
1. Please, do us a favor and ignore us. Your attention is literally killing us.
2. Like that's going to happen.
This summarizes the "conversation" succinctly.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm going to charitably assume that most of the men in the Vatican are living lifelong sexual abstinence.
So will I. But they volunteered for it. Big difference.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
They don't place an obligation of sexual abstinence lifelong on anyone, just homosexual abstinence. I'm sure they'd be very happy for opposite-sex jigginess going on (within the confines of marriage of course!).
Yes, I am aware that some may venture that little gotcha, but it only underscores their hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy. As if any responsible parent of a sweet young woman would counsel her to go ahead and marry a man they suspect of being queer. I certainly would not, either, unless her eyes are wide open and she knows exactly what she might be getting into. Binding another person, innocent and unsuspecting, into a life of frustration-- and for what possible reason other than to put on a false front for society and satisfy religious regulations? Is any hallmark lacking here of the goings-on against which Jesus railed time and again?
To pretend to be straight in order to marry someone of the opposite sex, to whom by definition one is not attracted, is IMHO the most immoral thing that a homosexual as such can possibly do. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Anyone who doesn't see this ought to pay a visit to the Straight Spouse Network or similar sites.
There's no problem given that both people know themselves and their prospective partners thoroughly and honestly and then decide to proceed. But fag hags (or whatever the male equivalent is called) don't grow on every tree. Furthermore, society and the church, by wrapping themselves in a cradle-to-grave program of heterosexism, have actually colluded against such self-understanding. By doing so they share much of the the blame for the resulting misery. It's a relief that those days are ending in the West.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Totally agree, Alogon.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
To pretend to be straight in order to marry someone of the opposite sex, to whom by definition one is not attracted.
I guess that their viewpoint might depend on whether they actually accept the fact that homosexuality exists as an orientation, or whether they think that it's an 'illness' that needs to be 'cured'. If it's the latter, then at least they're being consistent (if consistently wrong), but if it's the former, then it's opens that whole can of worms...
I'm interested in this idea of orientation being a set-in-stone idea - what you say about someone 'by definition' not being attracted to someone though. I don't know if it's worth its own thread in purgatory...
I think orientation is a very complex thing, and to boil it down to gay/straight/bi is overly simplistic. For example, I'm straight, but I'd still say I'm probably more complex than that - say maybe 99% straight but 1% gay - I'm aware of that part of me that exists. I think everyone is somewhere along that continuum when it comes to gender-orientation.
And there's loads of other aspects of orientation. Physically I might prefer blondes or brunettes, tall women, short women, older women, younger women, brown eyes, green eyes, short hair, long hair, etc. etc. Then there's character traits that we look for too. And in terms of sex, I might prefer some acts over others. I met a gay dude who didn't like anal sex - doesn't mean he's not gay (for all I know, there may be plenty like him out there - I'm not privy to most people's bedroom habits).
The point is, I have a whole host of 'default' orientations, and the reality is that no-one on this earth is going to match them all.
So, in terms of relationships, both parties bring all those orientations to that relationship, and then both adjust their sexuality around the other person - it's a fluid thing, not something that's set in stone.
For someone that's single, if they think of themselves only as 'straight' or 'gay' and use that as the defining characteristic of their sexuality, then it's possible that this is at the expense of all those other varied parts of their sexuality, and they might miss out on a brilliant relationship as a result of that.
And this is what I mean about, in reality, sexuality being defined by a relationship, not an individual. Individuals have orientations, but sexuality is more than orientation.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Here's an example of what I mean:
Idiot abroad 2
(skip to around 3:30)
It's surprising to hear such wisdom from Karl Pilkington...
He makes the point (in his own special way), that if he discovered his partner was actually a man, it now wouldn't make any difference. All those other aspects of her character make her what she is, and the person whom he loves. For gender orientation to overrule all of that, it would be a sad thing.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Here's an example of what I mean:
He makes the point (in his own special way), that if he discovered his partner was actually a man, it now wouldn't make any difference.
This is an irrelevant example. To discover that your spouse is gay is not the same as discovering that the person whom you love and who loves you is really a different gender. It is to discover that the spouse who you thought loved you in the way that nowadays one expects a spouse to do (although a disappointing coolness in bed might have raised doubts) had just been faking it all along, wishing for someone else, and there is absolutely nothing you can ever do about it.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
this is a slight misrepresentation of the conservative view anyhow. They don't place an obligation of sexual abstinence lifelong on anyone, just homosexual abstinence. I'm sure they'd be very happy for opposite-sex jigginess going on (within the confines of marriage of course!).
As I should have mentioned before, the reply to this suggestion is that same-sex marriage confers no "special right", because it enables heterosexuals as well as homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex.
To the extent that this suggestion strikes a straight person as so meaningless, or even absurd, in practical terms that it probably never occurred to one, one should be able to understand a lack of enthusiasm for the analogous situation.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I met a gay dude who didn't like anal sex - doesn't mean he's not gay (for all I know, there may be plenty like him out there - I'm not privy to most people's bedroom habits).
Without straying into too much information, I've seen a survey in a gay magazine that indicated one third of gay dudes are just like the gay dude you met.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I met a gay dude who didn't like anal sex - doesn't mean he's not gay (for all I know, there may be plenty like him out there - I'm not privy to most people's bedroom habits).
Without straying into too much information, I've seen a survey in a gay magazine that indicated one third of gay dudes are just like the gay dude you met.
It should be noted that, according to surveys and demographics, the majority of anal sex takes place between heterosexuals, yet it's not considered unusual for any particular straight to dislike it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I met a gay dude who didn't like anal sex - doesn't mean he's not gay (for all I know, there may be plenty like him out there - I'm not privy to most people's bedroom habits).
Without straying into too much information, I've seen a survey in a gay magazine that indicated one third of gay dudes are just like the gay dude you met.
It should be noted that, according to surveys and demographics, the majority of anal sex takes place between heterosexuals, yet it's not considered unusual for any particular straight to dislike it.
Probably two interrelated reasons (and maybe this WILL stray into too much information? ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
)
1. For a heterosexual, anal sex is seen as an option. For male homosexuals it tends to be seen as what sex IS. Sex = penetration, basically. I imagine a heterosexual who doesn't like pentrative sex would be considered unusual.
2. The male 'G-spot' is accessible via anal sex. I won't claim to be an expert on female anatomy, but my vague understanding is either that anal sex doesn't reach the female G-spot or that it's no better than, um, the alternative route.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm interested in this idea of orientation being a set-in-stone idea - what you say about someone 'by definition' not being attracted to someone though. I don't know if it's worth its own thread in purgatory...
[stuff cut out]
For someone that's single, if they think of themselves only as 'straight' or 'gay' and use that as the defining characteristic of their sexuality, then it's possible that this is at the expense of all those other varied parts of their sexuality, and they might miss out on a brilliant relationship as a result of that.
I don't think any of the lesbians and gay men (or straight people) I know think of orientation as set in stone. In fact I'm kind of scratching my head over that one: in my old homogroup (like a home group, only more fabulous) all the women except me had previously been in relationships with men. Two of our previously exclusively lesbian friends had started relationships with men.
Where I have run into the idea of "set in stone" has been amongst virulently homophobic types who appear not to be able to recognise more fluid modes of being. Presbyterian Assemblies are my prime experience of this, where you heard supposedly moral chaps wittering on about their attractions to prostitutes and how they resisted temptation. Not sure what this argument was supposed to achieve, but they seemed to think it made them super-duper-heterosexual.
In regard to the second excerpt I invite you to consider the case of APW, knowingly lesbian since the age of 17, although pitifully short of sexual experience until the age of 30, at which point she got together with her partner, with whom she still happily lives 18 or so years later. Sort of like GoPerryRevs, she would describe herself as 99% homosexual, 1% heterosexual.
Apart from my partner and a workmate, my friends are almost all men, straight and gay. I have had ample opportunity to form lovely relationships with men, none of which I have ever wanted to become sexual - it just hasn't felt right. They're still all my friends and I know they would do anything for me and vice versa. So what am I denying myself, tell me again?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen a survey in a gay magazine that indicated one third of gay dudes are just like the gay dude you met.
Thanks Orfeo, now I know! Makes me wonder how apt the scene in Brokeback Mountain is, where he flips his wife over so he can, erm, enter the other way. It seems to be enforcing a bad stereotype. Although, if Croesos is right, at least it's statistically accurate.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
This is an irrelevant example. To discover that your spouse is gay is not the same as discovering that the person whom you love and who loves you is really a different gender.
I wasn't saying they are. I was illustrating the wider point I was exploring that orientation is bigger than gender-orientation, but I appreciate that this is getting off topic, which is why I said maybe it's deserving of its own thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I don't think any of the lesbians and gay men (or straight people) I know think of orientation as set in stone.
Where I have run into the idea of "set in stone" has been amongst virulently homophobic types who appear not to be able to recognise more fluid modes of being.
Yeah, I'm sure your experience is the same as most people. It seems much more likely that a 'straight' person would miss out on a relationship with someone of their own sex than a 'gay' person would with someone of the opposite sex. But the point remains: if we think too rigidly about our gender-orientation (whatever it is), then that possibility is there (as explored in the film Chasing Amy), and more likely for gay people as homosexuality gains wider acceptance.
The way that society is at the moment, it is a really positive thing for people to proclaim their orientation: "I'm gay", "I'm bi" "I'm whatever" - to combat prejudice and challenge attitudes. That's great.
But ultimately, in a truly progressive and equal society, I'd hope that there wouldn't be a need for these things. No-one forms societies for people with green eyes, goes around telling people that they have green eyes, or fights for rights for people with green eyes, because a) no-one gives a shit what colour eyes people have and b) no-one is challenging the rights that people with green eyes have.
I'm aware that people seem to be frequently mis-understanding what I've been saying on this thread, and if that's down to my own poor communication, I apologise. But please don't argue against what I'm not saying. I'm not saying gay-rights, raising awareness, or any of those things are bad. I'm saying that our hope is that they should be temporary. That ultimately we won't need to fight for gay rights anymore, because there will be the same rights for everyone. That we won't need to shout our gender orientation from the rooftops, because it will be as incidental as our eye colour or hair colour.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm not saying gay-rights, raising awareness, or any of those things are bad. I'm saying that our hope is that they should be temporary. That ultimately we won't need to fight for gay rights anymore, because there will be the same rights for everyone. That we won't need to shout our gender orientation from the rooftops, because it will be as incidental as our eye colour or hair colour.
Yes, I'm sure it will be just as easy as getting rid of racism, sexism, or religious bigotry. Any day now . . .
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, I'm sure it will be just as easy as getting rid of racism, sexism, or religious bigotry. Any day now . . .
When did I say it was easy?
The reality with gender equality (at least here in the UK) is that nowadays there are far fewer women actively fighting for women's rights than there used to be. Is that because no-one gives a shit about equal rights anymore? No. It's because massive changes have happened for the better. Of course there are still battles to be fought (not least on equality of pay), and there are plenty of countries where it is still an issue. But change has happened, and that's a good thing! Most men don't consider women 'inferior' any more, like they used to, and accept them as equals (although as usual the Church has lagged behind). Don't you think it's possible that we can make similar progress on gay rights too?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?
Would you mind shutting up and going away, please?
quote:
What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?
Should we take care not to let the door hit us in the ass on the way out?
Why are the answers different?
You want a symmetrical pair of pair of respectful positions?
Christian Conservatives:
Insist that christian conseratives should be as celibate as you argue homosexuals should be.
Homosexxuals:
Insist that christian conservatives should be as celibate as you argue homosexuals should be.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
Eliab, as a Gay man in a long term realtionship who happens to be in ordained ministry what do I ask of conservative Christians? I work alongside theologically conservative people, I even teach and minister to some of them!
Simply that they relate to me as a person, get to know me and people in my position as people. A brother for whom Christ died if I want to get pious about it. Some cannot accept my ministry, ok but never treat me as a non person.
Also that debates about the issue respect and show care for those of us who are Christian and Gay, Lesbian, Bi or Trans.It is mightily unpleasant to be at the receiving end of a rant! Or to be treated as if I were invisible to avoid the most simple of pleasantries.
Thank you!
And thanks also to Eliab for raising the issue in the OP.
[ 09. February 2012, 09:00: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd like to know if there are any things there which the Ship's conservative Christians (whom I generally take to be ethical) if there are any points in my list which they could not in conscience agree to.
I could subscribe to your list.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Eliab, I don't think I tick the right boxes to be a conservative, but think the difficulty with 5 comes where the conservative Christian considers that Corinthians 6 makes homosexual practice a matter of salvation. What people believe tends to affect their behaviour, and the conservative may think he's doing, say, a Christian in a gay relationship a favour by warning him or her of the 'danger'. Otherwise it's much more possible to accept without affirming.
If Paul's list in I Cor 6 is to be taken as soteriological, then as someone who likes more than a few drinks, that's me stuffed.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Eliab, I don't think I tick the right boxes to be a conservative, but think the difficulty with 5 comes where the conservative Christian considers that Corinthians 6 makes homosexual practice a matter of salvation. What people believe tends to affect their behaviour, and the conservative may think he's doing, say, a Christian in a gay relationship a favour by warning him or her of the 'danger'. Otherwise it's much more possible to accept without affirming.
If Paul's list in I Cor 6 is to be taken as soteriological, then as someone who likes more than a few drinks, that's me stuffed.
Talking of 'stuffed' my dining has been more than necessary on occasion.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
What kind of sterile Pharasaical 'I'm all right jack' Christianity treats the Bible as a series of tick-lists anyway? (I think I've answered my own question, haven't I?)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
It's a huge irony IMO that those who seem to be most against a works-based soteriology in theory are most likely to bang on about such tick lists.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
But isn't there a perceived difference between good works, which won't save you, because you cannot save yourself, and bad works, which indicate that you are responsible for them because you haven't opened yourself to grace? 'Scuse lack of appropriate theological language, I'm sure there's a technical way of saying what I intend.
Penny
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Hmm. It seems like that means creating categories of accidental sin and deliberate sin, or something.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
At the risk of throwing a hand grenade into this burgeoning outbreak of harmony, I think the prime stated* objection by at least fundamentalists if not conservative Christians is theological rather than behavioural eg: I have oft-heard it said on conservative-fundie discussion boards that 'the Gay Rights Christian lobby' (is there such a thing?) "call evil [same-sex practice] good and good [condemnation of the same] evil [bigoted etc]", or words to that effect.
Now, this seems to me to be a doctrinal difference rather than as issue of 'tolerating sin and sinners in our midst'. For me personally, such a difference would be far from a top-league issue such as denial of the Trinity but the trouble is that there is a tendency in conservative evangelical/ fundamentalist circles to make every doctrinal difference of a top league nature (the old joke about the two dispensationalists on the bridge springs to mind). So I think the problem has far more to do with the nature of fundie ecclesiology rather than the specific issue but, then again, who would a gay Christian want to be part of such a church set-up?
Sorry, bit of a ramble/ brain-dump.
*[ETA Assuming of course that the real reason isn't that they find the whole thing a bit icky.]
[ 10. February 2012, 09:22: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Laying aside whether 1 Corinthians 6.9 is soteriological, there are the translation issues (viz., What do malakoi and arsenokoitai actually mean?) and the fact that in ancient Greek society, it was common for married men would mentor pubescent boys into manhood in exchange for sex.
Homosexual relationships between two equal adults would have been regarded as unacceptable in such a hierarchical machismo culture as the "passive" man would have been seen to have given up his "superior" male role to take on the role of an "inferior" woman. Adult men having coitus with boys was acceptable as boys were also regarded as inferior in stature.
So the question is what was Paul referring to?
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
This is the main problem I have with the attempts of Gagnon and co. whose project is more or less to demonstrate that Paul really means what he appears to them to say (without actually addressing any of the overarching concerns about the rather alarming moral and theological implications of the prohibition they seek to defend). For a certain sort of exegete, if we can just show that Paul had some concept of orientation, the "revisionists" are done. Paul was no dummy, and was clearly a cosmopolitan sort of chap, but no matter how "up" he was on the mores of the Mediterranean of the day he could hardly be psychic (unless we begin to insist on a a theology of inspiration mainline Christians don't otherwise require*) to the point of anticipating a Victorian development in psychiatry. "Homosexuality" may have been known in various forms to the ancients, but an egalitarian partnership between husbands or wives would have been laughable - if not indeed a perversion of their own sense of natural law. Certainly by definition a same-gender partnership taking as its moral template the mutual self-offering of Christian marriage could not exist before Christianity itself anymore than heterosexual Christian marriage could (hence the whole brouhaha over Boswell surely?).
And of course, Paul is the same author who takes gender off the table as a moral arbiter, so the "What You See Is What You Get" reading is a double-edged sword (quite apart from the fact that most modern-day queers would not see themselves as "soft ones" or
(*This seems to me a feature of a lot of aspects of the "conservative" case. For instance, most "complementarians" only become so when the issue is gays, and outside particularly repressive sects don't actually have a problem with wives who wear trousers, work outside the home, or other "un-submissive" traits - it's only when the wife acquires a penis that the slippery slope to "unisex" marriage becomes an issue. So despite their claim to orthodoxy, contras are actually prepared to be quite eclectic theologically so long as it keeps out of bed those whom they wish to keep out of bed).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
At the risk of throwing a hand grenade into this burgeoning outbreak of harmony, I think the prime stated* objection by at least fundamentalists if not conservative Christians is theological rather than behavioural eg: I have oft-heard it said on conservative-fundie discussion boards that 'the Gay Rights Christian lobby' (is there such a thing?) "call evil [same-sex practice] good and good [condemnation of the same] evil [bigoted etc]", or words to that effect.
Now, this seems to me to be a doctrinal difference rather than as issue of 'tolerating sin and sinners in our midst'. For me personally, such a difference would be far from a top-league issue such as denial of the Trinity but the trouble is that there is a tendency in conservative evangelical/ fundamentalist circles to make every doctrinal difference of a top league nature (the old joke about the two dispensationalists on the bridge springs to mind). So I think the problem has far more to do with the nature of fundie ecclesiology rather than the specific issue but, then again, who would a gay Christian want to be part of such a church set-up?
Sorry, bit of a ramble/ brain-dump.
*[ETA Assuming of course that the real reason isn't that they find the whole thing a bit icky.]
I understand what you're saying here. The problem I have is that the conservatives have a tendency to divorce theology completely from behaviour in a different sense. They don't actually look at what the theology is doing.
Which is very much how I ended up reexamining the theology myself. Having tried fixing various other things (such as trying to get 'cured' of my orientation), and still being so profoundly miserable, I finally got around to looking at some of the passages again and realised how they were open to quite different interpretations. Coherent, convincing interpretations, not just ones that made me 'feel good' - I am not the sort of person who will just gloss over a glaring problem in an interpretation just because it suits me.
Now, faced with more than one competing interpretation that might legitimately open, which should I choose? The one that causes people to lead lives of utter hopelessness where they are condemned to never have the love and partnership they inevitably crave, or the one that acknowledges their innate desires and allows them to express them within the same framework that others can?
To me that's a no-brainer. If someone wants to convince me to follow the interpretation that puts homosexuals through emotional and psychological hell, and that this is what God wanted, they have to convince me that's the ONLY possible meaning, and I moved on from that view several years ago.
I'll take the interpretation that enables me to feel like I have some kind of life and future so long as it's fairly open. Because THAT'S what I would reasonably tend to think God wanted. The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
[ 11. February 2012, 00:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'll take the interpretation that enables me to feel like I have some kind of life and future so long as it's fairly open. Because THAT'S what I would reasonably tend to think God wanted. The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Go for it, brother. That decision exactly describes what some evangelicals call making' the leap of faith.' It's leaping in the opposite direction to the one they'd expect but is an act of trust and assurance. trust and assurance to stake one's eternal destiny on the belief that God is unconditional love rather than the vindictive bastard portrayed by some 'Christians'.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'll take the interpretation that enables me to feel like I have some kind of life and future so long as it's fairly open. Because THAT'S what I would reasonably tend to think God wanted. The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Go for it, brother. That decision exactly describes what some evangelicals call making' the leap of faith.' It's leaping in the opposite direction to the one they'd expect but is an act of trust and assurance. trust and assurance to stake one's eternal destiny on the belief that God is unconditional love rather than the vindictive bastard portrayed by some 'Christians'.
This. I struggled for years, not with being homosexual, but trying to rationalise being friends with homosexuals whilst believing that same-sex sex was always wrong.
In the end, I had to acknowledge that what I believed and had been taught was simply wrong, and recanted of my former views.
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE] The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Do you reject evolution then? Just because God created Adam does not mean that we have not continued to evolve does it? I must admit I find it difficult to see how homosexuality could be a product even of evolution. At the very least I guess evolutionary theory explains why homosexuality is not prevalent.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
Hmm, I was taught (by my very strict RC Philosophy Tutor) that the evolutionary advantage was mainly:
that you have a pool of Uncles/Aunts to help raise offspring while not being, themselves, a drain on society (taking resources for nurturing kids) - a net contribution.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I must admit I find it difficult to see how homosexuality could be a product even of evolution.
Possible explanations off the top of my head...
1) People whose sexuality is exclusively homosexual don't have children of their own but do tend to look after the children of their sisters and brothers. If so, their sisters and brothers (who may carry homosexuality as a recessive gene) will have more children than average which will more than make up for the children not had by those who into same-sex relationships. (Edited after cross-post: What Jahlove says.)
2) The mechanisms for establishing sexual attraction are just really complex and there's no easy way for evolution to develop one that is so consistent it doesn't sometimes end up developing attraction to the same sex.
3) Bisexuality is actually an advantage in having children since it develops emotional bonds between parents of different children strengthening beneficial co-operation between different parents. Developing bisexuality results in a lot of heterosexuality and a bit of homosexuality alongside it.
Those are all Just-So Stories, but they're all plausible. I suspect 2 is the most correct, as I believe exclusively homosexual pair-bonding is found in species such as eagles and swans that don't cooperate at all in raising children.
[ 11. February 2012, 22:59: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE] The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Do you reject evolution then? Just because God created Adam does not mean that we have not continued to evolve does it? I must admit I find it difficult to see how homosexuality could be a product even of evolution. At the very least I guess evolutionary theory explains why homosexuality is not prevalent.
I've heard some suggestion (it's the kind of thing people have researched, but soundbites of research are always risky) that the incidence of homosexuality rises proportionally in times of overpopulation, as a check-and-balance.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
And of course, throughout history, most of those we would now call homosexual married and had children regardless of what their erotic preferences might have been.
I don't know whether any study has been done of the sexual orientation of the descendents of known homosexuals to see whether or not there was an increased incidence. One would have to take into account the other ancestors, of course, whose orientation might not be known. And one would also have to make some assessment of the relative importance of bi-sexuality, since we have no way of judging, for example, whether someone believed to be gay but who put up with marriage to a woman might not have been equally attracted to men and women.
John
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE] The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Do you reject evolution then? Just because God created Adam does not mean that we have not continued to evolve does it? I must admit I find it difficult to see how homosexuality could be a product even of evolution. At the very least I guess evolutionary theory explains why homosexuality is not prevalent.
Do you think the observed homosexuality in almost every mammal species ( and birds) is not a product of evolution?
In social animals, not every member has to procreate for the species to flourish. Consider the percentage of ants who are celibate.
In primitive societies, there is a need for children to work the farm. It turns out to be pretty easy for homosexually oriented men to figure out how to do this given a supply of women who need to be married due to social custom. Meanwhile back at the stoa....
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE] The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Do you reject evolution then? Just because God created Adam does not mean that we have not continued to evolve does it? I must admit I find it difficult to see how homosexuality could be a product even of evolution. At the very least I guess evolutionary theory explains why homosexuality is not prevalent.
Just because homosexuality might reduce the odds of direct descendants doesn't mean that it lacks other advantages.
I'd quite like someone to explain - whether it's via evolutionary theory or via theological ones - what giraffes are still doing on the planet, because apparently about 90% of the time male giraffes get it on with other male giraffes. This doesn't appear to have prevented giraffes from surviving.
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
I find it very difficult to see how nature would favour a preference towards a sexual practice which is incapable of resulting in reproduction. Indeed our bodies appear to have evolved to favour heterosexual practices. As far as I am aware gay men do not become 'moist' prior to intercourse and are often said to need artificial lubricant. If homosexuality is a result of evolution then surely nature would have provided the lubricant? How has nature caused homosexual desire to evolve without also making homosexual practice easier and more productive along the way?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I find it very difficult to see how nature would favour a preference towards a sexual practice which is incapable of resulting in reproduction. Indeed our bodies appear to have evolved to favour heterosexual practices. As far as I am aware gay men do not become 'moist' prior to intercourse and are often said to need artificial lubricant. If homosexuality is a result of evolution then surely nature would have provided the lubricant? How has nature caused homosexual desire to evolve without also making homosexual practice easier and more productive along the way?
Hell, haven't you heard of spit?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Further to the point about aunts and uncles enabling better survival of their nephews/nieces while not adding to the population (a bit like wolves, meercats, and naked mole rats, where it is the community which evolves, not the individual lineage), there are other advantages.
Human society needs not only bodies, but also knowledge, some of which would be specific to female activities. Women who do not bear children would be likely to live longer (this is related to the arguments about women living on past the menopause, and the benefits of grandmothers), and thus be able to pass on the group fund of knowledge better. Women able to form loving relationships would be happier doing this.
I can't quite form a similar argument about gay men here - they seem historically to have been just as likely to engage in war and risky behaviours as heterosexual men.
If there is anything in that suggestion that more homosexuals are born at times of population overgrowth, it might be related to studies suggesting that in families with a sequence of boy babies, the younger are more likely to be homosexual than boys in the general population.
Penny
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Never mind spit, haven't you heard of... or is that about to become to vulgar for Dead Horses? Let's just say at least one part of a man's anatomy certainly does get moist.
However difficult anyone might find it to see, the fact is that nature clearly allows homosexuality to be around - to different degrees in different species. Various theories exist as to why, including the whole helpful aunt/uncle business already alluded to. Reproduction of the species is not the same thing as reproduction of the individual - again, we've already had ants mentioned, and there are plenty of other examples of species where individuals work quite busily without actually doing any reproduction on their own behalf.
The enormous irony of proposing that homosexuality ought to die out is that the vast majority of the time it's heterosexuals that are having homosexual children. It's not homosexuals perpetuating homosexuality, it's heterosexuals doing it.
And it's been shown that the likelihood of a woman having a homosexual son increases with each son she's had - so once she's got the breeding stock sorted, it's time to have a boy who will be fabulously intelligent and creative and a damn good uncle.
Oh heck, just read the link for starters.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Wait a minute... why am I even buying into what appears to be an implicit assumption that 'homosexuality' equates with 'a desire for anal sex'??
I'm sure we've been through this one multiple times on the Ship. Not only do many homosexual men not have anal sex, but the vast majority of anal sex taking place in the world is between heterosexuals. So perhaps we should be asking why a woman's rear end doesn't become 'moist' before intercourse. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wait a minute... why am I even buying into what appears to be an implicit assumption that 'homosexuality' equates with 'a desire for anal sex'??
In fact, I'm notoriously ambivalent about the practice, and would rather see a prohibition against it (if that's what the problem is*) consistently applied to all married couples than a definition of marriage based on speculative second-guessing about who is likely to "commit" which activities in the bedroom.
*One woman in an online exchange, asked what she meant by "a homosexual act" (per Jeffrey John, does fighting about who goes to Tesco's count?) by sniffing that I knew very well what we were talking about, which only served to convince me that she didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Hell, haven't you heard of spit?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Yowch - don't try this at home, kids!
[ 12. February 2012, 13:44: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I find it very difficult to see how nature would favour a preference towards a sexual practice which is incapable of resulting in reproduction. Indeed our bodies appear to have evolved to favour heterosexual practices. As far as I am aware gay men do not become 'moist' prior to intercourse and are often said to need artificial lubricant. If homosexuality is a result of evolution then surely nature would have provided the lubricant? How has nature caused homosexual desire to evolve without also making homosexual practice easier and more productive along the way?
If we're going to be somewhat coarse, then I'd ask why the male G spot is inside the anus.
[ 12. February 2012, 14:57: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And of course, throughout history, most of those we would now call homosexual married and had children regardless of what their erotic preferences might have been.
I don't know whether any study has been done of the sexual orientation of the descendents of known homosexuals to see whether or not there was an increased incidence. One would have to take into account the other ancestors, of course, whose orientation might not be known. And one would also have to make some assessment of the relative importance of bi-sexuality, since we have no way of judging, for example, whether someone believed to be gay but who put up with marriage to a woman might not have been equally attracted to men and women.
John
My SIL's Dad was gay - he had six children, three of whom are gay and three are straight. They came out as gay long, long before he did. One of his sons, who is gay, is just like him.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If we're going to be somewhat coarse, then I'd ask why the male G spot is inside the anus.
Is it always? It never did much for me. I don't know how to sigh about that: wistfully (all the fun missed) or with relief? (I'm still here, whereas some of my more G-spotted age-mates contracted AIDS before they even realized that there was such a scourge.)
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'll take the interpretation that enables me to feel like I have some kind of life and future so long as it's fairly open. Because THAT'S what I would reasonably tend to think God wanted. The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
This approach is an established tradition in Judaism, which is where all these laws are rooted, obviously.
The 613 Mitzvah were given by God to help people live in dignity and harmony. When they become oppressive, the Rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud traditionally employed the concept of "Kavod HaBriyot". This meant that the law must be interpreted in such a way as not to rob people of the fullness of life or of their dignity.
So while working on the Sabbath is the most serious sin in the Old Testament: it's the only sin other than idolatry in Scripture where God personally intervenes to order an execution on a lawbreaker, even the most Orthodox rabbis will allow exceptions under the principle of Kavod HaBriyot. Doing work on the Sabbath is permitted so that one can fix a wheelchair in order to get around; or clean up after an elderly person has lost control of their bowels; or put a battery in a hearing aid; or fix a furnace so that one doesn't suffer in the cold. These acts are all clearly work, a death penalty offence under Mosaic law, but the necessity of maintaining human dignity trumps the law in each case.
Conservative Judaism (unlike Reform or Reconstructionalist Judaism) affirms that the 613 Mitzvah are still binding, but lifted the prohibition on most homosexual acts under the principle of Kavod HaBriyot. They affirmed that while Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 are God's law and binding on those who are Frum, the understanding of erotic attraction has changed and the testimony of gay men and lesbians has shown that sexual orientation is not fleeting, but unchangeable. To ban all homosexual behaviour robs lesbian and gay people of their dignity, just like refusing to clean up after your grandmother has lost control of her bowls, because it is work on the Sabbath, robs the grandmother of her dignity. So one of the decisions of the Rabbinical committee tasked to interpret Scripture was to interpret these Levitical commandments in such a way as to not do that. They chose to interpret the prohibition literally by banning male-to-male anal sex but welcoming lesbian and gay people in relationships in the community and opening the door so that they may become full members and even rabbis.
(Another paper by this committee advocated affirming the commands as God's law but setting them aside entirely based on Kavod HaBriyot, as even the ban was seen to stigmatize lesbians and gay people. And a 3rd paper by a "Consevadox" group advocated keeping the prohibition on any homosexual acts in place and referring LGBT people to ex-gay counselling - the point being that none advocated lifetime celibacy for those who aren't called to it.)
Christians tend to look at these laws - Old and New Testament - as inflexible. While Jesus said that the Sabbath (again, under Mosaic law deemed to be the most significant commandment) was made for humanity, not the other way around, his followers to this day, have generally put the law before people, sadly and we see the pain it causes all around us.
But your approach has a long history behind it, even if Scripture clearly banned all expressions and acts of gay sexuality, which is quite debatable.
[ 15. February 2012, 00:20: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Excellent.
And frankly, I'm now going to have to resist an urge to convert to Judaism on the grounds that they have a more sane understanding of God than some Christians.
I'll just have to keep reminding myself that Christianity still provides a better solution when I actually DO break a law.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
They chose to interpret the prohibition literally by banning male-to-male anal sex but welcoming lesbian and gay people in relationships
WOuld that more Christian biblical literalists would practice such literalism.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm now going to have to resist an urge to convert to Judaism
You might need a surgical procedure - that puts most people off.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
No, I'm good.
Posted by Gay Organ Grinder (# 11833) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm now going to have to resist an urge to convert to Judaism
You might need a surgical procedure - that puts most people off.
Already been done!!!
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
In that case all you need is a little prick! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But seriously, there does have to be a drop of blood extracted, in the case of a previously medically circumcised convert.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
But seriously, there does have to be a drop of blood extracted, in the case of a previously medically circumcised convert.
Seriously?! A kind of 'you didn't get circumcised for OUR reason, so we're going to have to do SOMETHING to you because we've been denied the opportunity to cut your foreskin off'?
Nice.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
It seems strange to me. I know a lot of couples who have wonderful, committed and loving relationships, both same-sex and opposite sex. I have never actually imagined what they do in bed.
In my heretical view of blessing relationships, I believe that the Church should bless any relationship that is Christ-like, that is characterized by mutual respect, devotion, commitment and joy. What people do in bed is their own business.
When it comes to homosexuality, some people have the idea that couplings are driven solely by lust and self-gratification. I don't deny that some same-sex relationships do fit that bill. But there are also many opposite-sex relationships that also have these characteristics. We certainly don't restrict the blessing of heterosexual relationships based on a few straight relationships that do not have fidelity or commitment.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Just a quick thank you to you guys. Had to do a small slot on local radio. Read this thread felt very prepared. Best line; "So Pyx_e should the church have gay members?" Me; "The more the merrier."
AtB Pyx_e.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
Thank you! The power of blunt, in action.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Just a quick thank you to you guys. Had to do a small slot on local radio. Read this thread felt very prepared. Best line; "So Pyx_e should the church have gay members?" Me; "The more the merrier."
Does the underscore come across well on Radio?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0