Originally posted by Barnabas62:
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
I linked it in this thread's OP. quote:As Desmond Tutu observes, justice is a seamless cloth.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
These two pictures will be viewed/judged identically by our children and their children.
quote:My problem is that for every Desmond Tutu or Martin Luther King, Jr. in the church there seems to be at least three Charles Coughlins or Benjamin Palmers (and at least eight of the sort that signed "A Call to Unity" [PDF], a craven call to sacrifice justice in the name of order most notable for the response it inspired [also PDF]). If the church keeps getting this sort of thing wrong, what's it for? Just another exclusive country club where the "right sort" can socialize over bread and wine?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Crœsos, it is taking a little while for the realisation to dawn that the proponents of the traditional view "have already lost". The blog is evidence that that particular penny has dropped.
quote:How many second chances should an abusive institution get?
[Huffington Post blogger Paul Brandeis] Raushenbush notes that history shows that those treated as despised, humiliated others by church folks often, over the course of time, begin to appear to their tormentors as human beings worthy of human respect. And when that happens, churches tend to go through predictable ritual cycles of repentance, in which they issue apologies to the group they've just savaged (and, in some cases, actually slaughtered):
quote:We're sorry. We didn't mean it. We're Christians, after all. We're good folks. We intend to learn from this experience not to do anything like this ever again, to another group.
We're so sorry. Didn't have a clue in the world we were inflicting such pain. We had imagined you don't feel pain as we feel pain. We had thought that excluding you, telling you you're unwelcome, that you and all your people are backwards and ignorant, wouldn't hurt you in the same way it might hurt us if we were treated this way.
Yet as Raushenbush notes, only a few days ago, the United Methodist church voted to retain in its Book of Discipline language that singles out gay and lesbian human beings in a singularly ugly way, noting that homosexuality is "incompatible" with the practice of Christian faith -- while the same UMC folks voting to target the gays in this way apologized in the very same breath for having done precisely the same thing to people of color in the past! Take a map and mark on that map those Methodist conferences that voted to split the Methodist church in the 19th century over the issue of slavery, and you'll find that the map you draw is almost exactly the same map as you draw when you mark on a map the UMC conferences that are fighting today to inform LGBT folks that their lives are incompatible with Christian faith -- and that they're not welcome.
quote:The placard "One man, one woman, FOR LIFE" shown in the bottom photo could be part of a counter-demonstration. It is a reminder of how much divorce is frowned upon in the New Testament. It points out the cherry-picking that's going on among people (i.e. evangelicals) whose divorce rate statistically exceeds that of atheists.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Via twitter: These two pictures will be viewed/judged identically by our children and their children.
quote:I can remember other occasions where the anger of the pastor overrode everything else and drove people away from the church.
Justin, I did a 180 on this issue about six months ago after viewing "Through My Eyes". Thanks to you and all the brave people on that video, I stopped viewing homosexual people as strangers I would never meet except in a gay bar, and came to realize that Christian home-schooled youth could also be gay. When I started thinking about the precious children I have watched grow up in the church, and began wondering what it would be like for any of them to discover they are gay, I cried. I cried a lot. I asked God to forgive me for my bigotry and the way I hurt good people without even knowing it. So, thank you, Justin. You do change hearts.
After my position on Amendment One changed, my pastor's attitude toward me changed. He hated me, though as a Christian he would deny that. My own family saw it on full display when he called me one night to rant about a facebook post I had made. He was on speakerphone (bluetooth picks up automatically in the car) and what my son and husband heard shocked them both.
Pastor never apologized, and started treated my teen son with the same cold shoulder. We stopped going to church. And you know what? That pastor doesn't care. We can go to hell for all he cares. Literally. So now I know what my gay brothers and sisters in Christ have been going through for twenty years or more.
Peace to you, Justin. You are a better person than I am.
quote:It seems likely, given the way the institutional church seems to end up on the wrong side of social issues with remarkable consistency. Blogger Ed Brayton explains how the process usually works:
Originally posted by Alogon:
That's a great blog entry in the OP. I want to bookmark it permanently. I'm not convinced that the Jerry Falwells actually outnumber the Desmond Tutus in the church.
quote:In short, the Fallwells and such will be airbrushed out of Christian history, more sympathetic figures like Billy Graham will have some cosmetic surgery applied to their biographies, and some leaders who are currently dismissed as "not really Christians" for treating gays as fellow human beings will become the retroactive exemplars of Christian love and tolerance.
There is a clear pattern here. Every movement to increase equality and civil rights has had to battle against the full weight of institutional Christianity, often for decades and even centuries. After the battle is won and the traditional Christian churches have been forced to abandon the position that they maintained up to that point, often supported with violence, their apologists suddenly discover that some of the people they fought so hard against were Christians — almost always of some variety that they had always rejected as heresy and apostasy. And then they say, “See! This was a Christian idea all along!”
I’ll make a prediction: 20 or 30 years from now, when anti-gay bigotry is viewed as being as anachronistic as racial bigotry is today, Dinesh D’Souza or his ideological descendants will point to Gene Robinson and some of the very same liberal leaders who embraced equality while they themselves stood foursquare against it, and they will declare that equal rights for LGBT people was based on Christian principles all along.
quote:Maybe instead of wondering why a bunch of "shadowy outsiders" are willing to shovel money into homophobic initiatives it would be better to ponder why there are so many willing takers for that kind of well-paid dirty work inside the church.
Originally posted by Alogon:
They are merely noisier, and they are able to make so much noise because they are well-funded by the likes of shadowy outsiders such as Scaife. Such money is responsible for what life homophobic initiatives still have in the Episcopal Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I can remember other occasions where the anger of the pastor overrode everything else and drove people away from the church.
quote:Anger isn't necessarily a problem. There are things people, including pastors, should be angry about. But treating gays as your legal equals isn't one of them.
Originally posted by St. Augustine:
Hope has two beautiful daughters: their names are anger and courage. Anger that things are the way they are. Courage to make them the way they ought to be.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Actually that story helped me put my finger on what troubles me about the post. I read a marked contrast between Tutu's defiance and what I can only describe as the passive-aggressive tone of her article. (I don't like that expression but I can't think of a better one that describes my unease.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I once heard a story about Desmond Tutu during the apartheid era in South Africa. He was conducting a prayer event re opposition to apartheid in a cathedral in S Africa, when armed security police and military personnel burst in, surrounded the congregation. He confronted them, informed them that they had already lost, and then broke out into a characteristic smile.
"So, since you have already lost ... why not join the winning team" .. and led the congregation, unscathed, out of the cathedral.
quote:Surfing in response to this thread, I accidentally bumped into
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm not convinced that the Jerry Falwells actually outnumber the Desmond Tutus in the church. They are merely noisier, and they are able to make so much noise because they are well-funded by the likes of shadowy outsiders such as Scaife. Such money is responsible for what life homophobic initiatives still have in the Episcopal Church.
quote:For example, Rush Limbaugh has accused Obama of "destroying marriage" by coming out in support of same-sex marriages. Limbaugh's first, second and third wives were unavailable for comment.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:The placard "One man, one woman, FOR LIFE" shown in the bottom photo could be part of a counter-demonstration. It is a reminder of how much divorce is frowned upon in the New Testament. It points out the cherry-picking that's going on among people (i.e. evangelicals) whose divorce rate statistically exceeds that of atheists.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Via twitter: These two pictures will be viewed/judged identically by our children and their children.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe instead of wondering why a bunch of "shadowy outsiders" are willing to shovel money into homophobic initiatives it would be better to ponder why there are so many willing takers for that kind of well-paid dirty work inside the church.
quote:You're probably right. Another off-putting feature cited in the same Barna study is the ridiculous insistence on new-earth creationism, leading to a general impression that Christian belief is opposed to and incompatible with science. Let me be the first to say that an honorable person can find this, too, sufficient reason to ignore Christian claims if one never takes the trouble to learn better. And why should anyone be obliged to do that in the face of all the propaganda issuing from the very movement one is being asked to join? In other words, these Christians are their own worst enemies. As Saint Augustine of Hippo noted eons ago, when people reject the church because of the stupidity of proselytes, the proselytes are the culpable ones.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I suspect homosexuality is a stand-in for a much deeper disdain for or disinterest in the institutional church. Dissolving that barrier problem will NOT result in lots of Gen X etc coming to church.
quote:Yeah, that Scotsman gets around, doesn't he? That's kind of what I mean about airbrushing out the vast majority of Christians when the injustices of the institutional Church are eventually repudiated.
Originally posted by Alogon:
In the highest-profile American cases, I don't mind pointing out that the word "church" barely applies, in that their orders are not valid. They've merely hung out their shingles with self-produced credentials. That leaves the homophobia of the RCC still to account for, whose internal politics I don't follow.
quote:Not guilty, your honor. The True Scotsman fallacy begs the question. I'm making a distinction that has been made for centuries and for reasons quite independent of the subject at hand.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, that Scotsman gets around, doesn't he?
quote:Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. Perhaps you could explain which Christians you don't think are really Christians and what makes their "orders" valid or not.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Not guilty, your honor. The True Scotsman fallacy begs the question. I'm making a distinction that has been made for centuries and for reasons quite independent of the subject at hand.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, that Scotsman gets around, doesn't he?
Two different things don't become the same thing just because you want to say they are.
quote:Interesting distinction, particularly in its demographic implications. For example, most demographers put Christians at a bit over 75% of the U.S. population. By your standard, this number is too high by a factor of three, with "real" Christians comprising only 26% of adult Americans, almost all of them Catholic.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm referring to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and in particular the historic episcopate. These criteria are ancient.
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I suspect homosexuality is a stand-in for a much deeper disdain for or disinterest in the institutional church. Dissolving that barrier problem will NOT result in lots of Gen X etc coming to church.
quote:That is precisely what our 20-somethings say on discovering our church(part of the Inclusive Church network.)
Originally posted by Bostonman:
As a young Christian (early 20s) who's recently rejoined the church, I can tell you that I would never join a denomination or congregation that a) taught that homosexuality is sinful b) actively opposed or refused to perform gay marriage or c) was anything less than radically inclusive of gay congregants or clergy.
quote:She's making a distinction that seems to have gotten lost here.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm intrigued at blogs etc saying homosexuality is the significant issue. I'd say most the the Gen X I know think church irrelevant, period. Homosexuality is easy to finger as an example of irrelevancy, but if homosexuality did not exist or if churches everywhere assumed sexual orientation was none of its business, the Gen X and younger I know would still think church irrelevant.
The Gen X, Gen Y I know who are intrigued by spirituality think church irrelevant to God. The rest think church -- well, truth is they don't think of church, don't notice it any more often than I notice or think about or care if there's a Masonic lodge somewhere in town, it's got nothing to do with me, church has nothing to do with them. Some people like to get up early Sunday morning and run 5 miles, some people get up early and go to church, some stay home with their family, shrug.
I suspect homosexuality is a stand-in for a much deeper disdain for or disinterest in the institutional church. Dissolving that barrier problem will NOT result in lots of Gen X etc coming to church.
And I think disinterest in church started with a significant chunk of the Boomers dropping out of church and NOT returning to take their kids to church.
Would be interesting to see statistics -- what percentage of Boomers were baptized by the time they were teens (infant or believers), what percentage of Gen X were baptized? What percent of Gen X is taking their kids to church?
quote:It doesn't do you any good to claim you're a legally distinct organization if you fail to make public criticisms of the faults of the other churches because you claim brotherhood. "we're incorporated in different states and I don't like some things they do that I won't enumerate." lets people think you are the same.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm referring to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and in particular the historic episcopate. These criteria are ancient.
But even in secular terms, the United Church of Christ, as a legally distinct organization, should be able to wash its hands of the aberrations, say, of Southern Baptists. If you owned a Toyota with safety issues, you woudn't try to sue Volkswagen, would you?
quote:While that certainly makes more sense than all that "GenXYZ" handwaving (which mainly details minor fashion trends among American journalists and their neighbours) it can't explain everything.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
My experience with the unchurched is that they don't find the Christian message compelling because, in addition to the cultural issues: 1) the institutional church and its members are flawed, they have an expectation that religious people should behave significantly better than non-religious and find that witness wanting; 2) they think the institutional church is most concerned about controlling people; 3) they feel compelled to reconcile Christian claims about the Virgin Birth, resurrection, afterlife, etc. with the scientific method and can't do so; 4) they don't understand the point of the crucifixion and see it as needlessly cruel and gory; 5) they find it offensive to say that humanity has an innate propensity to sin; 6) they unwittingly adopted the more-fundamentalist position that the Bible is supposed to be fully, equally and literally true, yet find numerous contradictions, offensive laws and examples of bad behaviour, and 7) they find the worship baffling.
quote:Agreed there is plenty else to talk about (including things that could be life-changing for many if addressed well, like learning generosity and forgiveness etc), but if a topic is not touched at all, neither pro nor con, doesn't that silence "affirm the existing traditional or social order"?
Originally posted by ken:
Your seven points have always been true...
I could add another ... that didn't exist in the Apostles time but do now - churches seem to work to defend the existing or traditional social order...
That said I wish very much that every single Christian preacher or priest who feels the need to go on about homosexuality would take a short break from the topic and keep their mouths shut. Like maybe for the next thirty years. There's plenty else to talk about.
quote:You said it.
Originally posted by ken:
That said I wish very much that every single Christian preacher or priest who feels the need to go on about homosexuality would take a short break from the topic and keep their mouths shut. Like maybe for the next thirty years. There's plenty else to talk about.
quote:Did he include marriage between a man and a woman in his examples of things that are totally unlike real unselfish love? Or was he letting the unspoken prejudice out of the bag?
Originally posted by Chamois:
This morning's (visiting) preacher told us that gay marriage is an example of "things that are called love in today's society but are totally unlike the real, unselfish love Jesus was talking about".
quote:I'm a British Methodist, and I've never, ever heard a sermon that mentioned gay marriage. Methodists tend not to go looking for controversial subjects to preach about! In the UK, the URC and the Methodists have a moratorium on formal discussions about gay marriage, so I understand (although I'm sure that others will know the details better than I do). However, both churches have suffered heavily from the loss of their young people, and I doubt that attitudes towards homosexuality have had much to do with this.
Originally posted by Chamois:
quote:You said it.
Originally posted by ken:
That said I wish very much that every single Christian preacher or priest who feels the need to go on about homosexuality would take a short break from the topic and keep their mouths shut. Like maybe for the next thirty years. There's plenty else to talk about.
This morning's (visiting) preacher told us that gay marriage is an example of "things that are called love in today's society but are totally unlike the real, unselfish love Jesus was talking about".
And yes, it is Easter and we are in the middle of the series of lectionary readings from Acts on the various religiously-unacceptable people the Holy Spirit recruited to full, active membership of Christ's Church.
Sometimes I wish the whole lot of them would just shut up.
quote:I suspect that the collapse is largely a bi-product of industrialization and the formation of alternative social groups and communities. (IOW, Why go to church for a potluck at a set time each week, when you can meet your friends at a pub or café after work when you feel like it and socialize?)
Also the collapse in church attendance that is now going on in the USA happened in Europe a hundred years ago or more, yet in both Europe and North America the general acceptance of gay men came about slowly between the 1960s and 1990s - here the churches started failing two or three generations before that, but in the USA a generation later - the timing is out.
quote:Seconded.
Komensky: She's a fascinating blogger. I've only just discovered her.
quote:Well, exactly. One of the most telling critiques of "letter v spirit" is found in the gospels, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 23. The essential relational ethic of the New Testament is loving faithfulness.
The Friends Home Committee was one of the first religious organizations to speak out in support of the lesbigay community. In 1964, it published Towards a Quaker View of Sex stating: "It is the nature and quality of a relationship that matters: one must not judge it by its outward appearance but by its inner worth. Homosexual affection can be as selfless as heterosexual affection, and therefore we cannot see that it is in some way morally worse. Neither are we happy with the thought that all homosexual behavior is sinful: motive and circumstances degrade or ennoble any act, and we feel that to list sexual acts as sins is to follow the letter rather than the spirit, to kill rather than to give life.
(emboldening by B62)
quote:Well exactly. The acceptance of those previously outcast is a major theme of NT scripture. The Ethiopian eunuch did not meet OT Law standards for acceptance into the household of faith. (Deuteronomy 23:1). This does not seem to have bothered Philip. Perhaps he was imperfectly educated on the scripture? Or maybe, just maybe, he had seen through the letter to the spirit?
Originally posted by Chamois:
This morning's (visiting) preacher told us that gay marriage is an example of "things that are called love in today's society but are totally unlike the real, unselfish love Jesus was talking about".
And yes, it is Easter and we are in the middle of the series of lectionary readings from Acts on the various religiously-unacceptable people the Holy Spirit recruited to full, active membership of Christ's Church.
quote:Not-so-unspoken prejudice. He was sounding off about how awful it was that some people want to change the definition of marriage.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Did he include marriage between a man and a woman in his examples of things that are totally unlike real unselfish love? Or was he letting the unspoken prejudice out of the bag?
Originally posted by Chamois:
This morning's (visiting) preacher told us that gay marriage is an example of "things that are called love in today's society but are totally unlike the real, unselfish love Jesus was talking about".
quote:To me, this sounds like a combination of sour grapes, and an apologia for gay-bashing.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I suspect homosexuality is a stand-in for a much deeper disdain for or disinterest in the institutional church. Dissolving that barrier problem will NOT result in lots of Gen X etc coming to church.
quote:Ah yes, "Genital Christianity". All morality can be summed as criminalizing abortions and hating gays.
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, Gen X aren't coming to church. Because the church has all but fucked up its witness for this generation and maybe one or two after, by forsaking the preaching of the gospel for attacks on gays and women having abortions.
quote:At any rate, although everyone seems to "know" that virtually all young people have openly gay friends, I'm not sure the institutional church has really understood the implications of this fact. In essence, the message from the Church is that you have to choose between your gay friends or being a Christian. First off, if you deliver an ultimatum like that you can't be surprised that some people will choose the other option. And those who stay, picking the church over their out friends, may have a certain amount of resentment over being made to choose.
One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Don't let chicks get abortions.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Make life as tough as possible for the queers.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
quote:I think you're right. I happened to read an article today from the USA that observed that support for gay marriage has accelerated rapidly (and across all age groups) as more people have realised that they know someone gay who doesn't have 2 heads or devour children.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, although everyone seems to "know" that virtually all young people have openly gay friends, I'm not sure the institutional church has really understood the implications of this fact. In essence, the message from the Church is that you have to choose between your gay friends or being a Christian. First off, if you deliver an ultimatum like that you can't be surprised that some people will choose the other option. And those who stay, picking the church over their out friends, may have a certain amount of resentment over being made to choose.
quote:Do you think this is the only reason, or is it a commonly-discussed issue that neatly summarises where they think the church is going wrong? If the church suddenly turned 180 degrees on homosexuality, but was otherwise unchanged, do you think all these people would be there at 10 the next Sunday? Seeing that there are liberal, gay-friendly churches already (maybe not so much in parts of the States), I have my doubts.
Originally posted by Incipit:
The question as posed, however, was about young people. My limited sample suggests strongly that the answer is yes: young Christians are leaving the church because of its attitudes to gay people. My children (early 20s) are incredulous at the church's intolerance of loving and committed gay relationships, as are all the friends of theirs I have spoken to. They were brought up going to church, but want nothing whatever to do with it. When asked why, this is the main reason they give.
quote:No. The Church will need to work extremely hard to earn respect and trust from this generation.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
If the church suddenly turned 180 degrees on homosexuality, but was otherwise unchanged, do you think all these people would be there at 10 the next Sunday?
quote:That was my point, up-thread. If non-gay people are leaving *because* of the church stance on gays (Methodists recently voted to continue the ban on ordaining gays in relationships, IIUC), is that really THE cause or is it the last straw, "all these ways the church just doesn't 'get' it, and rejecting my gay friends too, it's too much."
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
There's an obvious disconnect between the church and young people in particular on this issue, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's a complete explanation. Maybe there are some who have been turned off by this issue alone, but I suspect there are plenty of others who find it a convenient shorthand for a number of related gripes.
quote:Okay, so how's that to be achieved? What should it be doing that it isn't?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:No. The Church will need to work extremely hard to earn respect and trust from this generation.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
If the church suddenly turned 180 degrees on homosexuality, but was otherwise unchanged, do you think all these people would be there at 10 the next Sunday?
quote:Well, the church has actually gotten a lot of things wrong over the years, but that's not the problem. The problem is that when someone tries to point out that the church has gotten it wrong, the response isn't encouraging. It generally responds the in same way governments and corporations do. Stonewalling. Lies and cover-ups. Attacking and blaming the victims. Blaming "humanism" or "secularism" and claiming Christians are persecuted. for being counter-cultural. The message is always the same: the church knows best and if you disagree, you're turning away from God.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... If church has got most things right, with a lot of life changing God-awareness, don't people stay, shaking their heads about the one stupid error in teaching? ...
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:The problem is that when someone tries to point out that the church has gotten it wrong,...It generally responds [by]... Stonewalling. Lies and cover-ups. Attacking and blaming the victims... The message is always the same: the church knows best and if you disagree, you're turning away from God.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... If church has got most things right, with a lot of life changing God-awareness, don't people stay, shaking their heads about the one stupid error in teaching? ...
We all have some degree of patience for things going wrong. What we don't have patience for is how churches respond when it is pointed out that things are going wrong. OliviaG
quote:No.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Question -- has the church become more defensive, more accusative of critics, more stonewalling and covering up than in the past?
quote:Yes.
Or is there no change really except today critics are verbally criticized, not burned for heresy these days, but we are less tolerant of church abusive accusations of the victims and coverups of clergy and theological crimes because -- hmm, because there's less risk in disagreeing with the church? Or because we're all less concerned about "fitting in"? Or because "authority" isn't automatically respected anymore (in some circles is automatically suspect)? Or because the wrongs of the church are more easily discovered and more known? Or, what?
quote:Yep. And if there's no connection, people walk. I do believe that people still want to be involved in things that are meaningful and effective (though less that in the past), but somehow the church isn't able to provide that. Most volunteer-based and non-profit organizations face the same challenges, and have learned that their existence depends on convincing donors and volunteers that they are valued and needed and appreciated. OliviaG
Many of the "youngsters" I know think the church has proved itself irrelevant to the pursuit of God. In many ways, in the whole nature of the beast, the stance on homosexuality is just one of the issues that proves the church is disconnected from reality, from morality, from God. Therefore the common "I'm spiritual but not religious." "Religious" is seen as meaning formal organization that deeply misses the point.
quote:And it doesn't do any good to make public criticisms if you can't shout loudly enough to be heard above the general media din. Every General Convention of the Episcopal Church issues resolutions commenting on this, that, and the other political issue. Who pays any attention? The whole exercise may well be silly, but you can't accuse the organization of failing to state its position in the most official way.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:It doesn't do you any good to claim you're a legally distinct organization if you fail to make public criticisms of the faults of the other churches because you claim brotherhood.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm referring to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and in particular the historic episcopate. These criteria are ancient.
But even in secular terms, the United Church of Christ, as a legally distinct organization, should be able to wash its hands of the aberrations, say, of Southern Baptists. If you owned a Toyota with safety issues, you woudn't try to sue Volkswagen, would you?
quote:Of course they wouldn't. What would happen is that people would stop almost literally spitting when they walked past a church door.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Do you think this is the only reason, or is it a commonly-discussed issue that neatly summarises where they think the church is going wrong? If the church suddenly turned 180 degrees on homosexuality, but was otherwise unchanged, do you think all these people would be there at 10 the next Sunday? Seeing that there are liberal, gay-friendly churches already (maybe not so much in parts of the States), I have my doubts.
quote:There are liberal churches that do this (in the USA at Canada) at least, and they seem to be rewarded with growth.
And this is IMO where the current liberal churches are failing utterly. They've as a rule forgotten that nice is different than good. There's no massive moral goal for people to commit themselves to. No Abolitionist movement. No Sufferage movement. No fundamental anti-poverty campaign. Not even something misguided like a Temperance movement. (The Conservatives have the pro-Life movement.) Instead it's about generalised niceness. Fair trade and general soft green campaigns rather than something ... overwhelming and inspiring. There's no real reason to go to church just to be a nice person.
quote:Have you considered that this kind of blasé self-privileging is, in itself, a huge turn off? The idea that an organization can promote real harm in the lives of countless individuals for decades and then make it all better with a single "oops, our bad!" statement is patronizing in the extreme.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
If the church suddenly turned 180 degrees on homosexuality, but was otherwise unchanged, do you think all these people would be there at 10 the next Sunday?
quote:That's a really interesting point! I'm tempted to agree but that would only be as a confirmation bias type of response coming from my own beliefs on church structure etc.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Leaving church is what young people do. Asked why, "the stance on homosexuality" is an easily available answer - an honest answer, but far from the whole. Most of it is harder to articulate, like that the structure of the program teaches passive and dependent "Simon says" approach to God, the extraordinary amount of money poured into occasional use buildings instead of helping people hit by this economy, the cliques -- those are fuzzier issues, mention them and people say "you are wrong, you are misunderstanding, that's not what the church teaches, you are too stupid to see the beauty in the way we do things, you are the problem not us." Mention church disdain for homosexuals, it's written there in church policies, no one can counter-argue "you are misunderstanding what we teach and do."
quote:What a good question. If only more people who hold the traditional Christian view on sexual morality also believed that it's not the state's job to enforce that morality...
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I wonder why people on both sides of the issue have such a difficult time understanding that it's possible to hold to traditional Christian sexual morality while acknowledging that the state's job is not to enforce that morality.
quote:Thank you for what's a nice example in more than one direction. And I was intending to talk in generalities rather than absolutes. And none of what I'm saying below is intending to denigrate that specific church. Quite the reverse.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
There are liberal churches that do this (in the USA at Canada) at least, and they seem to be rewarded with growth.
I used to go to All Saints Episcopal Church in California in the late 1980s. They had a strong anti-nuclear stance; were strongly pro environment; established the first AIDS support centre (back in the day when most religious leaders wanted to tattoo PWAs and throw them in camps) and participated in interfaith and inner city projects. I remember going to the first gay blessing, done before the bishop authorized it and to anti-First Gulf War rallies.
Nowadays, according to their website, they're pushing to end torture, for immigration reform, peace making in Afghanistan, advocacy for the inclusion of Muslims and marriage equality.
quote:Good point.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Have you considered that this kind of blasé self-privileging is, in itself, a huge turn off? The idea that an organization can promote real harm in the lives of countless individuals for decades and then make it all better with a single "oops, our bad!" statement is patronizing in the extreme.
quote:I can point to a little good done by the Holocaust (Dr Mengele produced some of the best data we have on various extreme treatments on the human body - not because it's that good but because ethics wouldn't allow the experiments to be repeated). This doesn't mean that the Holocaust was anything other than vile.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It would seem a very odd view of history to believe that the Christian church hadn't done any good at all.
quote:Maybe you also think Erwin Schrödinger turned people off Quantum Mechanics with his vindictive treatment of cats. It's a thought experiment - no more, no less. If the precise phrasing offends you, change the question to whether everything would be hunky dory for the church if they had never said anything against homosexuality, but were otherwise exactly as they are now.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Have you considered that this kind of blasé self-privileging is, in itself, a huge turn off? The idea that an organization can promote real harm in the lives of countless individuals for decades and then make it all better with a single "oops, our bad!" statement is patronizing in the extreme.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
If the church suddenly turned 180 degrees on homosexuality, but was otherwise unchanged, do you think all these people would be there at 10 the next Sunday?
quote:Somewhat off the point, but give me an example of a human institution with, say, over two hundred years of history, which fulfills the standards you do set.
Originally posted by Justinian:
What it means is that for a human institution to have not done any good at all it must be more purely evil than the holocaust. Frankly I prefer to set standards that are a little higher.
quote:I'm not sure that's possible to accurately assess such a wide-reaching counterfactual other than to say that if the Church were a totally different organization (which it would have to be for your postulate) people would react to it in a very different way.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
It's a thought experiment - no more, no less. If the precise phrasing offends you, change the question to whether everything would be hunky dory for the church if they had never said anything against homosexuality, but were otherwise exactly as they are now.
quote:I think that was more or less Justinian's point; that equating any criticism of institutional Christianity with claiming that it "hadn't done any good at all" is just so much petulent whining by those who are offended that the Church could be criticized at all.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Somewhat off the point, but give me an example of a human institution with, say, over two hundred years of history, which fulfills the standards you do set.
Originally posted by Justinian:
What it means is that for a human institution to have not done any good at all it must be more purely evil than the holocaust. Frankly I prefer to set standards that are a little higher.
quote:Understood, I lived thru decades of churches teaching women are less than fully human, and today will not attend a church that teaches any diminishment of women, and encouragement to limit the role of women to "wife and mother," any refusal to ordain women (men are inherently more holy than women?) because I've seen how destructive those teaching are to me and others -- i.e. I don't participate in a Catholic church, most Baptist churches, etc.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Belle Ringer, it might be 'one stupid error', but it's an error that has serious and devastating consequences for some people.
quote:There is a certain irony in this observation. Heck, nonconformists were born out of dissent from institutional Christianity. It's in the DNA.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I think that was more or less Justinian's point; that equating any criticism of institutional Christianity with claiming that it "hadn't done any good at all" is just so much petulent whining by those who are offended that the Church could be criticized at all.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Somewhat off the point, but give me an example of a human institution with, say, over two hundred years of history, which fulfills the standards you do set.
Originally posted by Justinian:
What it means is that for a human institution to have not done any good at all it must be more purely evil than the holocaust. Frankly I prefer to set standards that are a little higher.
quote:And in other news Satan complains about exceptional cold snap.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Now, how about moving the evangelicals, conservatives, liberals and MORs away from trumpeting other peoples' sins and towards something more helpful?
quote:Maybe there is a choice.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Would an effort to appeal to youth effectively marginalise existing churchgoers?
quote:Indeed, and very characteristic it is for an Orthodox to point out this psychological problem attending the West's cherished freedom and individuality. As ambivalent as anyone, I love being able to choose but not constantly needing to choose. Just as bothersome as making trivial choices all the time are demands to express them, usually immediately. In my experience, the most imperative sentences in the language are not really imperative sentences, but interrogative sentences from someone (or something) that expects you to have all the answers at your fingertips. This happens a lot in my line of work.
Originally posted by Josephine:
This article suggests that young people may be leaving because they are overwhelmed by too many choices. Something to think about.
quote:A book the title of which I've forgotten but the review was instructive, said those who make quick decisions that are "good enough" are happier than those who gather all the facts so they can make the "best" decision. The problem being one usually cannot gather enough facts to be sure which is best, there may be a better alternative you haven't yet noticed so there isn't a settled satisfaction with having made the right decision. And the problem of fact gathering delaying decision making so the problem to be solved by a decision consumes more of your life.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:I never forgot in my early twenties seeing a little boy burst into tears and almost melt down because of "too many decisions". In Moscow on the Hudson, the hero, a defector newly at large in the U.S., walks into a supermarket to buy coffee, and the half-aisle of choices almost gives him a nervous breakdown.
Originally posted by Josephine:
This article suggests that young people may be leaving because they are overwhelmed by too many choices. Something to think about.
quote:The mission being to convey God-awareness to all ages, right? Some churches are pursuing the youth by defining themselves as youth churches, writing off the aged as of no interest to that church. That's not healthy either. When Jesus said "let the children come" he didn't mean "send the oldsters away."
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Maybe there is a choice.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Would an effort to appeal to youth effectively marginalise existing churchgoers?
Keep existing churchgoers happy by marginalising youth = see 'church' dead within thirty years, given the average age of churchgoers (around 60, I believe- few will live to 90)
or
Recover a sense of mission.
quote:I'd have thought the mission was to preach the Gospel. But maybe you and I are talking about the same thing?
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:The mission being to convey God-awareness to all ages, right?
Originally posted by leo:
Recover a sense of mission.
quote:Ideally yes, but it is very difficult to devise worship that will appeal to so many different tastes.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
We've got to stop thinking in terms of separated generations (and which one should have priority), focus instead on humanness we all share.
quote:I'm really glad to hear that. Not surprised, but glad.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Taking the OP question: the students in my rural high school have no idea that people might be beaten up or killed simply because someone thinks they might be gay. The President of the Student Council, in deepest redneck territory, was "out", and the kids shrugged and said, "Oh, its just Kevin. He's gay. What do you expect?"
They have no idea that it is an issue.
quote:I'm not sure which generation I fit in (somewhere between the Boomers and the Gen-Xers I think) but I am very aware that (on this side of the pond at least) mine if the first generation in which it was possible for a man and a woman to be friends, to share a house, even to share a bed when visitors are staying, without being in a sexual relationship. To most people older than me that's unthinkable, to most people younger than me it's completely normal.
But how do you reconcile the differing viewpoints of the "Builders" who came of age just too late for WW2, the Boomers, who have the attitude that everything revolves around them and their specific music, the Gen-Xers, who loathe all things Boomer, the Millennials, who at least managed to conquer e-mail and internet, and the 21st centuryites who have never known anything but cellphones, IPads and Twitter?
The communication forms (not just in technology), the concepts of community, the music styles, almost every social interaction has been modified at each stage.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:No reason to think Mr Harper has left or is leaving the church, but he sure as hell ain't thinking of joining.
From Paul Harper:
So the Archbishop of Canterbury laments the divisiveness and lack of cultural cohesion in this country. Perhaps if he persuaded his organisation to stop oppressing women and gay people then it might actually go some way towards helping solve the problem?
quote:But there are suitable churches he could join if he really wanted to - especially if he lives in London. Yet he assumes that it must be the CofE or nothing.
Originally posted by Chamois:
This was published in today's Evening Standard (London free newspaper) in the texts & tweets section of the letters page:
quote:No reason to think Mr Harper has left or is leaving the church, but he sure as hell ain't thinking of joining.
From Paul Harper:
So the Archbishop of Canterbury laments the divisiveness and lack of cultural cohesion in this country. Perhaps if he persuaded his organisation to stop oppressing women and gay people then it might actually go some way towards helping solve the problem?
quote:Of course, I like the support and everything
Originally posted by Bostonman:
As a young Christian (early 20s) who's recently rejoined the church, I can tell you that I would never join a denomination or congregation that a) taught that homosexuality is sinful b) actively opposed or refused to perform gay marriage or c) was anything less than radically inclusive of gay congregants or clergy.
I had the opportunity recently to view the documentary Love Free or Die about Gene Robinson, and it made me incredibly proud to be a new member of The Episcopal Church.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
but I think this says more about how one sees the blackness and whiteness of issues at age 21 then any grand knowledge or appreciation of gay people necessarily
quote:That post, and the follow-up post, and the linked material to both of them, is fantastic stuff.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Admittedly written for the US context, but still apposite: "How to win a culture war battle, and lose a generation"
quote:When and how does a traditional understanding, seen to have biblical, traditional and (for a very long time) social backing, get consigned to the locker room of history? Maybe this shows one way?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
.. especially as the church looks so bloody stupid in the way the argument unfolds.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:That post, and the follow-up post, and the linked material to both of them, is fantastic stuff.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Admittedly written for the US context, but still apposite: "How to win a culture war battle, and lose a generation"
Which reminds me, I've really got to go back and engage with the Gay Christian Network...
I linked it in this thread's OP. But I did enjoy the follow up post on the blog. Particularly this:quote:Swimming against the tide wasn't easy, and still isn't in some places. It can be very tiring. Particularly when you know of no other way to go, in good conscience. Sometimes I've just wanted to run away too. Couldn't do that either.
*People over 40! I heard you! This is not just a generational shift! Many of you want an end to the culture war too.
quote:Indeed you did! And I think I did briefly read it at the time that I entered into this thread (somewhat late to the party this time), but I followed links this time which, um, added to the richness!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:In this case, it is a principle that rarely is made explicit. Namely, that the primary good of sex is pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights). That's really all there is to this. All the talk about equality, freedom and whatnot is nonsense, unless one says what people are going to be equal and free about.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A kind of seeping-in awareness that, regardless of how our forefathers (both inside and outside the religious community) believed, the position can no longer be sustained without damaging deeper, more abiding, principles.
quote:This is of course simply parochial. There can be absolutely no doubt that Christianity will become much, much more conservative on most issues, but particularly sexuality and gender relations, over the next few decades at least. Global Christianity, that is. The idea that the trends in Western churches, or more precisely, Western European churches matter much shows only a complete lack of appreciation of the actual situation of Christianity. The massive growth of Christianity, which is on par in all key centres of population explosion with the growth of Isalm, occurs in the South and East, not in the North and West. And while the charismatic and syncretistic tendencies of this growth may worry traditionalists in Europe, liberals there can definitely kiss their hopes of a major moral revolution goodbye for a century or two at least. (Apart from any questions of truth in these matters, it is simply necessary for Christianity to match Islam on moral strictures in order to compete. And it sure does...)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For much of that time, it felt like swimming against the tide. But the tide turned some time ago. More in the wider society than in the church at large. But it's turning there too.
quote:Actually, that's not the underlying principle of the pro-gay side. But as you say, because of the way the debate is framed neither side ever really gets its principles out in the open.
Originally posted by IngoB:
In this case, it is a principle that rarely is made explicit. Namely, that the primary good of sex is pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights). That's really all there is to this.
quote:The principle I've quoted is IMHO underlying practically the entire modern development of sexual morals in the West (or at least Western Europe), in particular also the acceptance of gay sex. I note that you have switched from "principle" to "instinct" in your suggestion, and what you mention then operates at the level of sentiment and habit. The only principle involved in what you say is "avoid evil", which is of course a true moral principle - but hardly specific enough to have any explanatory power. In fact, if one wanted to turn this into a valid moral analysis, one would have to ask why certain kinds of sex would be considered "nasty". And that would bring one right back to the question of the primary good of sex, i.e., exactly to my starting point.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Actually, that's not the underlying principle of the pro-gay side. But as you say, because of the way the debate is framed neither side ever really gets its principles out in the open.
If I had to say what the pro-gay side's primary instinct was it was something like that being nasty to other people is a bad thing, and judging by the stories of gay people, the belief that gay sex is bad is a major cause of nastiness.
quote:That's not where I'm coming from. Faithfulness, forsaking all others, is a deeper touchstone. Promiscuity and recreational views of sex are very damaging. Human sexuality is seen in the context of faithful, monogamous, self-giving relationships. Procreation, having children, is a great blessing in the context of faithful, monogamous, self-giving relationships. We do not however deny marriage to heterosexual couples who are unable to have children.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:In this case, it is a principle that rarely is made explicit. Namely, that the primary good of sex is pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights). That's really all there is to this. All the talk about equality, freedom and whatnot is nonsense, unless one says what people are going to be equal and free about.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A kind of seeping-in awareness that, regardless of how our forefathers (both inside and outside the religious community) believed, the position can no longer be sustained without damaging deeper, more abiding, principles.
quote:Fair point. I was thinking in "westworld" context. I understand the global picture, particularly where growth is to be found.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:This is of course simply parochial.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For much of that time, it felt like swimming against the tide. But the tide turned some time ago. More in the wider society than in the church at large. But it's turning there too.
quote:This is still the same principle applied. Namely, that the primary good of sex is pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights). You do in fact think that you have a right to "fulfilled sexuality", and the fulfilment you are thinking about is "pleasure and feeling". But if the primary good of sex is actually procreation, then no right arises from that for you to freely pursue sexual pleasure.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But conversely, neither should sex be totally without pleasure and feeling, which I suspect is what would happen if I spent my days trying to be heterosexual. It would be as difficult and awkward for me as gay sex would be for you.
quote:Perhaps, but so far you have confirmed it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your humble opinion about what's driving it is, IMHO, totally and utterly wrong.
quote:That may be so, but that is of no particular interest to me here. I was discussing the major trends in Western European society. If I ever start to hear frequent arguments that homosexual acts are allowed, but only in the context of a lifelong gay marriage, then I may consider your thinking to be more prevalent. (I think you are mistaken, by the way, and I'm annoyed that you drag in the rotten red herring of infertile couples. But that is a tangent.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's not where I'm coming from.
quote:About 3% of babies are born with some major physical anomaly. A vast majority of these are "natural variations", i.e., no specific and obvious cause like exposure to strong radioactivity is known. Yet nobody considers such natural variations to be "ordered and directed aright". Why not? Because they disturb proper physiological and/or behavioural function.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There was this old phrase about "natural desires and affections" being "ordered and directed aright". Homosexual orientation is a minority characteristic, but it is increasingly seen in the west, and in my view rightly so, as a natural variation, not a matter of aberrant choice.
quote:As an aside, it may be hard going in the U.S. if you frame your position in this manner, as a direct rejection of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Most Americans are pretty attached to those sentiments, at least in principle.
Originally posted by IngoB:
In this case, it is a principle that rarely is made explicit. Namely, that the primary good of sex is pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights). That's really all there is to this. All the talk about equality, freedom and whatnot is nonsense, unless one says what people are going to be equal and free about.
<snip>
The only country in the West remotely of relevance to the global state of Christian morals in the near future is the USA.
quote:You cut me off in my prime! Like this
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That may be so, but that is of no particular interest to me here.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's not where I'm coming from.
quote:It actually looks as though we agree on that. It's hard to tell, but I think so. Are we in agreement at that point?
Faithfulness, forsaking all others, is a deeper touchstone. Promiscuity and recreational views of sex are very damaging.
quote:I think the difference between us is that I'm focusing on the quality of the relationship, and saying that's the essential teaching. Whereas you are focusing on the gender of the participants and saying that is what is essential in understanding to whom the teaching applies. Again, it's hard to tell, but is that the difference between us?
I think there is a deeper principle at work about the purpose of marriage. In OT terms it is not good for people to be alone. In NT terms a faithful, monogamous, self-giving relationship mirrors that between Christ and the church. Ephesians 5 paints that picture.
quote:Odd coincidence. I was thinking about the pursuit of happiness as well. Follow up after I've done a bit of checking on a source.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
quote:The reason gender is important (at least as far as I've been able to figure out) is that the "relationship . . . between Christ and the church" is a hierarchical one. If both parties to a marriage have a penis, or if neither of them do, then how can you tell which one is "Christ" and which one is "the church"?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:I think the difference between us is that I'm focusing on the quality of the relationship, and saying that's the essential teaching. Whereas you are focusing on the gender of the participants and saying that is what is essential in understanding to whom the teaching applies. Again, it's hard to tell, but is that the difference between us?
I think there is a deeper principle at work about the purpose of marriage. In OT terms it is not good for people to be alone. In NT terms a faithful, monogamous, self-giving relationship mirrors that between Christ and the church. Ephesians 5 paints that picture.
quote:I'm sure that the US founding fathers themselves did not equate Happiness with (Sexual) Sense Pleasure. That you do is unsurprising, since that is also a characteristic of modern thinking. But that part requires no argument. Since sense pleasure does not lead to lasting happiness, but everybody wants to be happy all the time, one simply has to achieve real happiness oneself. Being happy is a more convincing than any argument.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As an aside, it may be hard going in the U.S. if you frame your position in this manner, as a direct rejection of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Most Americans are pretty attached to those sentiments, at least in principle.
quote:No they didn't, for the very good reason that they were establishing a new government based on the idea of individual liberty. As such they saw Happiness as something to be determined at an individual level, not something decreed by divine fiat as the One True Happiness™, so they didn't equate Happiness with any particular thing or pursuit.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I'm sure that the US founding fathers themselves did not equate Happiness with (Sexual) Sense Pleasure.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As an aside, it may be hard going in the U.S. if you frame your position in this manner, as a direct rejection of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Most Americans are pretty attached to those sentiments, at least in principle.
quote:Like America's founders, I'm not defining happiness at all, simply positing that its pursuit is a legitimate human right.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That you do is unsurprising, since that is also a characteristic of modern thinking.
quote:Sorry, my copy of the Declaration of Independence doesn't specify "the Pursuit of Lasting Happiness". You must be using one of the earlier drafts.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But that part requires no argument. Since sense pleasure does not lead to lasting happiness, but everybody wants to be happy all the time, one simply has to achieve real happiness oneself. Being happy is a more convincing than any argument.
quote:No, I won't accuse you of trampling on my rights. I'll merely point out that you're completely insane if you don't think that this isn't a recipe for disaster.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:This is still the same principle applied. Namely, that the primary good of sex is pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights). You do in fact think that you have a right to "fulfilled sexuality", and the fulfilment you are thinking about is "pleasure and feeling". But if the primary good of sex is actually procreation, then no right arises from that for you to freely pursue sexual pleasure.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But conversely, neither should sex be totally without pleasure and feeling, which I suspect is what would happen if I spent my days trying to be heterosexual. It would be as difficult and awkward for me as gay sex would be for you.
I have not in fact argued here what would be right for you to do concerning sex, merely what is the basis for the current thinking about "humans sexual rights". But if I do tell you what you should do in your situation - namely simply to remain continent, to forgo all sex that is not heterosexual (and with a married partner) - then I am sure that you will instantly invoke my principle in pure form. You will claim that I am trampling on your rights by denying you a free expression of your sexuality, that I only allow the kind of sexuality to you that you find "difficult and awkward, totally without pleasure and feeling".
quote:Would it not be more true to say that sex has the important function of cementing the bond between the partners, and is therefore an important component of a healthy romantic relationship?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Namely, that the primary good of sex is pleasure.
quote:Well, obviously we are in some kind of agreement about that. I note that you likely attach some escape clause to that forsaking all others business, but that's again a tangent.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:It actually looks as though we agree on that. It's hard to tell, but I think so. Are we in agreement at that point?
Faithfulness, forsaking all others, is a deeper touchstone. Promiscuity and recreational views of sex are very damaging.
quote:Naw, the difference is that I do not think that considering these two apart is at all meaningful. It is as if we are talking about making the perfect martini:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the difference between us is that I'm focusing on the quality of the relationship, and saying that's the essential teaching. Whereas you are focusing on the gender of the participants and saying that is what is essential in understanding to whom the teaching applies. Again, it's hard to tell, but is that the difference between us?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
"My name is Bond. Marriage Bond." OliviaG
quote:If a couple explicitly intends to not have children, then they cannot validly marry. If a couple is incapable of performing the physical act that can lead to conceiving a child, then they cannot validly marry. If a married couple renders itself infertile by contraception or sterilization with the intention to have sex without conception, then these acts are sinful. If the sexual acts of a married couple are physically incapable of leading to conception, at least overall, then these acts are sinful. All this is explicitly taught by the RCC, and has been long before homosexuality became a major social issue, as you will be pleased to hear.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Unless and until there's some kind of move towards preventing the marriage of elderly couples or people who are known to be infertile or who don't intend to have children, it's a proposition that strikes me as convenient bullshit because the first thing you can think of in relation to homosexual couples is that they can't procreate.
quote:OliviaG
The canvas that most of the "new age martinis" are painted on is vodka and the colors on the palette come from flavored liqueurs, fresh fruit, spices, and herbs. I love the whole idea of these inspired creations but I also love a gin Martini straight up with an olive and a twist, and I have no trouble sorting the two out. The standard I use to judge the new age martinis is taste, if the drink tastes good call it whatever you please.
quote:True. But one may not intentionally thwart the primary good in order to enjoy only the secondary goods. Particularly so, if the secondary goods are actually ordered to the primary good themselves (as is the case with sexual pleasure and emotional bonding supporting procreation).
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Just because something has a primary good doesn't mean it doesn't have other goods, and that it is possible to enjoy those other goods without enjoying the primary one at the same time.
quote:That's simply a bad analogy. We can cure it a little bit by saying that it is not your car, but the company's car, given to you for the express purpose of commuting to work. Suddenly those rules about picking up groceries do not sound quite so arbitrary, do they now? But it does not become a good analogy even with that amendment.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
For example: I buy a car to drive to work. Sometimes I pick up groceries on my way home from work. Sometimes I drive to the grocery store on a Saturday or Sunday. If we apply the Catholic rules, picking up groceries on the way to and from work is acceptable, but making a special trip just to buy groceries is not. However, once I retire, it's ok for me to drive whenever or wherever I want as long as I still go past my old workplace during the drive. Go figure.
quote:Thanks. I didn't even think of "Marriage Bond"...
Originally posted by OliviaG:
And IngoB's Bond post:
quote:Sorry, I'm not getting the distinction here. If a couple is infertile, then definitionally their sexual acts "are physically incapable of leading to conception".
Originally posted by IngoB:
If the sexual acts of a married couple are physically incapable of leading to conception, at least overall, then these acts are sinful.
<snip>
However, infertility is simply a different issue.
quote:David is certainly gay-affirming. Maybe he resigned his patronages when he retired.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I thought Bishop David Stancliffe was also a patron of Changing Attitude when he was Bishop of Salisbury, but he's no longer on that list.
quote:The use of 'instinct' instead of 'principle' was deliberate since I thought we were agreed that we're operating at a near subconscious level here. You've cited a principle. Now I agree that twentieth-century philosophical ethics in the English speaking world, being completely inadequate for any purpose beyond arguing about speeding trolleys, can't talk about principles except at the level of personal freedom and pleasure. But that's because twentieth-century philosophical psychology can't talk about human being except by reducing everything to some belief + desire combination. Notoriously, students wanting to study the meaning of life were discouraged by academic philosophers from studying academic philosophy.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:The principle I've quoted is IMHO underlying practically the entire modern development of sexual morals in the West (or at least Western Europe), in particular also the acceptance of gay sex. I note that you have switched from "principle" to "instinct" in your suggestion, and what you mention then operates at the level of sentiment and habit.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Actually, that's not the underlying principle of the pro-gay side. But as you say, because of the way the debate is framed neither side ever really gets its principles out in the open.
If I had to say what the pro-gay side's primary instinct was it was something like that being nasty to other people is a bad thing, and judging by the stories of gay people, the belief that gay sex is bad is a major cause of nastiness.
quote:That's the basic question here. Can a relationship between two people of the same sex be real and unselfish love under the same conditions as an equivalent relationship between two people of different sexes. Pleasure doesn't really come into it.
This morning's (visiting) preacher told us that gay marriage is an example of "things that are called love in today's society but are totally unlike the real, unselfish love Jesus was talking about".
quote:The evil in question is not the nastiness of any kind of sex but the evil of being nasty to other people. In particular, the misery felt by people on finding that they are attracted to the same sex in a community that disapproves of same, plus the additional evils of prejudice and frequently violence.
The only principle involved in what you say is "avoid evil", which is of course a true moral principle - but hardly specific enough to have any explanatory power. In fact, if one wanted to turn this into a valid moral analysis, one would have to ask why certain kinds of sex would be considered "nasty".
quote:I think that much about the dysfunction of US economy and society and polity can be explained by the fact that you have the right to pursue happiness as much as you like but no right to actually be happy. If the 1% cut wages and salaries or spending on the common good that just forces the 99% to pursue happiness all the harder, like greyhounds chasing a stuffed hare.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Like America's founders, I'm not defining happiness at all, simply positing that its pursuit is a legitimate human right.
quote:Yeah, that was rather vague, hinging on a particular understanding of "physical". Basically, impotence is what this was supposed to be about: the inability to perform vaginal intercourse. (Generally that's a male problem, i.e., we are talking about erectile dysfunction. Though I guess untreated vaginismus would qualify...) Note that this is a diriment impediment to contracting marriage, not something that can "unmarry" someone already married. I guess - though I do not know from reading anything authoritative - that this is because vaginal intercourse is what ultimately closes the marriage contract. A non-consummated marriage still can be divorced by human agency according to canon law. So someone who is incapable of consummating marriage cannot in the ultimate sense become married, practically speaking.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, I'm not getting the distinction here. If a couple is infertile, then definitionally their sexual acts "are physically incapable of leading to conception".
quote:"One can" is a demonstrable fact, whether we're talking straight people using birth control or gay people having sex. "One may not" is an assertion. Does the church have anything besides "God says so" or "it's just unnatural" to support that assertion?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:True. But one may not intentionally thwart the primary good in order to enjoy only the secondary goods. ...
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Just because something has a primary good doesn't mean it doesn't have other goods, and that it is possible to enjoy those other goods without enjoying the primary one at the same time.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's simply a bad analogy. We can cure it a little bit by saying that it is not your car, but the company's car, given to you for the express purpose of commuting to work.
quote:People whose bodies are considered to belong to someone other than themselves are usually classified as slaves.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
They're essentially saying "It's my car, and as long as I don't crash it into anyone, I can drive whenever and wherever I want."
quote:"As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be" has a simple defence as follows:
That's the basic question here. Can a relationship between two people of the same sex be real and unselfish love under the same conditions as an equivalent relationship between two people of different sexes. Pleasure doesn't really come into it.
quote:The evil in question is not the nastiness of any kind of sex but the evil of being nasty to other people. In particular, the misery felt by people on finding that they are attracted to the same sex in a community that disapproves of same, plus the additional evils of prejudice and frequently violence.
The only principle involved in what you say is "avoid evil", which is of course a true moral principle - but hardly specific enough to have any explanatory power. In fact, if one wanted to turn this into a valid moral analysis, one would have to ask why certain kinds of sex would be considered "nasty".
quote:What could that be? Would you like a cookie to sweeten the deal, or what?
Originally posted by OliviaG:
"One may not" is an assertion. Does the church have anything besides "God says so" or "it's just unnatural" to support that assertion?
quote:Precisely. Christianity, Judaism, Islam - and I would say indeed all serious religion - is strictly opposed to such a conception of human autonomy and freedom. Genesis 3 never gets old. How to show young people that they do not ultimately belong to themselves, but to the Lord? Tough. However, I sure would not begin with sexuality. Sex is the graveyard of sainthood. Making this the foremost issue for young people is like sending children to the front line of a war.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
They're essentially saying "It's my car, and as long as I don't crash it into anyone, I can drive whenever and wherever I want."
quote:I find this a completely unfair complaint, quite frankly. Firstly, the Church and all manner of faithful Catholics are publishing truckloads of material on all thinkable aspects of sex and relationships. That nobody in the media and outside of certain Catholic circles cares about most of it is not a failure of speaking but of listening. Secondly, it is actually not the job of the Church to dictate to the faithful in extensive detail how sex should be done. The Church should tell us about the framework that God has given for sex, and then get out of the way and let every man and woman figure out for themselves how they want to operate within that framework. How come that the Church is suddenly good only if she micromanages the faithful? There are some God-given rules about sex, but they pretty much fit on a postcard and if you keep on asking the Church about them often enough then at some point in time it just is going to get repetitive. If you want pastoral advice about sex, talk personally to a spiritual director. Don't expect some kind of Oprah show made in the Vatican.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
If the church's voice is heard continually on the the genital and reproductive aspects of sex, no one will believe that the church values love.
quote:Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You can't proclaim an opposition to individual autonomy and then complain about being expected to micromanage people's lives. The latter would seem to implicitly follow the former. It also sounds like the worst of managerial techniques: proclaim some vague general principles (postcard-sized, perhaps), no specific direction, and severe punishment for anyone not following what management decides internally are "the rules".
Originally posted by IngoB:
Precisely. Christianity, Judaism, Islam - and I would say indeed all serious religion - is strictly opposed to such a conception of human autonomy and freedom.
<snip>
. . . it is actually not the job of the Church to dictate to the faithful in extensive detail how sex should be done. The Church should tell us about the framework that God has given for sex, and then get out of the way and let every man and woman figure out for themselves how they want to operate within that framework. How come that the Church is suddenly good only if she micromanages the faithful?
quote:Give me a reason, and the resources, and within a year or two I'll be an excellent debater on the side of nonconformism. Or any other -ism, for that matter. -isms are all easy. My abilities (or lack thereof) may be what defines my spirituality to you, but certainly not so for me. I'm haunted by a Ghost, and I hope it is Holy. Life and pārasaṃgate, caught between a rock and an abyss...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You make an excellent debater but you'd make a lousy nonconformist.
quote:So? Did God write you a memo that you are destined for greatness? I have met one non-lousy Catholic so far in my life, and it wasn't while looking in the mirror... There is nothing optional about religion. There is no choice. There is only truth and error and - hopefully - mercy.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's been clear for some time that I'd have made a lousy Catholic.
quote:It sure can. As long as sex also doesn't really come into it either. Again, your primary move is abstraction. But people are not angels. (And angels have their own problems. Incorrigible problems, actually.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Can a relationship between two people of the same sex be real and unselfish love under the same conditions as an equivalent relationship between two people of different sexes. Pleasure doesn't really come into it.
quote:Do you drive a car? Well, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. There are traffic laws. There is driving. One is a framework for the other, but does not fully determine it. Neither should it try to. That would be crazy, futile. Driving is way too complex and determined by circumstance to be tied down entirely by traffic law. That does not mean that it is good if everybody just ignores traffic law and drives as they want. The freedom and autonomy of driving is properly situated within traffic law, not opposed to it. At least so if traffic law is good.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You can't proclaim an opposition to individual autonomy and then complain about being expected to micromanage people's lives. The latter would seem to implicitly follow the former. It also sounds like the worst of managerial techniques: proclaim some vague general principles (postcard-sized, perhaps), no specific direction, and severe punishment for anyone not following what management decides internally are "the rules".
quote:That's simply a bad analogy. We can cure it a little bit by saying that it is not your car, but the company's car, given to you for the express purpose of commuting to work. Suddenly those claims about "[t]he freedom and autonomy of driving" sound quite illusory, don't they now? But it does not become a good analogy even with that amendment.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Do you drive a car? Well, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. There are traffic laws. There is driving. One is a framework for the other, but does not fully determine it. Neither should it try to. That would be crazy, futile. Driving is way too complex and determined by circumstance to be tied down entirely by traffic law. That does not mean that it is good if everybody just ignores traffic law and drives as they want. The freedom and autonomy of driving is properly situated within traffic law, not opposed to it. At least so if traffic law is good.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You can't proclaim an opposition to individual autonomy and then complain about being expected to micromanage people's lives. The latter would seem to implicitly follow the former. It also sounds like the worst of managerial techniques: proclaim some vague general principles (postcard-sized, perhaps), no specific direction, and severe punishment for anyone not following what management decides internally are "the rules".
quote:And we've been HERE before as well. It was in Hell, but I recall pointing out how weird it was that you think God recognises a difference between infertile-outside-the-vagina and infertile-inside-the-vagina.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Yeah, that was rather vague, hinging on a particular understanding of "physical". Basically, impotence is what this was supposed to be about: the inability to perform vaginal intercourse. (Generally that's a male problem, i.e., we are talking about erectile dysfunction. Though I guess untreated vaginismus would qualify...)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, I'm not getting the distinction here. If a couple is infertile, then definitionally their sexual acts "are physically incapable of leading to conception".
quote:Just to be ultra-picky, but technically speaking, if I (a woman) find someone else (a woman) and the two of us have sex, we are perfectly capable of having vaginal intercourse.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yeah, that was rather vague, hinging on a particular understanding of "physical". Basically, impotence is what this was supposed to be about: the inability to perform vaginal intercourse.
quote:Perhaps more to the point, if our bodies are not our property, then there simply is no such thing as property. There is certainly a Christian case to be made for that, but it doesn't sit well with the economic/political attitudes of those Christians who are most opposed to homosexuality (at least in the US--I don't think this applies to Ingo).
Originally posted by OliviaG:
OK, the car thing is my fault. However, I was trying to draw an analogy between driving and having sex, not the car and the body, with driving for different purposes or to different locations being analogous to ... well, you know. In the church's view, God "owns" all our bodies, but we still have free will within those bodies, right? OliviaG
quote:You may recall that but I don't. This is not about infertility but about impotence. What is decisive is whether you perform the bodily actions "naturally ordered to procreation", i.e., vaginal intercourse with male ejaculation inside. More poetically, this is the "union of one flesh" between man and woman for which they leave their families (in order to make their own). Catholic teaching is simply literal about this part of scripture. The ultimate "procreative success" of this act is not in general up to you, and hence you are not in general responsible for it. (Unless you make yourself responsible for it by intentionally interfering.) And it makes no difference how much we know about that. Even before modern science, old couples were fully aware that their sexual acts would not result in offspring (barring a miracle). But that is nature's way, God's choice, not theirs. Somebody who is impotent can however not achieve the "union of one flesh" which marriage is essentially about. Hence they cannot validly marry.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It was in Hell, but I recall pointing out how weird it was that you think God recognises a difference between infertile-outside-the-vagina and infertile-inside-the-vagina.
quote:To be annoyingly picky again...
Originally posted by IngoB:
[What is decisive is whether you perform the bodily actions "naturally ordered to procreation", i.e., vaginal intercourse with male ejaculation inside. More poetically, this is the "union of one flesh" between man and woman for which they leave their families (in order to make their own). Catholic teaching is simply literal about this part of scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Today's my forty-fourth wedding anniversary .. [snip] .. I'm happy with the notion of gay marriage as a different kind of martini, but still very much a martini, and hope that all who go that route find and cherish that central ingredient in their relationship.
Tea-time!
quote:It does. Not per se, but for those who have given themselves to each other in marriage. For this reason, it is a false sign apart from or before marriage.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sexual consummation by penetration does not make a marriage bond.
quote:No. That would not be the "literal" sense, but a "literalistic" sense. The "literal" sense of scripture is what the sacred author intended to express, it's not about a "literalistic" reading of the words which merely assigns the most common meaning without any regard to context or coherence. The literal sense of scripture is to be contrasted with the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses, which are all intepretative. I have even made that explicit in what I said above, namely I stated 'More poetically, this is the "union of one flesh"...' The literal sense here is of course a poetic one: the sacred author did not want to claim that man and woman actually fuse on the cell level. Yet the sacred author also clearly wanted to talk about the actual physical act of sex between a man and a woman there, which makes them appear as if joined into one body, not about something more abstract. That is also part of the literal sense. So the RCC uses a literal, not literalistic, reading of this verse.
Originally posted by St Deird:
If you were being "literal" about this scripture, than you'd have to mean a woman and a man merging into one big two-headed, four-handed, freaky siamese twin.
quote:Well, that's a simplistic summary, since God of course expressed His will concerning this matter as much in nature as in the bible and tradition. Sex is objectively ordered to procreation, as any biologist will be happy to confirm (if you are in doubt about that - in my opinion nobody really is in doubt about that other than for rhetorical purposes). The problem is what moral significance one attaches to that. And for a Christian, what the bible and Church tradition have to say about that should play an important role.
Originally posted by Incipit:
IngoB's contribution appositely illustrates the problem. As I understand him, the church, or at least the RC church, is essentially saying, 'Sexual gay relationships are bad because we [bible + tradition] say so. Tough if you happen to be gay: celibacy is your only option'.
quote:This is wrong in several ways, practically speaking. But more interestingly, the language of oppression requires that there is some kind of right unjustly denied. "You shall not steal." is not an oppression of thieves, but a suppression of thievery. So the real question remains what the good of sex is and what rights derive from that.
Originally posted by Incipit:
The identical appeal to authority ('because we say so') was used, but with firmer scriptural foundations, to justify the oppression of slaves, black people and women.
quote:And this in itself is a consequence of changing technology.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The historical truth is of course that the freeing up of gay sex is a consequence of the push for the principle I mentioned among heterosexuals. First the old heterosexual morals were ditched, using this principle. Then people discovered that there really was no way of reasonably allowing heterosexuals to shag as they please (as long as everybody involved is old and human enough, and consents) and forbidding gays to shag as they please (as long as everybody involved is old and human enough, and consents).
quote:As far as I know no one thinks that adultery is something everybody should feel OK about. It's lying. It's breach of promise or breach of contract. So you can just drop that one right there. (Yes, you can probably find individual people that claim you shouldn't feel bad about adultery - but it's a very very fringe belief, and no, polyamoury isn't adultery).
And I largely agree with that, by the way. If the main problem with fornication, adultery, contraception and abortion is that every body involved should feel OK about it, then it's hard to see why one should not extend that to sodomy.
quote:Following that line of thought, is the penis "ordered to" urination or sexual intercourse?
Originally posted by hatless:
Where does the term 'ordered to' come from, and what does it mean? I've not come across it in any other context. Does it conceal a teleological content, i.e. does it really mean 'intended for'?
Is a person's mouth ordered to eating? Is a volcano ordered to erupting? Is a virus ordered to infecting? Are my vocal chords ordered to singing or talking?
quote:I don't see why this would be "concealing" teleological content? It is indeed talking about final causes in the Aristotelian sense, that for the sake of which a thing is what it is.
Originally posted by hatless:
Where does the term 'ordered to' come from, and what does it mean? I've not come across it in any other context. Does it conceal a teleological content, i.e. does it really mean 'intended for'?
quote:Yes, a mouth is ordered to eating (among other things). No, I think a volcano is not ordered to erupting. Erupting is more the efficient cause of a volcano, i.e., the primary source of its (changing) state. I'm not quite sure what the final cause of a volcano would be. Similarly, I think infecting is the efficient cause of virus, or perhaps simply its activity. I guess the final cause of a virus is more viruses... And yes, your vocal chords are ordered to vocalising, and hence to both singing and talking.
Originally posted by hatless:
Is a person's mouth ordered to eating? Is a volcano ordered to erupting? Is a virus ordered to infecting? Are my vocal chords ordered to singing or talking?
quote:Firstly, the requirement is not that everybody in the whole wide world feels OK about it. Rather, that everybody involved feels OK about it. And of course there are claims that this is the case, both for individual cases and perhaps even for society-wide arrangements, see here.
Originally posted by Justinian:
As far as I know no one thinks that adultery is something everybody should feel OK about.
quote:A penis is rather obviously ordered to both, though one can perhaps say that it is primarily ordered to sexual intercourse. Because women and castrates can urinate as well; and most of the specific "engineering" of the penis, like its ability to become erect, has to do with sexual intercourse, not urination. However, I guess by sheer frequency of use and necessity for health, a penis is primarily ordered to urination. So a safe answer would be to stick with "both".
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Following that line of thought, is the penis "ordered to" urination or sexual intercourse?
quote:Doesn't this argument work just as well the other way? That the penis is primarily ordered for urination because women can have sexual intercourse as well? Or are you operating under the assumption that sex is something a man does to a woman rather than something they both do together?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:A penis is rather obviously ordered to both, though one can perhaps say that it is primarily ordered to sexual intercourse. Because women and castrates can urinate as well; . . .
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Following that line of thought, is the penis "ordered to" urination or sexual intercourse?
quote:Firstly, simply read the text that you have snipped off. Secondly, women have a specialised organ for having sex as well, it's not that they just lack a penis. Thirdly, a castrate can urinate but he cannot have (genital) sex.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Doesn't this argument work just as well the other way? That the penis is primarily ordered for urination because women can have sexual intercourse as well?
quote:One specific thing has several final causes, and you are unsure about their order. From this you conclude that a particular action, for which the primary final cause is clear, and whose secondary final causes are clearly ordered to the primary one, cannot be evaluated morally? The logic there escapes me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is one of the reasons I find these kinds of One True Purpose™ arguments unpersuasive.
quote:I'm rejecting the notion that there is only One True Purpose for everything, that such a Purpose is inherently clear from either function or expected use, and that any use other than this One True Purpose is, by definition, immoral.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:One specific thing has several final causes, and you are unsure about their order. From this you conclude that a particular action, for which the primary final cause is clear, and whose secondary final causes are clearly ordered to the primary one, cannot be evaluated morally? The logic there escapes me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is one of the reasons I find these kinds of One True Purpose™ arguments unpersuasive.
quote:Good on you. I reject that notion, too.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm rejecting the notion that there is only One True Purpose for everything, that such a Purpose is inherently clear from either function or expected use, and that any use other than this One True Purpose is, by definition, immoral.
quote:How do you know what the sacred author intended to express? How do you know he didn't mean "marriage of two people" and did mean "this specific sex act between a man and a woman"?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No. That would not be the "literal" sense, but a "literalistic" sense. The "literal" sense of scripture is what the sacred author intended to express, it's not about a "literalistic" reading of the words which merely assigns the most common meaning without any regard to context or coherence. The literal sense of scripture is to be contrasted with the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses, which are all intepretative. I have even made that explicit in what I said above, namely I stated 'More poetically, this is the "union of one flesh"...' The literal sense here is of course a poetic one: the sacred author did not want to claim that man and woman actually fuse on the cell level. Yet the sacred author also clearly wanted to talk about the actual physical act of sex between a man and a woman there, which makes them appear as if joined into one body, not about something more abstract. That is also part of the literal sense. So the RCC uses a literal, not literalistic, reading of this verse.
Originally posted by St Deird:
If you were being "literal" about this scripture, than you'd have to mean a woman and a man merging into one big two-headed, four-handed, freaky siamese twin.
quote:Chairs do not generally feature in my considerations of morally significant human action... But let me accommodate your interests.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
From the previous example, if we claim a chair is "ordered to" sitting, it doesn't follow that standing on it to reach something on a high shelf or change a light bulb is therefore an immoral perversion of its chair-ity, despite being directly contrary to its "final cause" of supporting asses, not feet.
quote:Seriously? "Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." (Genesis 2:23-24)
Originally posted by St Deird:
How do you know what the sacred author intended to express? How do you know he didn't mean "marriage of two people" and did mean "this specific sex act between a man and a woman"?
quote:This is simply wrong, both in its definition of "literal" and the artificial distinction between literal and literalistic.
Originally posted by IngoB:
No. That would not be the "literal" sense, but a "literalistic" sense. The "literal" sense of scripture is what the sacred author intended to express, it's not about a "literalistic" reading of the words which merely assigns the most common meaning without any regard to context or coherence. The literal sense of scripture is to be contrasted with the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses, which are all intepretative. I have even made that explicit in what I said above, namely I stated 'More poetically, this is the "union of one flesh"...' The literal sense here is of course a poetic one: the sacred author did not want to claim that man and woman actually fuse on the cell level. Yet the sacred author also clearly wanted to talk about the actual physical act of sex between a man and a woman there, which makes them appear as if joined into one body, not about something more abstract. That is also part of the literal sense. So the RCC uses a literal, not literalistic, reading of this verse.
quote:Actually, I suspect that most chairs today get made by machines. I suppose you might give humans credit for making the machine that makes the chairs, but if you're going to do that you should probably go a step further and posit that chairs are made by God, since you give him credit for inventing the humans that invented chair-making machines.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Chairs do not generally feature in my considerations of morally significant human action... But let me accommodate your interests.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
From the previous example, if we claim a chair is "ordered to" sitting, it doesn't follow that standing on it to reach something on a high shelf or change a light bulb is therefore an immoral perversion of its chair-ity, despite being directly contrary to its "final cause" of supporting asses, not feet.
One notes that chairs get made by people.
quote:How is this moral? It's most likely that the owner of the chair is not its creator. Can the owner of the chair subvert the will of its creator and still be considered moral?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Their purpose is determined by their creators and/or owners. If a chair is used as a step by its creator and/or owner, then it has acquired a new final cause of providing something to stand on.
quote:Indeed. By making human arms long enough to reach their genitals He's obviously endorsed masturbation! This is one of the hazards of imputing morality to function. It's essentially an argument that because something exists, it is therefore divinely ordained and moral.
Originally posted by IngoB:
So going back to the question of human action, it is indeed the case that the Creator of human sexuality, God, can reassign its final cause. And hey, He has done so already.
quote:Wow. We must be in low orbit, given the speed of pennies dropping...
Originally posted by hatless:
If 'ordered to' means 'meant for' or 'intended for' then you are telling us that sex is meant for procreation, and that those who support gay marriage have been misled because we've forgotten that sex is really meant to make babies and started to think that sex is for pleasure.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:There is very little doubt that biological reasoning requires "teleological expressions". Occasional lip service may be paid to the rejection of Aristotle, but it is just too cumbersome to constantly explain away the obvious purposefulness of living matter. The heart pumps the blood around in order to to move oxygen and nutrients to the cells and move away their waste products. No wait, there was a random evolutionary process which without any design allowed animals to develop, which just happened to have this mechanism, which... Well, as I was saying, the heart pumps the blood around in order to ...
Originally posted by hatless:
Teleological expressions are often found in biology, but are regarded as highly suspect.
quote:Neither intention nor foresight are required for a teleological ordering. At least not so in the entity ordered. A hammer has a purpose, but knows naught of the world.
Originally posted by hatless:
Unfortunately the natural world isn't actually that rich in intention or foresight.
quote:Humans have sex in order to have babies, just like other animals. They have a strong desire to have sex so that they will produce more babies, just like other animals. These are not statement about what is going through an individual human being's mind when having sex. Clearly, somebody wanking to porn or wearing a condom while having sex is not intending to produce offspring. These are statements about the principle reason why sex exists, and why the desire to have sex exists. Sex would not exist if it were not for producing offspring. The desire for sex would not exist, if sex did not produce offspring. It is a basic biological function no more mysterious than eating and drinking. In humans, arguably though somewhat less clearly, emotional bonding into long-term partnerships through sex would not exist were it not for the difficulties of human pregnancy and the long time until a human child becomes self-sufficient, i.e., even that higher-level behaviour appears likely ordered to producing offspring. This does not mean that you are faithful to your wife because you argue in your mind that thereby you increase the potential survival chances of your offspring. But it does mean that you find it in your nature to be faithful because that is the case.
Originally posted by hatless:
Humans have sex. Why? Not to have babies, but usually because they experience a strong desire to do so.
quote:It is fucking obvious, literally. You are simply thinking at the wrong level. At the level you are operating at, my tradition declares not having sex to be spiritually superior! Perhaps a computer analogy will help. I'm talking about how the operating system works, you are talking about which apps you really like. That's just talking past each other. My point here is simply that an app cannot usefully work against the operating system, it has to work with it.
Originally posted by hatless:
My point is that I don't think it's obvious what sex is for
quote:We can. We shouldn't.
Originally posted by hatless:
The issue of GLBT people and sex really isn't about the right to pleasure. We can all get that from a quick wank.
quote:The problem is that you are trying to justify your position on the basis of biology and then, when called on it, say it's actually a philosophical issue.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But anyhow, I don't give a shit about the pretzels biologist feel they must twist themselves into. While me are talking physiology here, my argument is one of theology and philosophy, not of biology.
quote:This is simply confused because you are distinguishing several discrete things and then mashing them together anyhow. The three things being:
Humans have sex in order to have babies, just like other animals. They have a strong desire to have sex so that they will produce more babies, just like other animals. These are not statement about what is going through an individual human being's mind when having sex. Clearly, somebody wanking to porn or wearing a condom while having sex is not intending to produce offspring. These are statements about the principle reason why sex exists, and why the desire to have sex exists. Sex would not exist if it were not for producing offspring. The desire for sex would not exist, if sex did not produce offspring. It is a basic biological function no more mysterious than eating and drinking. In humans, arguably though somewhat less clearly, emotional bonding into long-term partnerships through sex would not exist were it not for the difficulties of human pregnancy and the long time until a human child becomes self-sufficient, i.e., even that higher-level behaviour appears likely ordered to producing offspring. This does not mean that you are faithful to your wife because you argue in your mind that thereby you increase the potential survival chances of your offspring. But it does mean that you find it in your nature to be faithful because that is the case.
quote:It simply shows that some common Christian jargon exists which you were not previously aware of. Now you are, well done.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
This is simply wrong, both in its definition of "literal" and the artificial distinction between literal and literalistic. ... There are webpages dedicated to arguing a difference, e.g. from Sydney Anglicans claiming that they read the Bible literally but not literalistically. All this shows is that religious casuistry is not limited to Roman Catholics.
quote:I'm sorry if you are confused here. But I've never given the slightest indication that I was making any kind of biological argument. Biology does not deal with morals. I've used evidence from biology to argue moral issues. You could call that metabiology if you like, in analogy to metaphysics. Or simply a natural moral law argument, that would be more usual. Notice the "natural" there? Good.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The problem is that you are trying to justify your position on the basis of biology and then, when called on it, say it's actually a philosophical issue.
quote:Bollocks. My argument is firstly that (a) and (b) are aspects of the same thing, which is rather obvious. Sex does primarily what is needed for reproduction, and as such it came about. Given that I believe God brought about nature intentionally, I can then look at (a) and (b) as evidence for what God intends for sex. As it happens, the result harmonizes nicely with the scriptural evidence for what God intends for sex.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
This is simply confused because you are distinguishing several discrete things and then mashing them together anyhow. The three things being:
a. What sex does
b. How sex came about
c. What God intends for sex.
a. Includes reproduction, pleasure, deepening of the bond, etc
b. Is basically reproduction, i.e. creatures that don't have an effective reproductive function don't produce offspring and are weaned out by natural selection.
c. You merely assert, without supporting evidence, to be equivalent to (b) and not to (a) or to parts of (a).
quote:Primarily female sexual excitement and pleasure.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also, out of interest, IngoB - what do you think the clitoris is ordered to?
quote:Yes you did, in this post, in your reply to Incipit.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I've never given the slightest indication that I was making any kind of biological argument.
quote:It isn't obvious at all. There's no obvious logical link between the reason something came about, and the use to which something can be put.
quote:Bollocks. My argument is firstly that (a) and (b) are aspects of the same thing, which is rather obvious. Sex does primarily what is needed for reproduction, and as such it came about.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
This is simply confused because you are distinguishing several discrete things and then mashing them together anyhow. The three things being:
a. What sex does
b. How sex came about
c. What God intends for sex.
a. Includes reproduction, pleasure, deepening of the bond, etc
b. Is basically reproduction, i.e. creatures that don't have an effective reproductive function don't produce offspring and are weaned out by natural selection.
c. You merely assert, without supporting evidence, to be equivalent to (b) and not to (a) or to parts of (a).
quote:That seems to be a fairly major unspoken and undiscussed premise.
Given that I believe God brought about nature intentionally ...
quote:So the purpose of clitoral stimulation is pleasure? Isn't that what you've just been arguing against?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Primarily female sexual excitement and pleasure.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also, out of interest, IngoB - what do you think the clitoris is ordered to?
quote:Unless you're conflating definition (b) back into definition (a) that use of 'literal' is entirely supportable. 'Literal' is opposed to 'metaphorical' only in sense (b); in sense (a) it is opposed to 'allegorical' and 'mystical'. That is, in scholastic Biblical interpretation, the sensus litterae (sense of the letters, literal sense) is how you take the text as a competent reader understanding figures of speech such as metaphor or irony. (The study of metaphor would fall under 'grammar' in the medieval curriculum.) The definition you cite makes it clear that that's the original meaning from which the later less technical meaning is derived.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
"literal: (a) pertaining to the letter (of Scripture); the distinctive epithet of that sense or interpretation which is obtained by taking its words in their natural or customary meaning, and applying the ordinary rules of grammar; opposed to mystical, allegorical. Hence (b) by extension, applied to the etymological or the relatively primary sense expressed by the actual wording of a passage, as distinguished from any metaphorical or merely suggested meaning"
From this it is clear that:
a) the idea that "literal" can somehow mean "poetic" is unsupportable unless you turn one of those words on their heads;
b) the sense of what the author (sacred or otherwise) intended to express is just not a part of "literal"; equally context is irrelevant for a "literal" reading and; to suggest that applying the most common meaning of a word is being "literalistic" not "literal" is plain wrong;
quote:Why would I want to argue against that? It is perfectly fine to stimulate the clitoris in sex, almost a sweet obligation I would say...
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:So the purpose of clitoral stimulation is pleasure? Isn't that what you've just been arguing against?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Primarily female sexual excitement and pleasure.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also, out of interest, IngoB - what do you think the clitoris is ordered to?
quote:No, I didn't! To the contrary, I explicitly laid out the distinction between biology and morals there: I said that it is biological fact that sex is ordered to procreation. But I admitted that the moral consequence thereof is not biological fact, but must be attached to it. That's precisely "metabiology", arguing from biological facts to morals.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes you did, in this post, in your reply to Incipit.
quote:The seed is not the final cause (what it is good for), but the efficient cause (how it arose), of the tree. The final cause of the tree would be something like growing, living and producing fruit. The child making a swing in its branches does not hinder the final cause of the tree. If it did, for example because the tree is too young and breaks due to the swinging, then that would be evil for the tree. We may very well scold the child for ruining the tree. At any rate, this is besides the point. Because it is well known that the goals and purposes of different entities can be at odds with each other in the world. But we are talking here about disrupting our own final causes. Sex is not a separate entity, but something we do. It is as if the tree were to grow and live, but then decided to not produce fruit. Rather famously, we are allowed to consider a tree that bears no fruit as a bad tree...
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It isn't obvious at all. There's no obvious logical link between the reason something came about, and the use to which something can be put. e.g. A tree grows in the park because a creature eats its fruit and excretes its seed there. A child sees the tree and uses its branches to make a swing.
quote:It was for example spoken in the very paragraph in the very post you linked to.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That seems to be a fairly major unspoken and undiscussed premise.
quote:Yes, it does. And there's nothing wrong with that, because such pleasure (alongside other - arguably more important - things like pair bonding and reproduction) is what sex is for.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That turns sexual pleasure into a good in its own right
quote:The biggest practical problem (and admittedly your moral code doesn't seem to be geared towards practical application) with such biological fatalism is that it would seem to render the entire practice of medicine immoral. If a heart develops a blockage, well it was obviously meant to as a part of its inherent design. Taking a blood vessel from the leg to bypass the blockage is also evil, since that blood vessel was obviously ordered to distribute blood to the leg, not circumvent an aortic blockage.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is very little doubt that biological reasoning requires "teleological expressions". Occasional lip service may be paid to the rejection of Aristotle, but it is just too cumbersome to constantly explain away the obvious purposefulness of living matter. The heart pumps the blood around in order to to move oxygen and nutrients to the cells and move away their waste products.
quote:But why isn't swinging from trees evil in itself? After all, it turns swinging into "a good in its own right, accessible entirely apart from what [trees are] ordered to"? Your entire argument is based on the assumption that using anything apart from its intended purpose is inherently evil.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The seed is not the final cause (what it is good for), but the efficient cause (how it arose), of the tree. The final cause of the tree would be something like growing, living and producing fruit. The child making a swing in its branches does not hinder the final cause of the tree.
quote:Clearly, none of the sexual acts I mentioned is for reproduction. Masturbation at least is not generally for pair bonding either. If we look at these sexual acts, and the many others that nowadays are considered perfectly fine and morally licit, then it is clear that hat the primary good of sex is now considered to be pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights). Which brings us right back to what I said before this ever so predictable detour...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And there's nothing wrong with that, because such pleasure (alongside other - arguably more important - things like pair bonding and reproduction) is what sex is for.
quote:Yes. And long may that attitude persist, and may it spread throughout the world.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we look at these sexual acts, and the many others that nowadays are considered perfectly fine and morally licit, then it is clear that hat the primary good of sex is now considered to be pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights).
quote:I think you're certainly right about one thing in that earlier post - as long as Christianity maintains its anti-sex doctrines it will become less and less relevant in the western world, to the point where it becomes just one more insignificant cult clinging to existence through its presence in the third world. And with every country that is lifted from third world to first world standards of living, its presence will grow ever smaller.
Which brings us right back to what I said before this ever so predictable detour...
quote:You're jumping to a conclusion. You could certainly consider those engaging in sex for pleasure as regarding sexual pleasure as "good", but what's the difference between that and considering it a "primary good"? Is it because you regard sexual pleasure as not good at all, or just because you consider the priority of various goods to be more important than goods themselves?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Clearly, none of the sexual acts I mentioned is for reproduction. Masturbation at least is not generally for pair bonding either. If we look at these sexual acts, and the many others that nowadays are considered perfectly fine and morally licit, then it is clear that hat the primary good of sex is now considered to be pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights).
quote:Rather, the entire practice of medicine is nothing but the attempt to restore all parts of the body to their intended shape and function.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The biggest practical problem (and admittedly your moral code doesn't seem to be geared towards practical application) with such biological fatalism is that it would seem to render the entire practice of medicine immoral.
quote:Clearly not, since that impedes the natural function of the heart. The very analysis "a heart develops a blockage" is of course nothing but a comparison of the actual state with the intended state. Playing stupid really doesn't help your case.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If a heart develops a blockage, well it was obviously meant to as a part of its inherent design.
quote:Blood vessels are primarily ordered to transporting blood. Full stop. This is precisely the reason why one can have the idea of moving a blood vessel from a place that has enough blood transport to one that doesn't. The leg blood vessels are largely not leg-specific other than by virtue of being located there. Obviously an evil is done to the leg by removing part of its blood supply. The analysis of that falls under "double effect".
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Taking a blood vessel from the leg to bypass the blockage is also evil, since that blood vessel was obviously ordered to distribute blood to the leg, not circumvent an aortic blockage.
quote:Firstly, no, that's not my entire argument. Here, let me help you. Is this man committing evil? No, he is being funny. How come? At these points we find that natural moral law is not merely a mechanistic application of some algorithm to natural data. Most of moral argument cannot simply be formalized, it relies on implicit agreement on many things in order to discuss a few. That's the reason why things get tough when people stop implicitly agreeing. It's not like proving that 2+2=5 is false. Anyway, natural moral law is good for analysing a circumscribed moral problem. It is not particularly helpful for some kind of global scan of the moral landscape. Secondly, the child is not the tree, whereupon your argument disappears. But since I've given you a different one, a much better one, I bet you will be able to cope.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But why isn't swinging from trees evil in itself? After all, it turns swinging into "a good in its own right, accessible entirely apart from what [trees are] ordered to"? Your entire argument is based on the assumption that using anything apart from its intended purpose is inherently evil.
quote:Since the clitoris is ordered to sexual pleasure, and sexual pleasure is ordered to sex, and sex is ordered to procreation, clearly the clitoris is ordered to procreation. In an ideal world, one might hope for a better physical arrangement. Last time I checked, this was not an ideal world. However, while you may use the location of the clitoris as a convenient excuse for your performance, I consider it more a challenge gladly accepted.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is probably the reason the clitoris is so problematic. It's not ordered for procreation. In fact, its exterior positioning seems deliberately contrary to such an aim. If it were meant to encourage reproduction it should be located somewhere near the cervix, somewhere it couldn't be stimulated without the vaginal penetration you consider the essence of marriage.
quote:Since you've cast this in terms of human rights, does your rejection of sexual autonomy as a human right mean you have no problem in principle with various laws criminalizing sexual behaviors? Or at least sexual behaviors that fall outside your preferred range?
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we look at these sexual acts, and the many others that nowadays are considered perfectly fine and morally licit, then it is clear that hat the primary good of sex is now considered to be pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights). Which brings us right back to what I said before this ever so predictable detour...
quote:That's not clear at all. It's natural for the heart to develop blockages. It is considerably less natural to perform bypass surgery. Of course, if we consider human ingenuity to be natural then there's nothing impeding similar creativity in sex.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Rather, the entire practice of medicine is nothing but the attempt to restore all parts of the body to their intended shape and function.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The biggest practical problem (and admittedly your moral code doesn't seem to be geared towards practical application) with such biological fatalism is that it would seem to render the entire practice of medicine immoral.
quote:Clearly not, since that impedes the natural function of the heart. The very analysis "a heart develops a blockage" is of course nothing but a comparison of the actual state with the intended state.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If a heart develops a blockage, well it was obviously meant to as a part of its inherent design.
quote:At which point? The point where mechanistic analysis doesn't lead to your preferred, predetermined conclusion? You considered mechanistic application a perfectly good tool for analyzing something as varied and complex as human sexuality.
Originally posted by IngoB:
At these points we find that natural moral law is not merely a mechanistic application of some algorithm to natural data.
quote:Isn't that, by definition, special pleading? Claiming that a logical standard used for one particular case shouldn't be applied to other, similar cases?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, natural moral law is good for analysing a circumscribed moral problem. It is not particularly helpful for some kind of global scan of the moral landscape.
quote:In the next century or two, it is much, much more likely that Europe will be repopulated by religious immigrants with a conservative attitude to sex and relationships, than that such ideology is diminishing in the rest of the world.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think you're certainly right about one thing in that earlier post - as long as Christianity maintains its anti-sex doctrines it will become less and less relevant in the western world, to the point where it becomes just one more insignificant cult clinging to existence through its presence in the third world. And with every country that is lifted from third world to first world standards of living, its presence will grow ever smaller.
quote:I would be kind of interested in your exegesis relating to "God wants us to be happy." I feel one has to say a heck of a lot about the meaning of "happy" in that sentence, if one wants to do justice to scripture...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If that's an outcome you don't mind seeing, then fine. For my part, I'd rather see Christianity move with the times on what are, when it comes down to it, relatively unimportant moral stances so that future generations of first world people can still have the opportunity to come to know the God who loves them and wants them to be happy.
quote:The point is that the common good of all sexual activity people consider licit these days - not necessarily what they do or want to do themselves, but what they believe is OK - is sexual pleasure.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You could certainly consider those engaging in sex for pleasure as regarding sexual pleasure as "good", but what's the difference between that and considering it a "primary good"?
quote:I have no problem with laws against certain sexual behaviours, for example rape and paedophilia. I also have no problems with with laws that clearly encourage the kind of sexual behaviours I approve of, e.g., tax breaks for married couples. I'm sceptical however of "prohibition" type laws, whether they concern drugs, sex or whatever. They tend to be counter-productive. It is proper for the state to protect the common good, and to protect those who cannot defend themselves, but it is not the role of the state to make everybody live a good life by some moral standard. (That is, in fact, one of the proper roles of religion...) Applied to sexuality, I would hence be OK with some restrictions of sex in the public space, but in general against such restrictions in the private space, unless vulnerable people get exploited.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Since you've cast this in terms of human rights, does your rejection of sexual autonomy as a human right mean you have no problem in principle with various laws criminalizing sexual behaviors? Or at least sexual behaviors that fall outside your preferred range?
quote:You are talking about the wrong kind of "natural" there. Seriously. It is confusing, because there are multiple overlapping meanings. But the kind of "natural" in "natural moral law" is more a kind of (reverse-)engineering perspective...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's natural for the heart to develop blockages. It is considerably less natural to perform bypass surgery.
quote:You can't even state your supposed problem without the same "special pleading": when you say "blockage", you of course say nothing but that something which should flow doesn't.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, given your proposition that the heart was deliberately intended to function in the manner it functions, it smacks of special pleading to then claim that one of those functions is really a malfunction.
quote:The same complaint could be made against any moral analysis. It is more an art than a science. However, there generally is little randomness about it all. The best way of defeating my arguments would of course have been to claim that sex doesn't particularly matter. That it is merely a bodily function like defecating, and that I'm applying an exalted analysis to how one must wipe one's arse. But see, that's not really happening. Everybody sort of knows that this stuff is important, and the heavy guns of rhetoric get dragged out near instantly. And likewise, that it is important to clarify the connection between sex and procreation is pretty obvious, no matter what moral line one might want to push. So basically there's a clear spot here to apply the tool of natural moral law.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At which point? The point where mechanistic analysis doesn't lead to your preferred, predetermined conclusion? You considered mechanistic application a perfectly good tool for analyzing something as varied and complex as human sexuality.
quote:Well, if there is a similar problem, then one can likely apply the same tool. But I would not recommend cutting the lawn with nail clippers. That tends to get tedious after a while.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't that, by definition, special pleading? Claiming that a logical standard used for one particular case shouldn't be applied to other, similar cases?
quote:Indeed. Given God's purported engineering of smallpox as mankind's special little friend (to pick just one example), the idea that He wants humans to be happy requires a particularly warped definition of "happy".
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would be kind of interested in your exegesis relating to "God wants us to be happy." I feel one has to say a heck of a lot about the meaning of "happy" in that sentence, if one wants to do justice to scripture...
quote:Right. So, given the capacity of the human heart to develop blockages, we can reverse-engineer the fact that God wants the heart to do so.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:You are talking about the wrong kind of "natural" there. Seriously. It is confusing, because there are multiple overlapping meanings. But the kind of "natural" in "natural moral law" is more a kind of (reverse-)engineering perspective...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's natural for the heart to develop blockages. It is considerably less natural to perform bypass surgery.
quote:Nope, that's not the argument at all. There's no "should" involved. Just the idea that a blockage blocks stuff. (That's kind of definitional.) Using the logic you've advanced the fact that the heart does develop such blockages means that it is morally right that it do so and morally wrong to interfere in this natural, God-given process.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:You can't even state your supposed problem without the same "special pleading": when you say "blockage", you of course say nothing but that something which should flow doesn't.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, given your proposition that the heart was deliberately intended to function in the manner it functions, it smacks of special pleading to then claim that one of those functions is really a malfunction.
quote:The problem in a nutshell is that the picture which represents Christianity, the front of the post card, is
Verbum ipsum loquitur.
IngoB's contribution appositely illustrates the problem. As I understand him, the church, or at least the RC church, is essentially saying, 'Sexual gay relationships are bad because we [bible + tradition] say so. Tough if you happen to be gay: celibacy is your only option'.
To me, to an increasing number of people, and in my experience to most young people in the UK, this is cruel and inhumane bullshit. The identical appeal to authority ('because we say so') was used, but with firmer scriptural foundations, to justify the oppression of slaves, black people and women. Those in power (masters, white people and men) always say 'we are in power because we [bible + authority] say so'. The making-other of gay people is the latest version of this pattern, and increasingly people see it for what it is. As with those earlier oppressions, this has tragic consequences in the real world (the suicides of young gay people, for instance). As with the previous oppressions, chilling and self-satisfied theological correctness can be invoked to justify the status quo. It still doesn't amount to more than 'because we say so'. It cuts no ice with me, and I'm delighted that more and more it cuts no ice with others.
quote:But the guidance towards compassion and fairness gets drowned out by the primary message of disorder. Even worse, the part I have put in bold denies the possibility of genuineness to sexual relations between homosexuals. No such thing as "genuine, affective, relations". Ever.
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
quote:You must be better natured than me, because to me it is the new found compassion slipped in as a footnote to the condemnations which is clearly the pretense.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The message of sickness, of second-classness, though clearly not intended, is what crosses the divide between speaker and listener. Inevitably. What else are they to think? What are their friends to think?
quote:I got that impression as well, particularly the bit about "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided", which seems to indicate image-consciousness over substance. Discrimination, just or unjust, is still apparently okay if you don't leave any traces.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
You must be better natured than me, because to me it is the new found compassion slipped in as a footnote to the condemnations which is clearly the pretense.
quote:Speak for yourself. On my postcard, we can also see Christ transfigured, Christ commanding the elements, Christ beating the rabble out of the temple, Christ sweating blood in prayer, Christ separating the sheep from the goats, Christ fasting in the wilderness... And before your baby kneel the Kings, and from the cross one thief is saved, yet the other is not. I've not signed up to kitsch Christianity.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The problem in a nutshell is that the picture which represents Christianity, the front of the post card, is A baby. The incarnation, the announcement that God is with us. Emmanuel. Peace on earth. Goodwill to all people. or A Man of sorrows. The crucifixion, the announcement that God is for us even in our deepest suffering, even when we cause the deepest suffering. "If God is for us, who can be against us. He who gave up his only Son .."
quote:Now, I wouldn't want to get in the way of your righteous rant. But the catechism didn't actually say "relations", did it now?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Even worse, the part I have put in bold denies the possibility of genuineness to sexual relations between homosexuals. No such thing as "genuine, affective, relations". Ever.
quote:You obviously didn't get as far as the fourth word of the catechism then.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Now, I wouldn't want to get in the way of your righteous rant. But the catechism didn't actually say "relations", did it now?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Even worse, the part I have put in bold denies the possibility of genuineness to sexual relations between homosexuals. No such thing as "genuine, affective, relations". Ever.
quote:By contrast, here is an excerpt from the book "Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay" by James Alison, a Catholic priest who is gay.
In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.
quote:Both documents repay careful study. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the pastoral care needs to include means of healing for the damage done by the Traditional expression of Traditional orthodoxy.
No, I'd rather look at it as we find ourselves and each other on the beach, wondering at how our experience at the hand of this story of creation-as-moral-package leaves us in an extraordinarily good situation to prepare our words for Nineveh. I suspect I am not alone in understanding that this moral package, which seems an expression of Christian orthodoxy, is very much at work in what has killed us. However many caveats are put into it concerning the distinction between acts and orientation, this package grinds down on us and says: "as you are, you are not really part of creation. While it is true that for heterosexual people their longings, desirings, seekings after flourishing and sense of what is natural really do correspond to the order of creation, however much they may need pruning and refining on their path of salvation, this is not true for you. Your longings, desirings, seekings after flourishing and sense of what is natural, however they be pruned and refined through experiences of partnership and love, have absolutely no relationship with creation. There is no analogy between them and creation. For you creation is a word whose meaning you simply cannot and do not know from experience, since everything most heartfelt that you take to be natural is intrinsically disordered, and it is only by a complete rejection of your very hearts that you may come to know something of what is meant by creation. Until such a time as this happens, limp along, holding fast with your minds to the objective truth about a creation which can have no subjective resonance for you, and when you are dead, you will enter into the Creator's glory."
I suspect that all of us have, to some extent or other, allowed this package to bear down on us, have interiorized it, and have allowed it to chew deep down into our souls. It is part of the theological double-bind: love but do not love; be, but do not be, which I mentioned earlier. This is a profoundly destabilizing force, since over time it means that our lives are not real lives, our loves are not real loves, our attempts to build stable and ordered relationships have no real worth, our minds and hearts can only produce sick fruit, not worth listening to or countenancing, let alone receiving or blessing. We are not children in a garden, we are living blasphemies, and since with every footfall we tread illicitly on a sacred lawn, it would be better not to tread at all, let alone walk confidently and make something of our stay. Many of us experience this as having killed us.
quote:Do you really think so? I bloody well hope that doesn't happen, because it would basically herald the end of equality, justice and freedom for all. It would be going back to the dark ages. We may as well bring back feudalism and slavery.
Originally posted by IngoB:
In the next century or two, it is much, much more likely that Europe will be repopulated by religious immigrants with a conservative attitude to sex and relationships, than that such ideology is diminishing in the rest of the world.
quote:I want to do justice to people, not scripture. Scripture is dead words on a page, people are what matter. I want to love God and love my neighbour, not love scripture and oppress my neighbour because he doesn't do the things it says he should.
I would be kind of interested in your exegesis relating to "God wants us to be happy." I feel one has to say a heck of a lot about the meaning of "happy" in that sentence, if one wants to do justice to scripture...
quote:Expressing anger is not the same as trying to debate constructively, is it? There's a certain smugness in finding other people smug, for example. Smug is short hand for self-righteous. We need to be careful in pointing that finger. Jesus said that.
Originally posted by Incipit:
The thread has developed instructively, and by demonstration helps to answer the question the OP posed. There are some humane voices, but much of the thread has taken the form of a discussion of theological arcana. Am I the only one to find the chilling legalism and smugness of IngoB's arguments, and of the system he tries to defend, repulsive? Why would anyone, let alone a young Christian, least of all a gay young Christian, listen to them for a minute?
quote:This is so terribly tiresome... Here are the relevant parts of the Catechism that Barnabas actually put in bold:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:You obviously didn't get as far as the fourth word of the catechism then.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Now, I wouldn't want to get in the way of your righteous rant. But the catechism didn't actually say "relations", did it now?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Even worse, the part I have put in bold denies the possibility of genuineness to sexual relations between homosexuals. No such thing as "genuine, affective, relations". Ever.
quote:A desire for truth is not limited to the elderly. The Holy Spirit can inspire also the young. Being challenged by your carnal desires is a universal experience of fallen humanity, not limited to gays. If a young gay person looks for uncritical affirmation of their sexuality, then indeed I would suggest to look elsewhere.
Originally posted by Incipit:
Why would anyone, let alone a young Christian, least of all a gay young Christian, listen to them for a minute?
quote:It's a fool's errand to predict decades into the future, worse centuries. I also think your evaluation is shot through with false ideology. However, I think it is a fairly safe prediction that the West as we see it now is not going to survive, much less conquer the world. The key question is whether change will be slow and mild, or explosive and drastic. And ironically enough, I think you might well find that the RCC will become your new best friend in that department...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do you really think so? I bloody well hope that doesn't happen, because it would basically herald the end of equality, justice and freedom for all. It would be going back to the dark ages. We may as well bring back feudalism and slavery.
quote:That's all nice and well, Marvin. But you actually made a statement about what God wants, not about what you want, think and do. I was just wondering what precisely you meant with "God wants us to be happy," and how you know that to be the case.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I want to do justice to people, not scripture. Scripture is dead words on a page, people are what matter. I want to love God and love my neighbour, not love scripture and oppress my neighbour because he doesn't do the things it says he should.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would be kind of interested in your exegesis relating to "God wants us to be happy." I feel one has to say a heck of a lot about the meaning of "happy" in that sentence, if one wants to do justice to scripture...
quote:I'm pretty sure no one thinks anti-gay Christians lack strong feelings on the subject.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just because some of the debate comes across as a bit arcane doesn't mean the participants lack strong feelings, or fire in their bellies, or conflicting convictions about the matter
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
]This is so terribly tiresome...
quote:Speaking with my biologist's hat on, no it isn't. Sex is the opposite of reproduction. Sex is two becoming one, reproduction is one becoming two (or more). Sex and reproduction are inextricably linked in us mammals, but there are some organisms that do them at separate times, such as ferns and most fungi.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:It is fucking obvious, literally.
Originally posted by hatless:
My point is that I don't think it's obvious what sex is for
quote:IngoB, I may be wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that opposition to homosexuality comes from a "desire for truth", whereas Christians who aren't opposed to it are wanting "uncritical affirmation of their sexuality". Is this what you really think?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:A desire for truth is not limited to the elderly. The Holy Spirit can inspire also the young. Being challenged by your carnal desires is a universal experience of fallen humanity, not limited to gays. If a young gay person looks for uncritical affirmation of their sexuality, then indeed I would suggest to look elsewhere.
Originally posted by Incipit:
Why would anyone, let alone a young Christian, least of all a gay young Christian, listen to them for a minute?
quote:That may well be so, Barnabas. But it remains true that the Catechism simply does not say that. The Catechism is talking exclusively about homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered. Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. Homosexual acts do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can homosexual acts be approved.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm happy to state that the Catechism does not rule out the possibility of genuine and affective friendships between homosexuals, provided that they do not involve sexual acts. Once they do so, they transgress the boundaries of sexual complementarity and become disordered, regardless of whether the affection is genuine, or not. The three words, genuine, affective and sexual cannot be joined together to describe a same-sex relationship without invoking the sanction of disorder. The genuine affection has become tainted by the disordered sexual acts.
quote:If, and only if, you declare "sexual" as the defining characteristic of the relationship. If it is "either they can have sex, or it is not a genuine, affective relationship", then indeed the RCC outlaws such relationships by virtue of outlawing homosexual acts.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Therefore homosexuals cannot have a genuine, affective, sexual relationship with a member of the same sex. Ever. Now, is that inference, with its qualification, sufficiently agreed between us for us to move on?
quote:Have you ever masturbated? Well, I have. I find that I have a deep-seated tendency to do it, in fact - extremely difficult to "get rid of" entirely. This inclination, which is objectively disordered according to the RCC, constitutes for me a trial.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think you are looking at the fernseed when there is an elephant in the room.
quote:Quite honestly, I'm too busy with my own problems, with working out my own salvation. If someone presses me insistently on my views on homosexuality, I will state them honestly. But I'm not someone who seeks confrontation in real life, or haunts people about their failures. I'm not trying to pass this off as virtue, I just don't care that much about what other people do, quite generally. I probably know a considerably above average number of openly gay people, by virtue of most of my immediate family being "artists" of some description. Yet I've never heard any complaints and best I can tell I'm not being "avoided" either. But yeah, on the negative I don't buy the whole "we shall overcome" spiel either. Frankly, any Catholic who doesn't need to overcome something isn't practising properly. Maybe life in faith is killing you more than it is killing me, maybe not. I can offer a nice Scotch to fortify yourself, and then I'll be taking care of my business again. That's where I am at. (And I have some damned good Scotch, seriously...)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On that subject you may have views, for example, on the effective implementation of the letter written in 1986 by the present Pope.
quote:Another human being that fails the Turing test. I think it should be mandatory for mathematicians to read Schopenhauer.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Yes it is tiresome that when you are found to say something that is untrue, rather than having the balls to admit it you try to slime your way out by claiming you said something else instead. But that's what we've come to expect.
quote:We conclude that for ken "is the opposite of" is synonymous to "is ordered to". And we make note that if we ever want to discuss the sexual morality of ferns and fungi, we probably have to tread carefully.
Originally posted by ken:
Sex is the opposite of reproduction. ... Sex and reproduction are inextricably linked in us mammals, but there are some organisms that do them at separate times, such as ferns and most fungi.
quote:One should of course not grudge biologists their interests in why different living beings choose different means of reproduction, some sexual, some not. That interest is quite proper to biology, even though admittedly it contributes fuck all to the discussion at hand...
Originally posted by ken:
If sex is "for" anything it seems to be for mixing up genomes and preserving a large amount of genetic polymorphism in a population - which is an odd sort of thing to imagine evolving and becoming almost universal so there is still a great deal of argument as to how it might have come about.
quote:Uhh, sure, can do. I'm a bit concerned that you may have completely wrong ideas about what a proper "search for truth" entails. But OK, I will make the mental note you request: "St Deird, avowed truth seeker: pull no punches, skip the niceties, ignore emotional state - engage with all you have." Always a pleasure to meet a fellow warrior. Cautious bow. Touch gloves. And ...
Originally posted by St Deird:
Please do me the courtesy of believing me to be sincerely seeking truth - even if you believe I'm looking in the wrong places for it.
quote:But the catechism does describe homosexual tendencies as objectively disordered.
But it remains true that the Catechism simply does not say that. The Catechism is talking exclusively about homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered. Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. Homosexual acts do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can homosexual acts be approved.
quote:Is there a significant difference between intrinsically and objectively?
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.
quote:Right back at you, mate!
Originally posted by IngoB:
I also think your evaluation is shot through with false ideology.
quote:If we believe God loves us, it follows from that that He wants us to be happy. Which of us, having a child whom we love, would not seek that child's happiness? How much more, then, will our Father in heaven seek our happiness?
That's all nice and well, Marvin. But you actually made a statement about what God wants, not about what you want, think and do. I was just wondering what precisely you meant with "God wants us to be happy," and how you know that to be the case.
quote:Forgive me for being away for a few days.
Originally posted by IngoB:
What is decisive is whether you perform the bodily actions "naturally ordered to procreation", i.e., vaginal intercourse with male ejaculation inside.
quote:Intrinsically: pertaining to the thing itself, rather than determined by other factors. A homosexual act is wrong no matter who carries it out under what circumstances, says the RCC. (Though the morality of the situation as a whole may well be depending on other factors, and the culpability of the actors is another matter again.)
Originally posted by hatless:
Is there a significant difference between intrinsically and objectively?
quote:That seems to throw "hate the sin, love the sinner" completely out the window.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If someone has "deep-seated tendencies to homosexual acts", then because these acts are intrinsically and objectively disordered, so is having deep-seated tendencies towards them.
quote:And it seems entirely appropriate that this hard and horrible teaching is being defended by someone who is so vain regarding himself, and so contemptuous towards anyone who disagrees with him.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:That seems to throw "hate the sin, love the sinner" completely out the window.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If someone has "deep-seated tendencies to homosexual acts", then because these acts are intrinsically and objectively disordered, so is having deep-seated tendencies towards them.
quote:Sorry, TonyK, I think my latest post may have overstepped the line you reminded us of here. My apologies.
Originally posted by TonyK:
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Louise has had occasion recently on a couple of DH threads to remind posters that:
Personal attacks are only permitted in Hell.
Some of the recent posts on this thread are veering dangerously in that direction as well.
Also, please stick to the OP and thread title - we seem to be heading down some tangents - eg the purpose of sex.
Host Mode <DEACTIVATE>
quote:Using a word learned from IngoB at this point. I think those three pastors are all objectively disordered. Certainly disordered, and I'm sure I'm not being subjective about that.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm pretty sure no one thinks anti-gay Christians lack strong feelings on the subject.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just because some of the debate comes across as a bit arcane doesn't mean the participants lack strong feelings, or fire in their bellies, or conflicting convictions about the matter
quote:Now wait a second. Masturbation seems "ordered to sexual pleasure, and sexual pleasure is ordered to sex, and sex is ordered to procreation, clearly [masturbation] is ordered to procreation". Now I find this kind of "if it's sexually pleasurable it must be ordered for procreation" justification for sex acts you personally like absurd, but if that's how you want to argue, go ahead. It just seems completely contrary to everything else you've been arguing.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Have you ever masturbated? Well, I have. I find that I have a deep-seated tendency to do it, in fact - extremely difficult to "get rid of" entirely. This inclination, which is objectively disordered according to the RCC, constitutes for me a trial.
quote:There are some key matters to be considered there, in particular the fall. However, your quest to turn everything into polemics for once delivers an appropriate caution here. The next step would be to read scripture and find out what people there either are "happy" about or are encouraged to be "happy" about.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given God's purported engineering of smallpox as mankind's special little friend (to pick just one example), the idea that He wants humans to be happy requires a particularly warped definition of "happy".
quote:We continue to hit here a simple problem. Natural moral law is not some kind of mental algorithm. It is not something where you put in concept A and fact B, churn unthinkingly trough some procedure, and obtain result C. It requires proper discernment, analysis and - as part of philosophy - even wisdom. This gives you endless opportunity to play dumb, pretending that if you can obtain false results this invalidates the method. However, this particular case pleasingly shows you up. For of course we human beings have reverse-engineered the heart, and have constructed mechanical replacements. And of course these medical engineers did not design the artificial hearts to get blockages. As it happens, that's what the worked particularly hard to prevent (difficult because of blood clotting). They immediately discerned that blockages are a failure of the heart to do what it is supposed to do, not part of its purpose. Engineers are no fools.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Right. So, given the capacity of the human heart to develop blockages, we can reverse-engineer the fact that God wants the heart to do so.
quote:Not at all, this merely follows if one plays dumb, as you now have sufficiently demonstrated. However, you could notice here that intelligence has a non-trivial, non-mechanistic aspect to it. And if you were to follow that point for a while, you may well come to the conclusion that your mind must have some immaterial aspect to it. There be dragons. Or souls, in this case.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Using the logic you've advanced the fact that the heart does develop such blockages means that it is morally right that it do so and morally wrong to interfere in this natural, God-given process.
quote:If you masturbate as part of foreplay for vaginal intercourse, then conceivably masturbation would be ordered to procreation and licit. Normally though we understand by masturbation a sexual act that stands apart from sex with a partner, which is obviously not ordered to procreation, give that paper tissue never gets pregnant. It does not particularly matter whether (the glans of) a penis or a clitoris get stimulated for solo masturbation. Both are ordered to procreation by virtue of providing sexual pleasure. This ability can get properly used, or abused, as in solo masturbation.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Masturbation seems "ordered to sexual pleasure, and sexual pleasure is ordered to sex, and sex is ordered to procreation, clearly [masturbation] is ordered to procreation". Now I find this kind of "if it's sexually pleasurable it must be ordered for procreation" justification for sex acts you personally like absurd, but if that's how you want to argue, go ahead. It just seems completely contrary to everything else you've been arguing.
quote:Neither is true - it builds down from a human heirarchy claiming to speak on behalf of God. If common sense had anything to do with it then equality for all would have been a fact decades (nay, centuries) ago.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Natural moral law reasoning builds up from "common sense", it does not build down from that to some kind of AI.
quote:Are we called, and does the Christian faith equip us, to do our own moral reasoning to the best of our ability? I think so; and can only congratulate those who are, as you say, "rightly disgusted by the prejudice and cruelty," not to mention the exhortation to quarrel with and shun some of their own friends. They are using their heads and keeping priorities in order.
Originally posted by Incipit:
for most people whether gay people exist, have relationships, have sex or get married simply isn't an issue. So when the church (= most denominations, but the RC church most defiantly) says that gay people are 'called to chastity', most young people are amazed and (to my mind) rightly disgusted by the prejudice and cruelty.
quote:Yes imagine! We could refer to such an organization as "the church as it existed through most of history".
Originally posted by Incipit:
Imagine if the church, or any other enterprise that claimed to be, or represent, a source of truth and morality, upheld slavery or discrimination against women. A few oddballs would join up, but most people would rightly shun it.
quote:This is of course mere wishful thinking. In the USA one might make a case for churches influencing young people against homosexuality, in the UK certainly not. Neither do mainstream churches in the UK make significant anti-gay noises, nor are all that many young people in contact with churches anyhow. This includes the RC churches in the UK, which are not actually particularly vocal about this issue at all (unless the state in its great wisdom tries to push the envelope against them). The idea that the homophobic schoolyard usage of the word "gay" derives from Anglicans squabbling about ordinating a homosexual, or anything like that, is just silly.
Originally posted by Incipit:
For most young people in the UK at least, being gay is just an ordinary, value-neutral, fact about people. There is of course some background homophobic noise, originating mainly from the churches, which has some subliminal effect.
quote:It would be nice if most young people gave enough of a damn about anything the church might say to be disgusted by this... It would be nice if most young people had some understanding of the concept 'chastity' and didn't find it outrageous per se, no matter to whom it may be applied. (Incidentally, did you really mean 'chastity', or were you think of 'continence'?)
Originally posted by Incipit:
However, for most people whether gay people exist, have relationships, have sex or get married simply isn't an issue. So when the church (= most denominations, but the RC church most defiantly) says that gay people are 'called to chastity', most young people are amazed and (to my mind) rightly disgusted by the prejudice and cruelty.
quote:I might be interested in that sort of argument, if my morals were utilitarian. Since they are not, I do not particularly care about this. That said, I think it would be rather interesting to make an unbiased study of the health and quality of life of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals. I'm not sure that it can be done, but it may well be informative.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Speaking for traditional teaching, Ingo can of course reply on the order of "friends don't let friends drive drunk". If the consequences of homosex, to oneself and the rest of the world, are comparable to traffic accidents caused by drunken drivers, then one would be right to interfere with what a friend wants to do, because one would be seeking his greater good. But first one has to believe this. It's a big if, and it's looking bigger all the time.
quote:This is outright misrepresentation, I've never said anything remotely like that. I've stated that the RCC as a truly global and rapidly growing organisation has a lot less motivation to pander to its failing European branches than people in Europe might think. I've also said that the situation in Europe may well shift relatively quickly again, given the way demographics and immigration are going. The truth about the morality of homosexuality is of course entirely independent of the number of people supporting it. (In my opinion - it's precisely the people opposing Divinely given morality and/or morality established by nature that might disagree with that.)
Originally posted by Alogon:
Another reply of Ingo's here has been that the church is growing in the third world, people in the third world have no problem with this teaching of the church, and they outnumber us: ergo clearly something is wrong with us when we're not as docile and credulous as they are. We are in the minority, so we must be mistaken. But I'm hard put to think of another area in which Ingo would try implying that the truth of a matter were determined by popular vote.
quote:I've read the latter a while back. I found it quite forgettable, which I largely have done in the meantime.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Two of my favorite books these days are How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E. Woods; and even more sophisticated and authoritative, Atheist Delusions, by David Bentley Hart.
quote:That seems like projecting your own prejudices onto everyone else in a sort of "no one I know voted for Nixon" kind of way. An alternate view is that hate is learned, not something that just spontaneously happens. For example, I doubt this kid has a very clear notion of what a homosexual is, but he's certainly convinced of the theological proposition that they're outside God's grace. That seems very non-spontaneous to me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
One can read natural moral law into that, or simple rejection of "the other" in whatever form it may appear, but there is a negative reaction to homosexuality which occurs quite spontaneously and spreads easily.
quote:To phrase it in less conspiracy-laden way, this is more or less why most gays reject the closet as toxic. It's premised on the idea that gay people and gay relationships aren't sick, deranged, disordered, or evil at a rate noticeably greater than their heterosexual counterparts. What you see as some massive propaganda effort aimed at re-educating the witless masses is just ordinary people living normal lives, and not hiding the fact that they're doing so.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would say these days in the UK, the line on homosexuality that is being pushed across pretty much all the media is overwhelmingly positive. And that contributes a lot to the general feeling of normality towards homosexual relationships. However, I think to maintain that kind of normality you will have to keep up that kind of "educational" pressure. It's not done and dusted, and I doubt that it ever will be.
quote:Glad to hear it. I think that the study of the Barna Group applies principally to the U.S.
Originally posted by IngoB:
In the USA one might make a case for churches influencing young people against homosexuality, in the UK certainly not.
quote:This book is about why Christian young people leave the church. Why young people outside the church aren't attracted to it in the former numbers was studied separately, but the findings are similar.
It would be nice if most young people gave enough of a damn about anything the church might say to be disgusted by this...
quote:Granted, and I apologize. I should have re-read you more carefully.
This is outright misrepresentation, I've never said anything remotely like that.
quote:
I've stated that the RCC as a truly global and rapidly growing organisation has a lot less motivation to pander to its failing European branches than people in Europe might think. I've also said that the situation in Europe may well shift relatively quickly again, given the way demographics and immigration are going.
quote:In the 1949 musical South Pacific* about inter-racial romance there was one song above all others that caused outrage and even called "a threat to the American way of life". That song was considered so outrageous because it dared to present in plain English the idea that racism wasn't natural. That in the words of the song it had to be carefully taught.
Originally posted by IngoB:
One can read natural moral law into that, or simple rejection of "the other" in whatever form it may appear, but there is a negative reaction to homosexuality which occurs quite spontaneously and spreads easily.
quote:No it's not done and dusted. Because you have many churches trying to make sure that children are carefully taught and who have been applying such careful teaching for centuries. Neutralising that much careful teaching will take time.
However, I think to maintain that kind of normality you will have to keep up that kind of "educational" pressure. It's not done and dusted, and I doubt that it ever will be.
quote:I have literally never met anyone who thinks that a vocation to chastity or otherwise voluntary chastity is outrageous. As far as I can tell there is literally no significant group of young people who think that people choosing celibacy such as priests, monks, or nuns, is outrageous. It's their choice. (It is normally seen as a little weird but that's utterly not the same thing as outrageous). The fundamental principle behind modern secular sexual ethics is consent. And without the ability to say no, consent is meaningless.
It would be nice if most young people gave enough of a damn about anything the church might say to be disgusted by this... It would be nice if most young people had some understanding of the concept 'chastity' and didn't find it outrageous per se, no matter to whom it may be applied.
quote:When I was little I had a naturally adverse reaction to kissing. I don't see this as a basis for moral judgements.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That there is a naturally averse reaction to homosexuality is actually something that the pro-gay side tends to stress, namely as something that is to be overcome by learning.
quote:Indeed. I also see incredibly obvious and incredibly strong feedback loops that used to push the other way. You're comparing the impact of a few men in a rowboat to all the rowers chained to a trireme. And who'd get thrown in prison or whipped (literally) for not rowing.
I think we see social feedback loops at work here, which have accelerated society in a particular direction over many decades. As a consequence social inertia now moves society in a different direction than it once did.
quote:... every century but this and every culture but his own...
And frankly, the moral decay of a New Roman Empire, of which the acceptance of homosexuality is but a part just as it used to be, is not what scares me the most about that comparison. I think the political, economical and military analogies are far more worrisome than a bit of sexual debauchery...
quote:There is rather little doubt that racism, or better, xenophobia which easily attaches to visible features such as skin colour, is "spontaneous" to humans in the sense that I've been talking about. If anyone believes that the war against xenophobia will be decisively won before the Second Coming, then they are in my opinion delusional. Xenophobia we can actually understand as the negative (disordered...) aspect of something positive, namely the tendency of people to form groups, communities. And so the best cure against xenophobia is invariably to form stronger groups, communities, that include those that were formerly hated. Whereas merely declaring that xenophobia is wrong tends to do very little, since reason tends to get pushed around by impulses rather than the other way around.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And you, now, are making just about exactly the same argument the racists were about South Pacific.
quote:Just out of curiosity, your general opinions on moral and religious matters - such as you regularly present them here - were they fully formed in you by the age of eight?
Originally posted by Justinian:
You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!
quote:I find this optimism about the continued influence of churches quite remarkable. If the wet dreams of the atheists come to pass and churches simply disappear, then I'm sure a hundred years on residual homophobia will still get blamed on them. Because facing up to reality is just too painful, a scapegoat is required.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Because you have many churches trying to make sure that children are carefully taught and who have been applying such careful teaching for centuries.
quote:True. Though I wonder if you speak this truth in the full knowledge of the difference between 'chastity' and 'continence'.
Originally posted by Justinian:
What is seen as utterly outrageous is to force chastity on others.
quote:TinyURL or bitly are your friends...
Originally posted by Justinian:
SoF doesn't permit the full link because there's a bracket in the page address.
quote:This is an inherently flawed analogy. Most research in this area indicates that an appreciation for bitter flavors is actually a result of biological maturation, not learned behavior. The taste palate gets rewired throughout childhood and adolescence with "bitter" being one of the last things altered, usually in the late teens or early twenties. In short, it seems most likely that people "learn" to like beer or other bitter flavors in the same sense that women "learn" to ovulate.
Originally posted by IngoB:
For example, beer is an acquired taste, because there is naturally averse reaction to bitter taste, which in this case is often overcome by learning (from parents and peers). The natural reaction is of course quite appropriate in general, though supermarket foragers have a lot less use for it.
quote:I've never heard anyone who could reasonably be described as "pro-gay" make that argument. I hear it a lot from some of the more violently inclined anti-gay types, often as part of a gay panic defense. Citation please?
Originally posted by IngoB:
That there is a naturally averse reaction to homosexuality is actually something that the pro-gay side tends to stress, namely as something that is to be overcome by learning.
quote:Given that the main component of this "social feedback loop" is gay people living openly and everyone else realizing that gays aren't child molesting monsters, doesn't that undermine your proposition that gay hating is spontaneous and natural? If your proposition were true, wouldn't the result of gays coming out be even greater hatred towards homosexuals?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I also do not think that there is a "massive propaganda effort", at least not in the sense of some master organization attempting to shape behaviour. I think we see social feedback loops at work here, which have accelerated society in a particular direction over many decades.
quote:Not the pill specifically, but rather the general idea that women should be the legal and social equals of men.
Originally posted by IngoB:
As a consequence social inertia now moves society in a different direction than it once did. I also think that the initial push had little to do with homosexuality, and lots to do with the "sexual revolution" among heterosexuals. I think the pro-gay movement has to thank the pill before all else.
quote:The song itself has its own Wikipedia entry, including a paragraph on the controversy.
Originally posted by Justinian:
In the 1949 musical South Pacific* about inter-racial romance there was one song above all others that caused outrage and even called "a threat to the American way of life". That song was considered so outrageous because it dared to present in plain English the idea that racism wasn't natural. That in the words of the song it had to be carefully taught.
And that was outrageous at the time, leading to the musical being banned in the Deep South and in South Africa to my certain knowledge.
quote:
Rodgers and Hammerstein risked the entire South Pacific venture in light of legislative challenges to its decency or supposed Communist agenda. While the show was on a tour of the Southern United States, lawmakers in Georgia introduced a bill outlawing entertainment containing "an underlying philosophy inspired by Moscow." One legislator said that "a song justifying interracial marriage was implicitly a threat to the American way of life." Rodgers and Hammerstein defended their work strongly. James Michener, upon whose stories South Pacific was based, recalled, "The authors replied stubbornly that this number represented why they had wanted to do this play, and that even if it meant the failure of the production, it was going to stay in."
quote:I agree about the relative importance of the political, economic, and military. The fact that we can see homosexuality accepted during a period of decline constitutes no case at all that it was a cause, or even a sign, of the decline. I haven't studied it, but for all I know, it was also accepted during the rise of Rome.
Originally posted by IngoB:
the moral decay of a New Roman Empire, of which the acceptance of homosexuality is but a part just as it used to be, is not what scares me the most about that comparison. I think the political, economical and military analogies are far more worrisome than a bit of sexual debauchery...
quote:According to Wikipedia (usual caveats apply) the period of West Rome's decline was actually a period of decreasing acceptance of homosexuality.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:I agree about the relative importance of the political, economic, and military. The fact that we can see homosexuality accepted during a period of decline constitutes no case at all that it was a cause, or even a sign, of the decline. I haven't studied it, but for all I know, it was also accepted during the rise of Rome.
Originally posted by IngoB:
the moral decay of a New Roman Empire, of which the acceptance of homosexuality is but a part just as it used to be, is not what scares me the most about that comparison. I think the political, economical and military analogies are far more worrisome than a bit of sexual debauchery...
quote:Interesting. Given that it is generally a good idea to not eat bitter things, but sometimes it is advantageous to do so, this could indicate that nature has actually adapted to the learning process. It remains true though that if you close your eyes and I put an unknown bitter substance into your mouth, you are much more likely to spit it out than if it were sweet. Therefore I think the analogy works sufficiently to get across my point.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is an inherently flawed analogy. Most research in this area indicates that an appreciation for bitter flavors is actually a result of biological maturation, not learned behavior. The taste palate gets rewired throughout childhood and adolescence with "bitter" being one of the last things altered, usually in the late teens or early twenties. In short, it seems most likely that people "learn" to like beer or other bitter flavors in the same sense that women "learn" to ovulate.
quote:Fair enough, I was already interpreting what pro-gays say in my terms. The point I was trying to make is that pro-gay arguments often mention the "icky factor" as a primary motivator of the anti-gay side. To pick a random example, here's RuthW. I think it was still fair to assume that most of them would consider this as something that is to be overcome by learning. But the claim that this "icky factor" is at least partly "natural" is of course my conclusion that I have unfairly imposed there on statements like that of RuthW.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've never heard anyone who could reasonably be described as "pro-gay" make that argument. I hear it a lot from some of the more violently inclined anti-gay types, often as part of a gay panic defense. Citation please?
quote:"... that gay hating contains a "spontaneous" core, which is not learned (or perhaps, is unavoidably learned)," would be a more like what I have claimed. And I don't recall making any reference to child molestation. I take it accuracy is something that you primarily demand of others? Anyhow, it is of course true that regular encounter with homosexuality in an apparent problem-free manner, whether in everyday life or the media, is effective in suppressing whatever "spontaneous" rejection of homosexuality there may be. I don't see why that would invalidate anything I've said.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the main component of this "social feedback loop" is gay people living openly and everyone else realizing that gays aren't child molesting monsters, doesn't that undermine your proposition that gay hating is spontaneous and natural?
quote:That depends largely on the reaction by those who "teach" (parents, peers, ...). Say a child display a spontaneous adverse reaction to seeing two men kiss in public. If the child finds no such reaction among those in its environment, or even gets scolded for its spontaneous reaction, then it will start learning that this reaction is inappropriate and will begin to suppress it. Whereas if the child encounters the same reaction or even gets positive reinforcement, then it will start learning to allow this reaction. This is obviously, just as I've said, a feedback loop - since the child will by growing up contribute to the environment the next generation encounters. Such feedback loops can be quite stable. However, if the initial "spontaneous" reaction has a clear bias, then it remains true that one feedback chain is more stable (and more likely) than the other. Basically, if for some reason a child would get into a situation with no clear feedback, it would be more likely to contribute to feedback along its spontaneous bias than against it in growing up.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If your proposition were true, wouldn't the result of gays coming out be even greater hatred towards homosexuals?
quote:No, the pill specifically (as epitome and symbol of effective contraception).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not the pill specifically, but rather the general idea that women should be the legal and social equals of men.
quote:I wasn't actually trying to say that the decline of Old Rome was caused by homosexuality, or caused by a decay of morals indicated by prevalent homosexuality. The (Western) Roman Empire of course started to crash in earnest just when its morality was finally getting seriously improved, which is (in religious terms) just the problem St Augustine tries to address in "The City of God". What I was trying to say is that the moral decay that we see now, which includes the acceptance of homosexuality just as one part, may well remind us of the Roman Empire. But I'm not so terribly worried about us being New Rome in that sense. I worry more about the political, economical and military analogies, which unfortunately also make us look quite a bit like late antiquity. I worry about that a lot more because these factors crashed the Roman empire around St Augustine in spite of all the holiness he and his fellow Christians injected into that empire. And I would rather not experience New Rome crashing all around me, whatever its morals may be... I expect any such crash would be much accelerated, and I am not a farmer or warrior: I expect to do quite badly in any beginning New Dark Age.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I agree about the relative importance of the political, economic, and military. The fact that we can see homosexuality accepted during a period of decline constitutes no case at all that it was a cause, or even a sign, of the decline. I haven't studied it, but for all I know, it was also accepted during the rise of Rome.
quote:Don't take this personally, but if you put something in my mouth when my eyes are closed I'm likely to spit it out regardless of what it tastes like.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It remains true though that if you close your eyes and I put an unknown bitter substance into your mouth, you are much more likely to spit it out than if it were sweet. Therefore I think the analogy works sufficiently to get across my point.
quote:Just an example of a particularly old and clichéd explanation for why gays are contemptible monsters, and why interacting with them on a regular basis would dispel such notions. Feel free to insert whatever other rationalization you prefer.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:"... that gay hating contains a "spontaneous" core, which is not learned (or perhaps, is unavoidably learned)," would be a more like what I have claimed. And I don't recall making any reference to child molestation. I take it accuracy is something that you primarily demand of others?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the main component of this "social feedback loop" is gay people living openly and everyone else realizing that gays aren't child molesting monsters, doesn't that undermine your proposition that gay hating is spontaneous and natural?
quote:Because your whole premise is that knowingly interacting with gays triggers "a negative reaction" in good, honest straights. Gut churning terror or visceral disgust or whatever else it is you're implying with the phrase "a negative reaction" is not a "problem-free" interaction. In short, if your premise is that straights naturally and spontaneously have a problem with gays, then you've defined interacting in a "problem-free manner" as an impossibility.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyhow, it is of course true that regular encounter with homosexuality in an apparent problem-free manner, whether in everyday life or the media, is effective in suppressing whatever "spontaneous" rejection of homosexuality there may be. I don't see why that would invalidate anything I've said.
quote:Or we could not say that. Rather, how about demonstrating your premise instead of just assuming it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That depends largely on the reaction by those who "teach" (parents, peers, ...). Say a child display a spontaneous adverse reaction to seeing two men kiss in public.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If your proposition were true, wouldn't the result of gays coming out be even greater hatred towards homosexuals?
quote:Interestingly enough, almost no homosexuals feel the need to take contraceptive measures during sex. (Prophylactic measures yes, contraception no.) On the other hand, rejecting a construction that insists that one of a couple be "the woman" and the other be "the man", with associated assumptions about gender-defined, mutually exclusive spheres of activity, seem to have a lot of relevance to same-sex couples.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No, the pill specifically (as epitome and symbol of effective contraception).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not the pill specifically, but rather the general idea that women should be the legal and social equals of men.
quote:I consider this simply to be your charming way of acknowledging that your objection has been dealt with satisfactorily.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Don't take this personally, but if you put something in my mouth when my eyes are closed I'm likely to spit it out regardless of what it tastes like.
quote:Since you are already throwing all available mud in the hope that some will stick, I don't think I need to contribute.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Feel free to insert whatever other rationalization you prefer.
quote:Sure. It is however not on average at the level of "gut churning terror or visceral disgust" in the spontaneous reaction, or there would be no need for discussing anything here. Then homosexuality would remain strongly suppressed, like incest. And as I have described, and as is obvious from society, social learning can modify the reaction to neutral or positive. My point has been simply that this will always be required.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because your whole premise is that knowingly interacting with gays triggers "a negative reaction" in good, honest straights. Gut churning terror or visceral disgust or whatever else it is you're implying with the phrase "a negative reaction" is not a "problem-free" interaction.
quote:This - rather obviously - does not follow in the slightest. If there is one group of children that will have learned to accept same-sex relationships as normal, then those in the care of same-sex couples.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, if you're right we'd expect children raised by same-sex couples to have more behavioral and emotional problems, due to the near-constant feelings of disgust and revulsion caused any time their parents display any affection towards each other.
quote:That's an interesting one. It seems to me though that at least lesbian-themed pornography aimed at men has little to do with lesbianism as such, and lots to do with two good looking women getting hot and bothered with no further work required (and no male competitor in sight). I think this gets amply confirmed by the popularity among men of porn showing single women masturbating.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, the most obvious stumbling block for your supposition that all straights feel a natural and spontaneous revulsion at the thought of gay sex is the large market for lesbian-themed pornography among straight men.
quote:And there is hardly a point in telling me so, given what I say make homosexuality illicit, right? The point is rather that by removing the "threat" of pregnancy, the pill enabled the pursuit of sex purely for pleasure (in the context of a romantic relationship, or outside of it). Morals got adapted to give license to these new practical possibilities. Since that involved removing procreation from the picture, the case against homosexuality became artificial, and was eventually dropped under pressure.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Interestingly enough, almost no homosexuals feel the need to take contraceptive measures during sex.
quote:That is a truly astonishing interpretation.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I consider this simply to be your charming way of acknowledging that your objection has been dealt with satisfactorily.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Don't take this personally, but if you put something in my mouth when my eyes are closed I'm likely to spit it out regardless of what it tastes like.
quote:It seems to me that the parenthesis marks an important difference that your overall argument has to treat as irrelevant.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point is rather that by removing the "threat" of pregnancy, the pill enabled the pursuit of sex purely for pleasure (in the context of a romantic relationship, or outside of it).
quote:IngoB, if you could kindly address this, I'd sleep better at night. It seems to me like there is a basic human squickiness to other people's sex lives in general which gets harnessed/hijacked in your argument via the common fallacy that The Gayz (and their relationships) are all about their Sexual Practices.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:When I was little I had a naturally adverse reaction to kissing. I don't see this as a basis for moral judgements.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That there is a naturally averse reaction to homosexuality is actually something that the pro-gay side tends to stress, namely as something that is to be overcome by learning.
quote:Best I can tell, a wide range of behaviour from "eternal love" to "one night stand" is acceptable now for heterosexuals, and in consequence also for homosexuals. I don't see much being made of "love" other than in arguments of victimization: It is convenient to argue that some rule against homosexuality would destroy the great romantic love between two homosexuals, but I never see such romantic love then turned into a necessary condition for the moral license.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't think society has come to accept sexual attraction to people of the same sex because it's pleasure-seeking. I think it's come to accept it because it's a form of romantic relationship.
quote:I have not claimed that homosexuality is all about sexual practices. However, these practices are what is being outlawed by the RCC, and hence are what is being discussed here primarily. There probably is something like a general aversion of smaller children to all "romantic display". I guess that's appropriate to their stage in life. Among adults, I would say there's a broad spectrum of reactions largely depending on circumstances, from watching the romance of "Titanic" to watching porn, from watching the kiss of a married couple at their diamond jubilee to watching two teenagers going at it in public. If there is a general trend to all this, then I would say that the more intimate the more private we expect it to be. The interesting population to look at - I guess - rather would be from young teenagers to young adults, where sexual interests first form and then solidify.
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
IngoB, if you could kindly address this, I'd sleep better at night. It seems to me like there is a basic human squickiness to other people's sex lives in general which gets harnessed/hijacked in your argument via the common fallacy that The Gayz (and their relationships) are all about their Sexual Practices.
quote:Nor should it be. The moral license, as you call it, comes from the principle of treating people decently.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is convenient to argue that some rule against homosexuality would destroy the great romantic love between two homosexuals, but I never see such romantic love then turned into a necessary condition for the moral license.
quote:None whatsoever. And I think that's a good thing, for all people. I don't see why any of us should be forced to have children just because we want to be in a relationship together.
My point was more that once the triangle marriage - sex - children was broken for good, there wasn't much of a point any longer available vs. homosexuality. If marriage and children become a basically free choice, independent from the choices one makes about sex, then what's the big difference between heterosexuals who say yes to sex and no to the rest, and homosexuals who do the same?
quote:And why would it be "treating people decently" if one considers their having sex as morally licit irrespective of who does what to whom and irrespective of just how much love is involved, as long as all parties involved give their consent (and are old enough to give meaningful consent)? Because people now think that the primary good of sex is pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights). That's just what I've said from the beginning...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Nor should it be. The moral license, as you call it, comes from the principle of treating people decently.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is convenient to argue that some rule against homosexuality would destroy the great romantic love between two homosexuals, but I never see such romantic love then turned into a necessary condition for the moral license.
quote:Is it really so hard to keep the terms straight? If at all, people might be "forced to have children" just because they want to have sex with each other. (Not that that is precisely right either, but it will do.)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
None whatsoever. And I think that's a good thing, for all people. I don't see why any of us should be forced to have children just because we want to be in a relationship together.
quote:Yes, you keep making this evidence-free assertion as if repeating it often enough is a form of proof. It reminds me of the arguments that there must be something to anti-semitism because it was so widespread, both geograhpically and historically. It's always comforting to believe that your personal prejudices are both universal and natural. An alternate explanation is that gay-hating, like gay-acceptance, is learned behavior.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Sure. It is however not on average at the level of "gut churning terror or visceral disgust" in the spontaneous reaction, or there would be no need for discussing anything here. Then homosexuality would remain strongly suppressed, like incest. And as I have described, and as is obvious from society, social learning can modify the reaction to neutral or positive. My point has been simply that this will always be required.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because your whole premise is that knowingly interacting with gays triggers "a negative reaction" in good, honest straights. Gut churning terror or visceral disgust or whatever else it is you're implying with the phrase "a negative reaction" is not a "problem-free" interaction.
quote:How is that possible? Why wouldn't this theorized natural and spontaneous visceral disgust you assert these children must feel towards their parents interfere with their learning to accept same-sex relationships? On a more general note, if interacting with gays causes straights to react negatively (naturally and spontaneously, of course!), wouldn't the least homophobic members of society tend to be those who had the least contact with gays (and thus the fewest number of negative reactions)? That seems to be the reverse of what we find, though. How do you explain the inverse correlation between those who have the most interactions (which are naturally negative, in your estimation) with gays and homophobia?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:This - rather obviously - does not follow in the slightest. If there is one group of children that will have learned to accept same-sex relationships as normal, then those in the care of same-sex couples.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, if you're right we'd expect children raised by same-sex couples to have more behavioral and emotional problems, due to the near-constant feelings of disgust and revulsion caused any time their parents display any affection towards each other.
quote:Once again, this doesn't really address the point. If your hypothesis is true, straight men should have a visceral negative reaction to portrayals of two women having sex. The reaction, if you're right, should be "ew, that's gross", not "hey, that's hot". In short, the pornographic appeal should decrease as soon as "two good looking women" start interacting with each other, but the reverse seems to be the case. Why is that? It's not as if the porn business spends a lot of money trying to educate its consumers on gay acceptance. Their business model seems to be based more on catering to their customers existing desires rather than shaping those desires to fit already-existing products.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That's an interesting one. It seems to me though that at least lesbian-themed pornography aimed at men has little to do with lesbianism as such, and lots to do with two good looking women getting hot and bothered with no further work required (and no male competitor in sight).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, the most obvious stumbling block for your supposition that all straights feel a natural and spontaneous revulsion at the thought of gay sex is the large market for lesbian-themed pornography among straight men.
quote:Interesting proposition. If controlling your own sex life isn't a human right, what is the legitimate range of restrictions that can be placed on people who have sex for pleasure, and what range of penalties should be applied to violators? I'm guessing that since you're pitching this as a question of "rights", this would involve state action at some level, but if not, please clarify.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Because people now think that the primary good of sex is pleasure, and that the free pursuit of this good is hence a human right (at least as long as it does not interfere with other goods and rights). That's just what I've said from the beginning...
quote:Rather, I've stated a hypothesis and worked out consequences thereof. As I've stated clearly above: "Whether that is true or not, my point was simply that if such a feelings arise naturally (in the sense of not learned, or perhaps unavoidably learned), then the battle to make homosexuality "normal" will never end." You may not be aware of that, but proposing hypotheses is actually a big part of doing science. In this case, I've worked out a consequence that could be refuted by history, namely if toleration of homosexuality shows itself to be stable.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, you keep making this evidence-free assertion as if repeating it often enough is a form of proof.
quote:As I've repeatedly stated, there is not doubt that it is learned behaviour. The questions is rather whether that is all there is to it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
An alternate explanation is that gay-hating, like gay-acceptance, is learned behavior.
quote:Even if the spontaneous reaction would be as drastic as you continue to assert - without any basis in what I've said (!) - we merely need to remind ourselves that Swedish children learn to eat and enjoy Surströmming. Humans are extremely malleable in their behaviour.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How is that possible? Why wouldn't this theorized natural and spontaneous visceral disgust you assert these children must feel towards their parents interfere with their learning to accept same-sex relationships?
quote:That of course follows entirely straightforwardly from all theories of learning, under the key assumption that these interactions are indeed "positive" (towards homosexuality). As already explained above, this concerns primarily the feedback experienced from the environment concerning the displayed behaviour. So for example, a child could receive a correction from a parent after a negative reaction (hence obtains feedback "positive" towards homosexuality). Then the negative reaction will get weakened by learning, and possibly turned into a neutral or even positive reaction under continued learning. If these interactions are however "negative" (towards homosexuality), for example in the case of experiencing homosexual abuse, then indeed one would expect that the negative reaction gets strengthened by more interactions.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How do you explain the inverse correlation between those who have the most interactions (which are naturally negative, in your estimation) with gays and homophobia?
quote:This does not follow. Firstly, it is entirely possible that in general there is a difference in reacting to homosexuality of one's own sex vs. that of the opposite sex. Nothing excludes a priori having a negative reaction to one, and none or even a positive one to the other. Secondly, my point was that I do not think that men watching lesbian porn appreciate the sex on display primarily as lesbian. The same man may well watch two women having sex on a porn tape and find that hot, and then see two actua lesbians kissing in a bar and find that a turn-off. Porn is generally designed to include the viewer as a kind of participant, for example by maximizing the view of the genitalia no matter how artificial this makes the motions of the actors. Including a male viewer in a lesbian porn scene results in a virtual threesome, not in an appreciation of lesbianism as lesbianism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Once again, this doesn't really address the point. If your hypothesis is true, straight men should have a visceral negative reaction to portrayals of two women having sex.
quote:Like so many things, I've already clarified this. To you. On the previous page of this thread. Here, 4th answer. A human right cannot be denied by lesser law, hence it is important to clarify what belongs to this category. However, just because a state could make a law, does not mean it should.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If controlling your own sex life isn't a human right, what is the legitimate range of restrictions that can be placed on people who have sex for pleasure, and what range of penalties should be applied to violators? I'm guessing that since you're pitching this as a question of "rights", this would involve state action at some level, but if not, please clarify.
quote:This contradicts your initial assertion that gay-hating occurs "spontaneously" and "naturally", in other words that it is "not learned". You even implied this was due to the operation of "natural moral law".
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:As I've repeatedly stated, there is not doubt that it is learned behaviour. The questions is rather whether that is all there is to it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
An alternate explanation is that gay-hating, like gay-acceptance, is learned behavior.
quote:The problem with this is that your argument is premised on the assumption that these interactions, by definition, either must be negative due to inherent, naturally occuring homophobia, or at the very least such interactions are biased in that direction. If interacting with homosexuals is, spontaneously and naturally, unpleasant for heterosexuals, it would follow that the more interactions a straight person has with gays, the more this feedback loop of visceral dislike should come into play, but this is clearly at odds with what we see in reality.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That of course follows entirely straightforwardly from all theories of learning, under the key assumption that these interactions are indeed "positive" (towards homosexuality).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How do you explain the inverse correlation between those who have the most interactions (which are naturally negative, in your estimation) with gays and homophobia?
quote:That's a refinement not found in your initial assertion. If that's the case, does that mean you've abandonned the "natural law" explanation for spontaneous gay-hate? Or is natural law subjective depending on gender of the observer?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:This does not follow. Firstly, it is entirely possible that in general there is a difference in reacting to homosexuality of one's own sex vs. that of the opposite sex. Nothing excludes a priori having a negative reaction to one, and none or even a positive one to the other.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Once again, this doesn't really address the point. If your hypothesis is true, straight men should have a visceral negative reaction to portrayals of two women having sex.
quote:I'm pretty sure the fact that the actresses involved in lesbian porn are the same gender does not escape the notice of the typical consumer of such products.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Secondly, my point was that I do not think that men watching lesbian porn appreciate the sex on display primarily as lesbian.
quote:Depending on the magnanimity and even-headedness of politicians is usually a dangerous gamble. Giving the state the power to punish same-sex couples, inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples or whoever happens to be on the shit list of whatever regime happens to be in charge at the time is rarely mitigated by stern finger-waggers saying "Yes you can, but you probably shouldn't."
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:A human right cannot be denied by lesser law, hence it is important to clarify what belongs to this category. However, just because a state could make a law, does not mean it should.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If controlling your own sex life isn't a human right, what is the legitimate range of restrictions that can be placed on people who have sex for pleasure, and what range of penalties should be applied to violators? I'm guessing that since you're pitching this as a question of "rights", this would involve state action at some level, but if not, please clarify.
quote:There is no contradiction, as we have now discussed at great length. One can say "all is spontaneous" or "all is learned", but what I have suggested is "some is spontaneous, some is learned". And this is of course there even in the very first statement, though I have continued to refine it given your continued misunderstanding. Namely, I drew the consequence right from the start that one has to keep up the "educational" pressure in order maintain homosexuality as normal. That statement would make no sense if I had assumed that "all is spontaneous".
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This contradicts your initial assertion that gay-hating occurs "spontaneously" and "naturally", in other words that it is "not learned". You even implied this was due to the operation of "natural moral law".
quote:Not only is this false, but I have explicitly explained to you why. One does not learn merely from having the initial reaction to seeing some evidence of homosexuality. One also learns from the feedback the environment then provides to that reaction. If the feedback is some "reward" for the behaviour, then the reaction gets strengthened. If the feedback is some "punishment" for the behaviour, then the reaction gets weakened. The further development depends on the net effect.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The problem with this is that your argument is premised on the assumption that these interactions, by definition, either must be negative due to inherent, naturally occuring homophobia, or at the very least such interactions are biased in that direction.
quote:It may simply indicate that we naturally engage more with moral issues that potentially concern ourselves, than with moral issues that certainly concern others. I cannot engage in lesbian sex, but I could engage in sex with another man. The latter is hence immediately relevant to what I ought to do, the former requires more of an intellectual abstraction.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's a refinement not found in your initial assertion. If that's the case, does that mean you've abandonned the "natural law" explanation for spontaneous gay-hate? Or is natural law subjective depending on gender of the observer?
quote:That's true but does not invalidate what I've said.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure the fact that the actresses involved in lesbian porn are the same gender does not escape the notice of the typical consumer of such products.
quote:A gamble that all of us have to take on the many, many laws that are not directly concerned with human rights. Even from a purely pragmatic point of view it is important to keep the concept of "human rights" tightly focused on a few key issues. If one broadens this too much, then one opens up attack lines for people to dismiss clear human rights together with doubtful ones. Furthermore, one has to pick one's battles. It may be possible to pressure some regime to stop its violations of a handful of human rights, it would be much harder to do so for hundreds or thousands of them.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Depending on the magnanimity and even-headedness of politicians is usually a dangerous gamble.
quote:hosting
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
This thread seems to have been completely derailed from its subject with no prospect of getting back to it. If you want to discuss whether there is a 'squick factor' or 'yuk factor' involved in attitudes to gay people, then please go start a new thread and wind up this tangent here.
This is not yet another thread for people to argue why they think homosexuality is right or wrong but one to discuss whether attitudes to homosexuality are encouraging young people to leave the church. If you've nothing to say about that then please leave the thread.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
quote:Sorry about that, it sure was! I was typing this on and off for a while, and didn't even bother checking the result after submitting.
Originally posted by Louise:
IngoB is there a reason why you completely ignored my host post? I sincerely hope that was a cross-post from you.
quote:I'm going to drop this post from earlier back in to help people get back on the scent.
Originally posted by Incipit:
The topic of the OP - whether the churches' attitude to gay people - is putting off young people (incl young Christians) is something of a no-brainer, isn't it? Imagine if the church, or any other enterprise that claimed to be, or represent, a source of truth and morality, upheld slavery or discrimination against women. A few oddballs would join up, but most people would rightly shun it. For most young people in the UK at least, being gay is just an ordinary, value-neutral, fact about people. There is of course some background homophobic noise, originating mainly from the churches, which has some subliminal effect.
However, for most people whether gay people exist, have relationships, have sex or get married simply isn't an issue. So when the church (= most denominations, but the RC church most defiantly) says that gay people are 'called to chastity', most young people are amazed and (to my mind) rightly disgusted by the prejudice and cruelty. A few oddballs may find the phobic response enticing, but not many. Why would anyone, young or old, see any value in such an organisation as a guide in making moral choices? More fundamentally, if a church's only defence of its position is 'because we say so' (= the bible + tradition), then the very basis of all its teachings is undermined, as they all finally depend on the same defence.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:Part of the problem is that our culture doesn't value chastity, whether in straight or gay people. Churches that emphasise chastity (and the RCC obviously does) are clearly going to be unattractive to young people, regardless of their teachings about homosexuality. But as someone for whom chastity is and has been extremely important, I don't think Christian arguments for gay inclusion should be about how awful it is that gay Christians are expected to be chaste!
Originally posted by Incipit:
[F]or most people whether gay people exist, have relationships, have sex or get married simply isn't an issue. So when the church (= most denominations, but the RC church most defiantly) says that gay people are 'called to chastity', most young people are amazed and (to my mind) rightly disgusted by the prejudice and cruelty. A few oddballs may find the phobic response enticing, but not many. Why would anyone, young or old, see any value in such an organisation as a guide in making moral choices?
quote:And not just because young people are quitting the church. The uneasiness comes from an inner disquiet. That "something is wrong, back at home base". We need to look more at "in here", rather than finger-pointing "out there".
Originally posted by Barnabas62 in Purg:
... most of the folks I know in this category (thoughtful evos in the UK) get pretty upset also with self-righteous and "lack of real love" tendencies re sexual ethics as well. The two issues cohere. Some traditional understandings of God's holiness have often been used as a cover for human unkindness.
As one of my best friends observed, "God's holiness in the NT is something children are encouraged to crawl all over and 'publicans and sinners' seem more comfortable with than the conventionally religious. Go figure". He's been in nonco-evo world for almost as long as me.
Kindness always has a future. There's good scope for joining up the dots in rather different ways. Quite a lot of folks are genuinely uneasy about the usual rhetoric. Brian McLaren's books are increasingly read. There's a desire for a more generous orthodoxy.
quote:So why did Jesus say that he came so that we might have life in all its abundance?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Christianity isn't a religion where we can expect a fair shot at achieving a wonderful life.
quote:I suppose the question is what Jesus meant by those statements! The prosperity gospel would certainly say that we were all meant to enjoy the 'good things' of life. But Jesus himself was critical of the rich.....
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So why did Jesus say that he came so that we might have life in all its abundance?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Christianity isn't a religion where we can expect a fair shot at achieving a wonderful life.
And why did Irenaeus say that the glory of God was a (hu)man fully alive?
quote:I think each person has to discern for themselves what their fullness of life would look like but i have gay people testify to meting Mr. Right after years of self-denial and finding that everything clicks into place as God's 'plan' for them.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:I suppose the question is what Jesus meant by those statements! The prosperity gospel would certainly say that we were all meant to enjoy the 'good things' of life. But Jesus himself was critical of the rich.....
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So why did Jesus say that he came so that we might have life in all its abundance?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Christianity isn't a religion where we can expect a fair shot at achieving a wonderful life.
And why did Irenaeus say that the glory of God was a (hu)man fully alive?
quote:At the end of the day, yes - we do have to decide for ourselves what the fullness of life looks like. And then we need to find, or to create, churches, that fit in with our understanding.
Originally posted by leo:
I think each person has to discern for themselves what their fullness of life would look like but i have gay people testify to meting Mr. Right after years of self-denial and finding that everything clicks into place as God's 'plan' for them.
quote:People who've never been to church can't really complain about church being 'oppressive'. They're just picking up second and third-hand comments from other people. There are plenty of other second and third-hand accounts about the positive impact of church life and activity throughout history. We all simply choose those accounts that fit in best with our inclinations, whether for or against.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the rather sad history of churches oppressing/ostracising those who disagreed with the persons in power within the churches, why would anyone want to join a church, once they have been driven out by said oppressors?
What does "church" offer to people who don't understand the concept, let alone those driven out?
At present, the majority of young people are not and have not been church-goers at all, so they don't understand what you are talking about.
And the generation who were brought to church as children are voting with their feet to stay out of a stifling, if not actively hostile, environment.
quote:Prosperity gospel is about material things. How on earth is that relevant to the prospect of finding a deep, satisfying relationship with a person you love who is of the same gender?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:I suppose the question is what Jesus meant by those statements! The prosperity gospel would certainly say that we were all meant to enjoy the 'good things' of life. But Jesus himself was critical of the rich.....
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So why did Jesus say that he came so that we might have life in all its abundance?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Christianity isn't a religion where we can expect a fair shot at achieving a wonderful life.
And why did Irenaeus say that the glory of God was a (hu)man fully alive?
quote:My point was that living life in all its fullness, as far as Jesus was concerned, isn't necessarily about doing what satisfied us. But it may be. Of course, we all differ about the context.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Prosperity gospel is about material things. How on earth is that relevant to the prospect of finding a deep, satisfying relationship with a person you love who is of the same gender?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:I suppose the question is what Jesus meant by those statements! The prosperity gospel would certainly say that we were all meant to enjoy the 'good things' of life. But Jesus himself was critical of the rich.....
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So why did Jesus say that he came so that we might have life in all its abundance?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[b]Christianity isn't a religion where we can expect a fair shot at achieving a wonderful life.
And why did Irenaeus say that the glory of God was a (hu)man fully alive?
quote:Well, in that case, the problem isn't with Christians but with the media; the media is only interested in Christian voices that match the narrative that it has designated as normative. Or maybe it's just that controversial views about sex are just more exciting, and it's easier to get people to listen, to tune in, to buy the newspaper, etc.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I think what truly turns people, especially the young, off to the church is not merely the idea that homosexual acts are sinful, but that it has become THE issue for many Christians.
Many people who take a traditional view of the morality of same-sex-sex do not give any special prominence in the pantheon of sins, but they get ignored by the media. Instead, the public face of Christian anti-homosexuality is of breathless, intolerant bigotry.
quote:Actually, I live in a big British city, one with its very own gay quarter. I suspect that you're living in the USA. As I often have to say on these boards, I can't really speak from personal experience of that culture. It's very different from here.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm so glad that you live in a safe, sensible corner of England where the Big Issues don't appear to have traction. Wonderful.
But, just in my village (pop. 1400) there's a Pentecostalist shack with some pretty nasty opinions about women, let alone gays; two Baptist churches, one that brings in Creationist "scientists", the other more liberal (in their terms) but still can't actually allow the word "gay" to be uttered, a UCC gang that are very NICE but bland, and my Anglican shack that is beginning to get the idea (except for American ex-helicopter-Vietnam-era guy)
And the kids in the high school had a student-council president who was out by his own choice.
Of the 25% of students who actually have gone to church, which ones would get the impression it was worth trying to change churches?
And the ones who don't attend church only know that the churches (all but one) don't want Kevin. Why would they come in?
quote:It is a problem of the media, yes, but also of the lobby groups who feed them.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:Well, in that case, the problem isn't with Christians but with the media; the media is only interested in Christian voices that match the narrative that it has designated as normative. Or maybe it's just that controversial views about sex are just more exciting, and it's easier to get people to listen, to tune in, to buy the newspaper, etc.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I think what truly turns people, especially the young, off to the church is not merely the idea that homosexual acts are sinful, but that it has become THE issue for many Christians.
Many people who take a traditional view of the morality of same-sex-sex do not give any special prominence in the pantheon of sins, but they get ignored by the media. Instead, the public face of Christian anti-homosexuality is of breathless, intolerant bigotry.
In my little corner of England, as a regular churchgoer, I've never heard a sermon about homosexuality. Not one. Perhaps it was hinted at the other day when I attended an Anglican church (only my second visit) and heard a woman minister refer to inequality towards women 'and others' in the church. And it recently came up in a Lent meeting, where my table held fairly conventional, but not aggressive, views on the subject. But only when I surf the internet am I exposed to heated discussions and sermons that mention these things.
Perhaps I find this an interesting topic precisely because it's not a huge issue in church life as I know it.
quote:I'm not sure what you might mean by 'the rest of the English church'. The CofE? Or maybe you mean that I don't know about church life in other parts of England? Well, I'm not an Anglican, so my comments aren't specifically about Anglicanism. As for Christianity elsewhere in England, no I can't claim to have been a regular fixture at a church in a small village! (I did spend a year in a place that claimed to be the country's largest village, though! My connections there were with the Methodist church and the URC. I've lived in a few different places for my work and studies.)
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@SvitlanaV2 - if you're living in an English city you'll have a very skewed view on what the rest of the English church looks like.
quote:I don't know what GAFCON is, but in any case, why should any other denomination make a song and dance about your church's theology about homosexality or anything else? What has it got to do with them? I don't understand that at all. If you don't agree with another denomination's doctrines, you simply don't attend any of their churches. If you feel their errors are pretty serious, then you can decline to have any ecumenical relationships with them. But I don't see why picketing one of their churches is at all necessary. What do they hope to achieve by doing this?
Where I am, although this church is affirming, it can't publicise that fact because it's pretty much surrounded by churches that are ... um ... not, and having a local GAFCON contingent picketing the church doesn't appeal so much.
quote:Sorry - I clicked on your name, and 'Canada' didn't come up for me under 'location'. Maybe I should've been looking somewhere else.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm sorry my "location" marker is too cute for you, Sv2. I actually live in Canada, which means:
quote:I don't disagree with you. But if the churches don't judge that fitting in with the values of the wider society will help them in their mission, then they're not going to change. And young people, who don't really look to the church anymore, probably wouldn't be paying much attending if they did change. After all, they don't pay much attention to those churches that have changed either, because 'niceness' doesn't really impose itself very well, as we seem to agree.
In the context of the thread, and given the full legality of SSMs for what? about 6 years?, and the general acceptance of gays as real people, even by those who don't particularly like that idea, why would any young people be attracted to institutions that can barely speak the descriptive words involved?
quote:On the other hand if you're not living in an English city you'll have a very skewed view on what the rest of the English church looks like. Between the 8.2 million of the London urban area, the 2.3 million of Birmingham, the 2.2 million of Manchester, and the 1.5 million of Leeds you've over a quarter of the population of England in cities over a million in size. And if we go down to half a million we get Newcastle, Liverpool, Nottingham, Sheffield, and Bristol.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@SvitlanaV2 - if you're living in an English city you'll have a very skewed view on what the rest of the English church looks like. Where I am, although this church is affirming, it can't publicise that fact because it's pretty much surrounded by churches that are ... um ... not, and having a local GAFCON contingent picketing the church doesn't appeal so much.
quote:It is not the media's role to say to a church, "Your press release makes you sound like a bunch of dinosaurian sexist homophobes and will likely damage your public image. Are you sure you want us to run it?" The media don't need to make up or search for outrageous stuff about Christians because there's a steady supply of it from Christians themselves. Anyone who still thinks reporters are "reporting" is out of touch. OliviaG
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... Well, in that case, the problem isn't with Christians but with the media; the media is only interested in Christian voices that match the narrative that it has designated as normative. Or maybe it's just that controversial views about sex are just more exciting, and it's easier to get people to listen, to tune in, to buy the newspaper, etc. ...
quote:Exactly. How ironic that Svitlana's comment was made the day before the CofE unleashed a particularly spiteful and disingenuous statement parading its knee-jerk reaction to the SSM consultation for the world to see.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:It is not the media's role to say to a church, "Your press release makes you sound like a bunch of dinosaurian sexist homophobes and will likely damage your public image. Are you sure you want us to run it?" The media don't need to make up or search for outrageous stuff about Christians because there's a steady supply of it from Christians themselves. Anyone who still thinks reporters are "reporting" is out of touch. OliviaG
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... Well, in that case, the problem isn't with Christians but with the media; the media is only interested in Christian voices that match the narrative that it has designated as normative. Or maybe it's just that controversial views about sex are just more exciting, and it's easier to get people to listen, to tune in, to buy the newspaper, etc. ...
quote:No, never. And I've never heard a talk in church saying that idolatory is wrong.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Out of interest, have any of you ever heard a talk saying that cannibalism is wrong?
quote:That plus the point that, if the official mouthpieces of the Church of England say homosexuality is sinful, people will assume that's what the parish clergy believe too unless they explicitly repudiate it from the pulpit.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In the past 40 years I think I've only heard one sermon on homosexuality. But there have plenty of passing comments, not to mention loads of books, that very clearly gave me the impression that it was so wrong it was unthinkable. It has taken me years to get rid of that way of thinking.
Out of interest, have any of you ever heard a talk saying that cannibalism is wrong? And yet that is a message we have all absorbed through our upbringing. With most young people today the only part of their upbringing where they get an anti-gay message is the Church. The Church sends out a message that gays are unclean and unlovable - and wonders why thinking people of any age conclude it is not living up the standards its founder set.
quote:You may find this article interesting: Same Sex Marriage in Canada
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... Weren't there any religious groups publicly on the same-sex marriage side in Canada, or was it driven purely by a secular agenda? If the UCC were involved, didn't they gain any kudos for their involvement? ...
Is there any likely way out of this situation in Canada or have you reached the point where the response of the churches is now irrelevant?
quote:The Supreme Court also ruled that religious groups could not be required to marry anybody they didn't want to. I have no idea what "any likely way out of this situation" means, because the question is completely settled in Canada. It is a non-issue. It is an ex-controversy. It's pushing up the daisies. OliviaG
... One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations ...
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for those bravely pissing inside the tent. OliviaG
quote:You mean this guy?
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
With most young people today the only part of their upbringing where they get an anti-gay message is the Church. The Church sends out a message that gays are unclean and unlovable - and wonders why thinking people of any age conclude it is not living up the standards its founder set.
quote:From here it looks like the Church is doing a great job in the "dividing families against each other" department.
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.
quote:Ah well, I'm no prophet, I'm no saint, and it's not as if I was seeing eye to eye with the church anyway. But while I've previously managed to bumble along and wait to see if anything changed (on my side or theirs), I simply don't want to be associated with the church any more. I'd be mortified if anyone thought I had anything in common with the person/people who drafted that statement, and given the nature and source of the statement I can't exactly claim that the church isn't really like that.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hold onto the benevolent world view, Gumby. If the church seems to depart from it, put on Amos!
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Something you hear again and again in these discussions is "Why would it put young people off? I go to church every week and I've never heard a sermon on homosexuality." That's not the point though. If you actually *go* to church, you may hear sermons on all manner of topics. If you know where to look, and understand church lingo, it's not difficult to find a church that's welcoming to gay people.
If, however, you don't have any Christian background and hence don't understand codewords like "affirming" and "inclusive" then you may well come to the understanding that homophobia is what Christianity is all about. If you've never heard a sermon then for all you know it could be about homosexuality every single week. If you don't go to church already, your impression of Christianity is likely to come from high profile Christian stances on issues such as homosexuality. If the only time you hear anything at all from clergy is when they're on the news telling us that gay marriage will bring down western society, and you're sure that that's not the case, then your experience is of them being wrong 100% of the time. This is unlikely to make you want to listen to what they have to say on any other subject. Combine this with high profile young earth creationists and child abuse scandals, and the bad stuff may not be what the church is about, but it may well be all that the unchurched see.
quote:Some very recent developments persuade me that "inside pissing out" has a brighter future than I believed was the case. But thanks, OliviaG.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Also:
quote:That's worth thinking hard about. None of us want to be associated with hatred of others. But I guess that, far too often, that's what comes across.
Originally posted by Godric:
I suspect that young people take away a single message from the equal marriage consultation..."Why do Christians hate gays?"
quote:This. It's the hierarchy of the Established Church in Britain who've released a thoroughly disingenous press release that is the apparently official position. And that, according to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey represents 19.9% of the population of Great Britain.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:It is not the media's role to say to a church, "Your press release makes you sound like a bunch of dinosaurian sexist homophobes and will likely damage your public image. Are you sure you want us to run it?" The media don't need to make up or search for outrageous stuff about Christians because there's a steady supply of it from Christians themselves. Anyone who still thinks reporters are "reporting" is out of touch. OliviaG
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... Well, in that case, the problem isn't with Christians but with the media; the media is only interested in Christian voices that match the narrative that it has designated as normative. Or maybe it's just that controversial views about sex are just more exciting, and it's easier to get people to listen, to tune in, to buy the newspaper, etc. ...
quote:Flanders and Swann, The Reluctant Cannibal
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Out of interest, have any of you ever heard a talk saying that cannibalism is wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The media don't decide who leads the Churches. The Churches themselves do that. And although the media does report loons like Stephen Green, the official line of every church that represents more than one quarter of one percent of the population is homophobic. The problem is not in my experience normally with the congregations, but who those congregations choose to follow (and I don't mean Jesus Christ). That the media chooses to report the official positions of major Christian churches and from this we get the idea that Christianity is homophobic is not the fault of the media but of those Christians let represent them.
I firmly believe that if all decent Christians who are members of officially homophobic churches simply walked out of the pews, it would break almost all the churches. If all decent Christians were to launch a protest every time their Church hierarchy makes an official statement that was homophobic the official line of almost all Churches in Britain would change. But until then the media is reporting that which is. Even the overwhelming majority of non-homophobic Christians are represened by people and institutions that are officially homophobes.
quote:(from Orfeo's link).
Archbishop Jensen says it is beyond the power of parliament to change the definition of marriage
quote:To be fair, I pinched the example from Heinlein, Starnger in a Strange Land.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Flanders and Swann, The Reluctant Cannibal
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Out of interest, have any of you ever heard a talk saying that cannibalism is wrong?
(I'm not sure that quite counts?) And the rest of the post was very nice, thanks.
quote:News for Youse
Like a senile elder shitting itself at a family banquet, the Church of England has revealed its thoughts on gay marriage. In a dramatic statement released yesterday, senior clergy said that the U.K. government’s plans to introduce equal marriage laws is the worst threat to the country’s official religion since the Spanish Armada, the English Civil War, and the attack of the Triffids.
“What next?” croaked the CoE, “voting rights for women?” ...
quote:Not a surprise. They're well aware of this fact, and have used it to their advantage in the past, crying "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" whenever someone calls them bigoted. The Coalition For Marriage (a misnomer if ever there was one) made it one of the key points of their campaign.
Originally posted by Incipit:
There's a glimpse of unconscious insight reported in the Daily Telegraph (UK). Ex-archbishop Carey is reported as saying 'It is ... the supporters of traditional marriage who have been accused of bigotry and homophobia'.
quote:A point occurs to me that I'm surprised that I haven't seen made explicitly elsewhere. I'm sure it has, but I haven't seen it.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
they think "marriage" has a fixed meaning which excludes gays - "terribly sorry, we're all for equality and we'd love to help if we could, but you can't just redefine words like that".
quote:FWIW, the British Social Attitudes survey for 2010 puts Anglicans as more or less equally divided between those who think homosexual acts are always or mostly immoral, and those who think they're usually or always fine. With a fair bit of fudge in the middle too.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I firmly believe that if all decent Christians who are members of officially homophobic churches simply walked out of the pews, it would break almost all the churches. If all decent Christians were to launch a protest every time their Church hierarchy makes an official statement that was homophobic the official line of almost all Churches in Britain would change. But until then the media is reporting that which is. Even the overwhelming majority of non-homophobic Christians are represened by people and institutions that are officially homophobes.
quote:Of course. I doubt very much it's original to me, because, having thought of it, it seems so obvious an inconsistency. I just can't recall seeing it made elsewhere.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
That's a very good point, Eliab. May I use it?
quote:I think there are still sections of the church that aren't perfectly happy to marry divorcees. So it would be better to say that the church can manage perfectly happily with disagreements over remarriage of divorcees.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The church insists that it's protecting the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman for life", but is perfectly happy to marry divorcees.
quote:A fair quibble, but the point is that the church as a whole permits such a thing to happen. Meanwhile, the prospect of same-sex marriage gives them an attack of the vapours, and even civil partnerships (which they claim to support) may not be blessed in the CofE.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think there are still sections of the church that aren't perfectly happy to marry divorcees. So it would be better to say that the church can manage perfectly happily with disagreements over remarriage of divorcees.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The church insists that it's protecting the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman for life", but is perfectly happy to marry divorcees.
quote:and lying is "not a good way to earn trust".
Michael writes:
If people find out that we LGBT individuals are basically just like them, that we have similar hopes and dreams and, God forbid, that we have normal functioning families, the Christianist anti-gay jihad falls apart. … It’s easy to hate and oppose something/someone unknown. It’s far harder when the targets of hate are one’s friends, neighbors and family members.
This, I believe, is a huge part of the reason that Millennials are increasingly skeptical about the church, and particularly the evangelical Protestant parts of the church.
Note that it’s not simply that they disagree with what the older generation of evangelicals is teaching about LGBT people. It’s that they have come to see that the older generation is lying to them about LGBT people.
quote:Absolutely. Plenty of vicars already want to bless same sex unions (be they partnerships or marriages) in their churches, and in time to marry same sex couples in church. At the moment they can't. Others would never want to do that. So why not give them the choice?
The only possible C of E way for the C of E to get out of its mess over Gay Marriage, is as with marrying divorcees in Church – make it a question for each Church's Vicar / PCC's conscience. It will then be up to individual churches.
quote:Your imply that ordinary churchgoers are at odds with their church leadership on this subject. You may be right. But it's a pretty poor show if church people can't find, or aren't allowed to appoint leaders who actually share their theology. This is certainly a good reason for walking out on a church!
Originally posted by Justinian:
The media don't decide who leads the Churches. The Churches themselves do that. And although the media does report loons like Stephen Green, the official line of every church that represents more than one quarter of one percent of the population is homophobic. The problem is not in my experience normally with the congregations, but who those congregations choose to follow (and I don't mean Jesus Christ). That the media chooses to report the official positions of major Christian churches and from this we get the idea that Christianity is homophobic is not the fault of the media but of those Christians let represent them.
I firmly believe that if all decent Christians who are members of officially homophobic churches simply walked out of the pews, it would break almost all the churches. If all decent Christians were to launch a protest every time their Church hierarchy makes an official statement that was homophobic the official line of almost all Churches in Britain would change. But until then the media is reporting that which is. Even the overwhelming majority of non-homophobic Christians are represened by people and institutions that are officially homophobes.
As I say, the largest Christian denomination lead by people whose official line isn't homophobic is 0.23% of the population.
quote:That depends how you count. I can name many liberal churches within the Church of England. The CofE is mostly held together by inertia and a belief they should be together. And the older the CofE is the more homophobic. Surprisingly it's also old people who've been playing the political game long enough to be spokespeople.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Your imply that ordinary churchgoers are at odds with their church leadership on this subject. You may be right. But it's a pretty poor show if church people can't find, or aren't allowed to appoint leaders who actually share their theology. This is certainly a good reason for walking out on a church!
Your stats simply highlight that the most liberal churches (relatively speaking) in the UK are also those that appear to be the least likely to attract outsiders. People admire such churches from afar, but don't join them in significant numbers.
quote:You talk of inertia, but whose inertia is it? The archbishops seem to be doing a lot of rushing about and pontificating! I think the inertia comes from the wider society, which doesn't really listen to the CofE, but can't work up the energy to disestablish the CofE either!
The CofE is mostly held together by inertia and a belief they should be together. And the older the CofE is the more homophobic. Surprisingly it's also old people who've been playing the political game long enough to be spokespeople.
And I've been saying for a while now that as a general rule the liberal churches lack vision. There's no Liberation Theology. No Abolitionism. The equality focussed people are trying to bring the Church up to the rest of the country. They are offering literally nothing inspiring, merely hymn singing and fairtrade stalls. (I'm exaggerating slightly but not a lot). And this means there are nice things there but absolutely nothing compelling. So they are being treated as generally nice social clubs because that's what they are.
quote:This. All of this.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have to strenuously disagree with the moribund equine of blaming the decline of young adults' interest in church with traditional liturgy. It just isn't true.
And while I agree that it hurts Christianity as a whole to be perceived by under-40's as bigoted, anti-intellectual and hypocritical, and that young adults tend not to make a distinction between liberal or conservative churches in this regard (frankly I don't think many are theologically literate enough to understand the continuum of thought in Christendom)...to me I think what hurts progressive churches the most is members' inability/unwillingness/lack of opportunities to articulate their faith in a heartfelt way with persons outside their own faith community. This perceived lack of heart (which really doesn't reflect people's actual feelings/experience) leaves our churches largely dependent on offical boilerplate, which no one except church geeks really care about, to convey to outsiders who we are.
quote:Well, I suppose it depends on which young adults we're talking about, as well as cultural context, class and other issues. In my British city (where I do have ecumenical contacts) there does seem to be a correlation. (In my denomination it's hard NOT to see a correlation, to be honest.) But London, where the majority of young British churchgoers are to be found, attracts young people with such a wide range of tastes and backgrounds that there will surely be twenty and thirtysomethings in all kinds of different churches.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have to strenuously disagree with the moribund equine of blaming the decline of young adults' interest in church with traditional liturgy. It just isn't true.
quote:In my experience, the laity in historical, MOTR churches aren't really nurtured into a confidence where they feel able to discuss their faith. The clergy openly admit that congregations don't know any theology, and are even fairly ignorant about the Bible, but little is done to address this. In my denomination, there's a definite ambivalence about evangelism. True, we hear a little more about it now than we used to, but it still seems to be a 'flavour of the month' kind of interest which in practice is still delegated to specialists and isn't shared by ordinary Christians.
I think what hurts progressive churches the most is members' inability/unwillingness/lack of opportunities to articulate their faith in a heartfelt way with persons outside their own faith community. This perceived lack of heart (which really doesn't reflect people's actual feelings/experience) leaves our churches largely dependent on offical boilerplate, which no one except church geeks really care about, to convey to outsiders who we are.
quote:Indeed. I imagine the non-Christian general public finds that a bit of a barrier!
But liberal churches still tend to expect you to sign up to the God stuff!
quote:Surely they'd have to be AWARE of differences in teachings about sex or sexuality (and aware of different worship styles for that matter) before you can say this.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But most British young people generally find all kinds of churches unattractive, regardless of worship style or teachings about sex or sexuality.
quote:If young people aren't aware of the differences between churches, that's either because of a strong media bias against exploring religious diversity, as I said before, or because the churches themselves are simply deficient at sharing their message with the world! (Probably both.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Surely they'd have to be AWARE of differences in teachings about sex or sexuality (and aware of different worship styles for that matter) before you can say this.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But most British young people generally find all kinds of churches unattractive, regardless of worship style or teachings about sex or sexuality.
Justinian has previously pointed out that the leadership of 98% of Christians pretty well presents one teaching on sexuality.
quote:I think there are new leaders who have gone on to found very successful churches. Someone like Brian Mclaren has founded a very successful church in the USA and continues to influence many in the "emerging" church movement on both sides of the Atlantic.
If this is so, why aren't new leaders arising, founding new churches that boldly share the broader social consensus on sexuality? If there's a gap in the spiritual marketplace for these kinds of churches, then there should be strong people rising up to meet that challenge, starting new church movements if necessary!
quote:I'm aware that this language is problematic, and I used it a kind of shorthand. But if one's goal is to completely transform the theology of sexuality in a mainstream church, perhaps a gently-gently, self-effacing approach isn't sufficient? After all, hasn't Archbishop Rowan Williams frequently been accused of being too compliant, too indulgent towards evangelicals, unwilling to take the risky road of standing up unequivocally on behalf of gay people in the CofE? In effect, hasn't he tried to be too nice to everyone, while satisfying very few? The conversations here and elsewhere give that impression. Perhaps a strong, brave leader was required here.... And aren't there are individual priests who defy their bishops on some of these matters, with the support of their congregations? Isn't that strong leadership?
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I think talk of "a gap in the spiritual marketplace" and "strong people" implies a certain ecclesiology that not everyone would agree with! "Strong leader" in particular might be something most people want in a politician but not necessarily a priest.
quote:Your heritage is probably what makes you less aware of the power of branding. We have established 'brands' of church, just as much as there are established brands for all sorts of products. It's a heck of a lot of work to set up a new brand and give it recognition. People frequently take more notice of a change / new release in an existing, well-known brand (oh look! a new iPhone!) than they do of a tiny new start-up.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:If young people aren't aware of the differences between churches, that's either because of a strong media bias against exploring religious diversity, as I said before, or because the churches themselves are simply deficient at sharing their message with the world! (Probably both.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Surely they'd have to be AWARE of differences in teachings about sex or sexuality (and aware of different worship styles for that matter) before you can say this.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But most British young people generally find all kinds of churches unattractive, regardless of worship style or teachings about sex or sexuality.
Justinian has previously pointed out that the leadership of 98% of Christians pretty well presents one teaching on sexuality.
Whose fault is it if the Unitarians and Quakers (for example) aren't getting their message out and aren't increasing their numbers? I'd say that these denominations are suffering from an extreme version of the disconnect that most churches experience: they fail to reach out successfully to the wider society.
My heritage is in the Nonconformist and the independent church traditions, and so I can't accept these arguments about how church leaders are somehow impeding the development of a truly liberal Christian postition about sexuality. If this is so, why aren't new leaders arising, founding new churches that boldly share the broader social consensus on sexuality? If there's a gap in the spiritual marketplace for these kinds of churches, then there should be strong people rising up to meet that challenge, starting new church movements if necessary! No one priest or institution has control over what all Christians everywhere have to believe or how they must live!
I realise that most of the commentators here are associated with the big, historical, traditional denominations, and there is an assumption that only these are the churches expected to offer leadership and to spearhead change. There's a lack of focus on what small or new denominations have to offer. But the reality is that change tends to come from below, very often from breakaway movements. And these small movements often play their part in influencing what happens in the mainstream. As we all know, the Quakers have had influence out of all proportion to their numbers, and that may be the case again with regards to same-sex marriage in the UK!
So no, I don't see leadership in terms of what a few old men in the CofE/RCC/Lutheran Churches/etc. decide to do or to impose on their congregations. Perhaps it's time to stop focusing on those men and to change course somehow.
quote:Which message?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If young people aren't aware of the differences between churches, that's either because of a strong media bias against exploring religious diversity, as I said before, or because the churches themselves are simply deficient at sharing their message with the world! (Probably both.)
Whose fault is it if the Unitarians and Quakers (for example) aren't getting their message out and aren't increasing their numbers? I'd say that these denominations are suffering from an extreme version of the disconnect that most churches experience: they fail to reach out successfully to the wider society.
quote:It's not that there's a gap - it's that most Roman Catholics are used to ignoring their leaders. The MoTR CofE is unlikely to leave the CofE - they know they will bury the old bigots.
If this is so, why aren't new leaders arising, founding new churches that boldly share the broader social consensus on sexuality?
quote:The gap on the liberal side of the fence is a failure of vision. And there's a reason for that.
If there's a gap in the spiritual marketplace for these kinds of churches, then there should be strong people rising up to meet that challenge, starting new church movements if necessary!
quote:True, both have moved away from orthodox Christianity. But it may not be a coincidence that theologically liberal Christianity tends to lean towards liberal views about sexual morality and sexuality. The Quakers and the Unitarians became so liberal that they fell off the Christian scale at the far end! So the CofE may become more liberal on sexual matters as it becomes more theologically unorthodox. But obviously, not quite to the same extent as the Quakers and Unitarians, because the CofE doesn't claim to be a select group of people who are all of the same mind; it claims to be a 'broad church'. (Though perhaps the ongoing struggle over this issue will make it less broad in future.)
(British) Quakers are only nominally Christian - the origins are Christian, but not all Quakers are - and Quakers explicitely do not have a creed so they don't have to answer eitehr way as an organisation. Which is a step more Christian than the explicitely non-Trinitarian Unitarians.
quote:Actually, there's a British man who calls himself an 'evangelical Unitarian', and he asserts on his blog, Reignite, that:
Either way both groups are more interested in impacts on the world than evangelism. And the Quakers in particular are quiet and determined - evangelism is not one of their things.
quote:
Most Roman Catholics are used to ignoring their leaders. The MoTR CofE is unlikely to leave the CofE - they know they will bury the old bigots.
quote:If they are leaving their church because of "attitudes towards gay people" [SIC], there are plenty of other churches that have unabashedly, and quite loudly, proclaimed that gay sex acts are not only consistent with their understanding of Christianity but, in fact, good and holy.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If young people are leaving the church for whatever reason, I wouldn't expect them to be moving into another church...
quote:Nope, not at all, since both you and this thread title used a loser-case "c" and not the big "C".
unless you believe that "leaving the church" just means leaving the RC/Orthodox (the REAL churches) and dropping into some sort of fake church.
quote:Maybe among the upper middle class white people of the developed world. Worldwide, Christianity is a very young religion.
My take on the thread title is that young people are abandoning the idea of "church" altogether.
quote:As I was saying...
At least where I live
quote:Just out of curiosity, how do you explain this? It seems to run contrary to your rather broad-brush stereotyping of all Latinos as gay haters.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Unfair! Catholics have an advantage you say, since most new immigrants are Latino! Believe you me, this doesn't seem to stop the Pentecostals and Evangelicals sheep-stealing from Rome (at home or abroad) and those groups tend to have a view of homosexuality that is much more stringent and conservative than that of the Catholic Church.
quote:The only thing I "broad-brushed" about Latinos is that they tend to be either Catholic, Evangelical, or Pentecostal, and very few are Mainline Protestant. Do you want to dispute that?
It seems to run contrary to your rather broad-brush stereotyping of all Latinos as gay haters. [/QB]
quote:Indeed. And this new survey which pegs Latinos has being more gay friendly than the general U.S. population:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Just out of curiosity, how do you explain this? It seems to run contrary to your rather broad-brush stereotyping of all Latinos as gay haters.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Unfair! Catholics have an advantage you say, since most new immigrants are Latino! Believe you me, this doesn't seem to stop the Pentecostals and Evangelicals sheep-stealing from Rome (at home or abroad) and those groups tend to have a view of homosexuality that is much more stringent and conservative than that of the Catholic Church.
quote:Probably because, stylistically, mainline Protestants aren't all that different than what they left behind. The services are restrained. The clergy are professional. The sermons are often academic.
But how come so few new immigrants and ethnic minorities join them? Unfair!
quote:I ... question this assertion.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Maybe among the upper middle class white people of the developed world. Worldwide, Christianity is a very young religion.
quote:Uh, I meant young in terms of the demographics of its followers, not the age of the religion itself.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:I ... question this assertion.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Maybe among the upper middle class white people of the developed world. Worldwide, Christianity is a very young religion.
Worldwide there are two massive religions. Christianity and Islam. Of the two, Christianity is a few hundred years older even if you date it to Nicea.
The next biggest is Hinduism. Yes, it's older than Christianity. But the Bhavgad Gita is within 200 years of the birth of Christ - and it's unclear which way. The Upanishads mostly date to a few hundred years before the birth of Christ. But only a few hundred.
Then comes Buddhism. 5-600 years BC. Again, older than Christianity. But certainly not old enough to call Christianity "Very Young".
And after that point we leave the category of "Major World Religions" - the next two religions by size are listed as "Folk religions" and "Chinese Folk Religions". Taoism dates to only a few hundred years BC. And the folk religions category encompases a lot.
And after that it's Shinto with fewer than 70 million adherents. Followed by Sihkism with fewer than 30. Both rounding errors by the standards of the couple of billion Christians and billion and a half Muslims.
So by the standards of actual world religions, Christianity seems to be about average age. Yes, there are a few really old religions. But there are also a few really young ones (see, for instance, the Scientologists). An actually young but popular religion would be Sihkism (just under 30 million adherents) - 15th Century AD.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Which has what a few of us have argued.
Well, then, even if I take everything posted in the links above completely at face value, it seems to have little effect on which churches the youngest demographic in the country is joining. They're not joining those that strongly endorse homosexual acts as good and holy. Those would be a certain section of the Mainline.
quote:And thank goodness for that - otherwise we'd still have slavery or segregation.
As I said in the previous thread though I'm sure, if the culture moves in that direction, that Evangelical churches in the west will have no problem eventually gutting what they teach about sex and marriage. They've done it before with other things.
quote:Maybe, maybe not. The big C-churches have changed their teachings on many issues, even if they say otherwise. Or they have put them on the back burner. Most of their members, at least in the U.S. disagree with and/or ignore the hierarchy anyway.
The big-C Churches will continue to be a counter-cultural witness to Christian truth, however.
quote:If you're going to bait and switch: It isn't for Episcopalians or mainline Protestants outside of North America either. In fact the fastest growing diocese in the Episcopal Church is in Haiti which has quite happy clappy services.
BTW, the quiet and reserved worship style of North American Catholicism (or rather, IRISH Catholicism which so heavily influenced it) is not necessarily the same as Catholic worship in other countries. Just have to throw that out there when its assumed its similar to Mainline Protestant worship.
quote:Well, yeah, Anglicanism is doing pretty well in Africa a--ohhhhh wait....nevermind.
If you're going to bait and switch: It isn't for Episcopalians or mainline Protestants outside of North America either
quote:It is - and Anglicanism in Africa isn't monolithic. Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu, one of the world's great advocates for gay equality, came out of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa. But beyond that, Anglicanism is doing well in the Pacific, South America and the Caribbean. The Diocese of Melanesia had an openly gay bishop (Bp. Terry Brown) long before Gene Robinson came along.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:Well, yeah, Anglicanism is doing pretty well in Africa a--ohhhhh wait....nevermind.
If you're going to bait and switch: It isn't for Episcopalians or mainline Protestants outside of North America either
quote:Well no. Declining church attendance is occurring across all classes in North America, Europe, Australia, etc. It's also happening in South America.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Putting aside the sexual issues, saying that "young people are leaving the church" betrays a really parochial attitude. Because they're really not unless you think "the church" is confined to middle and upper class white people in wealthy countries when in reality that's fast becoming a small minority of the worldwide church.
quote:If you ever visit that would soon disabuse you of that notion. A very small part of SA developed, but most of it isn't and quite a part of the Global South.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
I would, and many others do, consider South Africa to be part of the developed/western world due to several peculiarities in its history, not the Global South.
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Well, yeah, Anglicanism is doing pretty well in Africa a--ohhhhh wait....nevermind.
quote:I'm not sure what to say about this implication that if a nation is "developed" it can't possibly be in Africa.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
I would, and many others do, consider South Africa to be part of the developed/western world due to several peculiarities in its history, not the Global South.
quote:Are you on drugs? If you think I "suggested" that that's your problem.
I'm not sure what to say about this implication that if a nation is "developed" it can't possibly be in Africa.
quote:Well, you seem to reject the suggestion that South Africa is actually in Africa. Or at least it's not part of the "Africa" you wanted to talk about in your previous post.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:Are you on drugs? If you think I "suggested" that that's your problem.
I'm not sure what to say about this implication that if a nation is "developed" it can't possibly be in Africa.
quote:NITpicking.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Whatever, I'm done with your nutpicking.
quote:In the textbooks I've read, Pentecostalism is usually considered to be a category within Evangelicalism, not a completely different movement. Some Pentecostals are ecumenical in spirit and some aren't.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Sexual teachings must be way, way down on the list when it comes to choosing a church.
As I said in the previous thread though I'm sure, if the culture moves in that direction, that Evangelical churches in the west will have no problem eventually gutting what they teach about sex and marriage. They've done it before with other things.
Pentecostals? God knows. I don't pretend to even vaguely understand what they're thinking.
quote:Not least when it comes to boasting about how counter-cultural the big-C Churches are. That would have been anathema to Catholic hierarchies between about the 4th and 20th centuries.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Maybe, maybe not. The big C-churches have changed their teachings on many issues, even if they say otherwise.
The big-C Churches will continue to be a counter-cultural witness to Christian truth, however.
quote:I'm sure Catholics in your country between about the 16th and late 19th centuries would have been pretty surprised to hear they were part of the dominant culture in Britain.
Not least when it comes to boasting about how counter-cultural the big-C Churches are. That would have been anathema to Catholic hierarchies between about the 4th and 20th centuries.
