|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sexuality: what i wish Justin Welby had said.
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I've been looking at Justin Welby's press statement , posted today. At first I found it impressive. I still do find most of it impressive. But then, utterly and depressingly predictably, when he starts talking about human sexuality, he's talking about it in terms of a problem. First he tells us that we have to consider the effect of what we do on the position of the Church in e.g. N Nigeria- as if Boko Haram would suddenly pack it in if the Anglican Communion as a whole adopted the attitude to homosexuality that seems to prevail in, er, the Church of Nigeria. Then he talks about making safe places to talk about it. This is bollocks. The kind of CofE and CinW churches that I've attended for the last 20 odd years don't see themselves as safe places to talk about homosexuality because we think that being a gay Christian is about as problematic as being a tall, or ginger, or fat one: there's simply nothing to talk about.
I am sick and tired of all this pussy-footing around, and seeing anything other than heterosexuality as something to be, at best, handled ever so carefully and tolerantly with kid gloves.
Some people- I'm not one of them, if it makes any difference- are gay. Quite a lot of them are Christians, and some of them are very good Christians, if such a label makes any sense. There should be nothing more to say.
[ 09. November 2012, 20:32: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
There are over 3000 mentions of the proper treatment of the poor, the widow, the orphan, the stranger - IOW the neighbour - in the Bible. There are over 600 statements about heterosexual behaviour, and only 6 about gayness (and even those are ambivalent or obscure)
So naturally, we talk about the 6 obscure ones, because, otherwise, we would have to give effort and money away. And money is shiny and buys us neat stuff, and we don't like using our energy.
Makes one wonder why we bother having churches at all.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
Agree totally with you there Albertus - he started off grand, but when it came to sexuality he, well, slid into the mire of 'lets keep it all in perspective and low key'!
I would much rather have him come out and say that ALL people are God's loved children, without distinction or any sense of error or wrongness due to differing DNA's.
The Church is called to be the contrast to the wrongs of society - to be the prophets, the healers, the challengers. Unless one is part of the extremes of society, these issues of sexuality are long past, forgotten, buried. Surely it is time that the church acknowledged this in word and action (not just be a safe place to talk about it)!
The Christian church, not just the CofE, should be challenging those who sseek to deny the legitimate place and role and opportunity of gays, etc in both society and the church, (including leadership roles) and to be the voracious opponent of all forms of stigmatisation, wherever it is found.
That is what I would have liked the AoB-designate to have enunciated loudly and clearly! Even if it did put him offside with Nigeria.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
One would think that the reults of the US election, particularly on the gay/SSM front, might affect some peoples' thinking a bit.
If not, try "How to Win a Culture War and Lose a Generation" to see the likely outcome.
If the Church is not seen as being able to welcome ALL, then the Church will lose all credibility.
Is Nigeria more important than the church where you are?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
There are over 3000 mentions of the proper treatment of the poor, the widow, the orphan, the stranger - IOW the neighbour - in the Bible. There are over 600 statements about heterosexual behaviour, and only 6 about gayness (and even those are ambivalent or obscure)
So naturally, we talk about the 6 obscure ones, because, otherwise, we would have to give effort and money away. And money is shiny and buys us neat stuff, and we don't like using our energy.
Makes one wonder why we bother having churches at all.
Or maybe the real reason that we spend so much time talking about the "6 obscure ones" is that everyone already agrees that Christians should help the poor, so there's not much debate to be had. We certainly disagree on the best way to accomplish the goal, but there is no fundamental divide.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I share the frustration of the OP.
However, the mention of 'safe spaces' is relevant and important. My church belongs to the Inclusive Church movement and we have a trickle of people through out doors, grateful that they can come out for the first time.
Most churches in the C of E don't provide a safe space for LGBTs.
As for discussion, Lambeth 1988 committed us to a listening process. Yet this has not really happened because most LGBTs, especially amongst the clergy, are frightened of reprisals should they be part of a debating panel.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I wish he'd said not a mumblin' word about sexuality. I'm a little tired of everything being turned around to What You Do With Your Genitals And Why It's My Business.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I share the frustration of the OP.
However, the mention of 'safe spaces' is relevant and important. My church belongs to the Inclusive Church movement and we have a trickle of people through out doors, grateful that they can come out for the first time.
Most churches in the C of E don't provide a safe space for LGBTs.
As for discussion, Lambeth 1988 committed us to a listening process. Yet this has not really happened because most LGBTs, especially amongst the clergy, are frightened of reprisals should they be part of a debating panel.
Agreed. I was part of a church that wasn't a safe space for LGBTs and it was very painful. Said church is still not a safe space for LGBTs - this is unacceptable and things need to change. Part of the problem, IME, is that the churches that are the least safe spaces for LGBTs tend to be conservative evangelical ones where the culture has no space for acknowledging the sexuality of single adults - the emphasis is on marriage and families to the extent that even heterosexual single people get a raw deal. At least in trad Catholic churches, there's understanding that God doesn't intend everyone for heterosexual marriage with biological kids.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Albertus: quote:
Some people- I'm not one of them, if it makes any difference- are gay. Quite a lot of them are Christians, and some of them are very good Christians, if such a label makes any sense. There should be nothing more to say.
Deeply agree. If only this statement could become the motto of the Anglican Communion!
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Or maybe the real reason that we spend so much time talking about the "6 obscure ones" is that everyone already agrees that Christians should help the poor, so there's not much debate to be had. We certainly disagree on the best way to accomplish the goal, but there is no fundamental divide.
Would that that were true. Rather than in America charitable giving correlating negatively with religion once you take out money given to the church, or the Prosperity Gospel being rampant - for example Rick Warren (pastor of the 8th largest church in America and writer of the Porpoise Driven Life) complaining about the 47%.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
1) Sexuality is a fraught and problem ridden area. We are all fallen in this area; the strength of desire that almost all feel makes this somewhere that our spiritual nature is most clearly at war with our bodies.
2) The church and the wider community affirm wildly different standards on this issue. The church is committed to the belief that sex should only occur with the context of a permanent relationship; the wider community finds this almost incomprehensible.
3) Homophobia - in the sense of the rejection of a person simply because they are tempted in one particular way - is unacceptable within the church; if anyone experiences that within the Church of England, please write to me and I will use my powers to ensure that the local church leaders who have failed to prevent it are strongly encouraged to work to remove that blight from the congregation concerned.
4) Homosexual practice - being defined as acts primarily performed to achieve sexual arousal between two persons of the same gender [we can nitpick here - let's try and resist the temptation please] - are always sinful. It is not right for the church to bless such behaviour, any more than we should bless greed, the oppression of human rights or racism. However as Pope Gregory the Great's 'Pastoral Rule' argues: at times it is better to allow some sin to continue to purge the more serious. It is on that basis that the approach of 'Issues' will be mine: gay relationships among the clergy will not be tolerated, but it will be for the local church leadership to determine when and how to help gay people move away from sexually expressing their love.
5) Bishops who have knowingly consecrated bishops in gay relationships, or who have endorsed liturgies blessing gay relationships will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference in 2018.
6) I strongly endorse the work of the True Freedom Trust and other organisations committed to providing mutual support and encouragement to gay people seeking to live celibately. I also regret the failure of many churches to provide effective space for single people, and invite my Evangelical friends to look at the way more Catholic parts of the church make a better fist of this.
May I end by repeating my condemnation of homophobia in the church, and take this opportunity to apologies unreservedly to those who have experienced rejection by the body of Christ merely because of the temptations to which they are subject.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Homophobia - in the sense of the rejection of a person simply because they are tempted in one particular way ...
There is your problem, the idea that same sex sex is a sin/temptation.
The whole problem lies right there imo - in the idea that being attracted to someone of the same sex is somehow wrong and to be resisted.
Try imagining being told that your very nature is a temptation and an evil to be resisted.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
May I end by repeating my condemnation of homophobia in the church, and take this opportunity to apologies unreservedly to those who have experienced rejection by the body of Christ merely because of the temptations to which they are subject.
You can't do that and hold to what you said above. If you reject a person's sexuality and treat it as a temptation to be resisted, you reject them as a person too.
You may not call it homophobia, but it is total rejection of who they are just the same.
[ 12. November 2012, 08:22: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Homophobia - in the sense of the rejection of a person simply because they are tempted in one particular way ...
There is your problem, the idea that same sex sex is a sin/temptation.
The whole problem lies right there imo - in the idea that being attracted to someone of the same sex is somehow wrong and to be resisted.
Try imagining being told that your very nature is a temptation and an evil to be resisted.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
May I end by repeating my condemnation of homophobia in the church, and take this opportunity to apologies unreservedly to those who have experienced rejection by the body of Christ merely because of the temptations to which they are subject.
You can't do that and hold to what you said above. If you reject a person's sexuality and treat it as a temptation to be resisted, you reject them as a person too.
You may not call it homophobia, but it is total rejection of who they are just the same.
[Please resist the temptation to stop listening when you read the first sentence of this response; it's NOT saying what you feel it is]
Indeed, but given that we have no hesitation in saying this to paedophiles, it's clear that we have the right to do so. The ONLY debate is where the line is to be drawn, and what constitutes behaviour that is spiritually damaging to the participants. Now I have no hesitation in arguing that sexual activity by adults with children is harmful - despite that the fact that many other societies have affirmed it as normal and acceptable. And until very recently our society placed a similar condemnation on gay relationships; that is no longer the consensus of our society - but it's not legitimate to argue it's obviously wrong because it rejects who they are. Unless you are going to offer the same free pass to paedophiles...
[Yes, folks, the logic is impeccable. Don't get diverted into arguing that 'gay relationships have a record of being good for the participants'; that's setting experience against a bible based morality. This is about our affirmation - or otherwise - of what we believe about the bible as an accurate guide to what God regards as good. It's nice to be a dead fish and to go with the flow, but that doesn't make it right.]
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Don't get diverted into arguing that 'gay relationships have a record of being good for the participants'; that's setting experience against a bible based morality.
I take it, from the context, that you're not being ironic. Remarkable- quite apart from the suggestion that we can read off a 'Bible-based morality' from, what is it, 6 often rather ambiguous references.
[ 12. November 2012, 08:54: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[Yes, folks, the logic is impeccable. Don't get diverted into arguing that 'gay relationships have a record of being good for the participants'; that's setting experience against a bible based morality. This is about our affirmation - or otherwise - of what we believe about the bible as an accurate guide to what God regards as good. It's nice to be a dead fish and to go with the flow, but that doesn't make it right.]
Well for a start, there is no consistent vision of marriage in the bible which matches the current fascination with 'biblical family values'. If you're forcing me to affirm the biblical image of marriage, it involves many partners, it involves having sex with slaves if infertile, it involves women being unclean, it involves women being owned by their husbands. And so on.
Second, I'm not even sure that the parameters of the argument can simply be set as whether "what we believe about the bible as an accurate guide to what God regards as good" given that every Christian group has a slightly different understanding of what marriage is and is not, which is built on tradition and reason as well as a (very unclear) biblical narrative.
So then we're just down to 'marriage is good for people. Paedophilia is not good for people. Marriage should be encouraged, paedophilia should be discouraged.'
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
2) The church and the wider community affirm wildly different standards on this issue. The church is committed to the belief that sex should only occur with the context of a permanent relationship; the wider community finds this almost incomprehensible.
How do you get from this to it has to be marriage? And it has to be a specific form of marriage? Are the churches totally Biblical in this?
quote:
4) Homosexual practice - being defined as acts primarily performed to achieve sexual arousal between two persons of the same gender [we can nitpick here - let's try and resist the temptation please] - are always sinful. It is not right for the church to bless such behaviour, any more than we should bless greed, the oppression of human rights or racism. However as Pope Gregory the Great's 'Pastoral Rule' argues: at times it is better to allow some sin to continue to purge the more serious. It is on that basis that the approach of 'Issues' will be mine: gay relationships among the clergy will not be tolerated, but it will be for the local church leadership to determine when and how to help gay people move away from sexually expressing their love.
Ender's Shadow, I don't, and I'm not the only one, believe that homosexuality is as sinful as racism and greed. As has been discussed ad nauseam the Biblical argument that says this hangs on 6 verses that do not have to be interpreted in the way they are to make this assumption. Rather in the same way that we've changed our readings of verses on slavery.
quote:
5) Bishops who have knowingly consecrated bishops in gay relationships, or who have endorsed liturgies blessing gay relationships will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference in 2018.
Where do you get this one from? Is there a reference you can give?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's nice to be a dead fish and to go with the flow, but that doesn't make it right.]
I like your dead fish analogy. The 'flow' has been against same sex relationships and marriages for so long now, it's about time the tide turned - especially in the Church, which tends to lag behind. Jesus pointed this out to the religious of his day too, you can't pretend be inclusive and exclude huge sections of society - whatever your spurious grounds.
Your paedophile analogy doesn't work on 1000 levels.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The whole problem lies right there imo - in the idea that being attracted to someone of the same sex is somehow wrong and to be resisted.
Try imagining being told that your very nature is a temptation and an evil to be resisted...
You can't do that and hold to what you said above. If you reject a person's sexuality and treat it as a temptation to be resisted, you reject them as a person too.
You may not call it homophobia, but it is total rejection of who they are just the same.
Could I pick up on this point? I realise that in a discussion on homosexuality, it takes centre stage, but I am struck by how it often becomes equated with the totality of a person's nature, as you have expressed it here. You equate a person's sexual preference with their selfhood, their whole nature, their entire being.
People are multifaceted, rich and extraordinarily complex. To reduce a person to one single aspect, one single desire, as though the sexual drive is all-important, and the be-all and end-all of a person, is worrying, and harmful.
A gay person is not just gay, and if they never have a sexual relationship, by choice or by circumstance, does that mean they are denying themselves entirely, or just one small aspect of the whole? Surely a celibate man with homosexual desires is still a man with a full and fulfilling life, a well-rounded character, and a diverse and rich nature, despite him not expressing one of his desires - for whatever reason.
Perhaps a little perspective needs to be maintained?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Indeed, but given that we have no hesitation in saying this to paedophiles, it's clear that we have the right to do so. The ONLY debate is where the line is to be drawn, and what constitutes behaviour that is spiritually damaging to the participants. Now I have no hesitation in arguing that sexual activity by adults with children is harmful - despite that the fact that many other societies have affirmed it as normal and acceptable. And until very recently our society placed a similar condemnation on gay relationships; that is no longer the consensus of our society - but it's not legitimate to argue it's obviously wrong because it rejects who they are. Unless you are going to offer the same free pass to paedophiles...
There is a difference between paedophilia and homosexuality because
- we know children do not have an adult understanding of sexuality and adults wanting to have sex with children is allowing an unequal relationship which tend to be unequal. How can you equate that inequality of power to a relationship between two consenting adults?
- sexual acts between grown men and children are often physically damaging as well as psychologically - the relative sizes being an issue here. And before you suggest anal sex is physically damaging
- not all homosexuality involves anal sex and
- a whole lot of heterosexual sexual activity includes anal sex.
which means that anal sexual activity is not a marker to be used in considering homosexualitythose people who are denigrating homosexuality have an image of hedonistic relationships that bear little similarity to the sorts of relationships many homosexual couples enjoy.if you're condemning male homosexuality, what about female? Does that attract the same condemnation? There's nothing in the Bible about that one.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
People are multifaceted, rich and extraordinarily complex. To reduce a person to one single aspect, one single desire, as though the sexual drive is all-important, and the be-all and end-all of a person, is worrying, and harmful.
I agree 100% - and that was not my intention at all. Nobody's sexuality sums them up, any more than my sexuality is all there is to me (I would have thought this goes without saying, to be fair)
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Surely a celibate man with homosexual desires is still a man with a full and fulfilling life, a well-rounded character, and a diverse and rich nature, despite him not expressing one of his desires - for whatever reason.
Absolutely, if that's what he chooses, with no pressure from others, no problem at all.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Indeed, but given that we have no hesitation in saying this to paedophiles, it's clear that we have the right to do so. The ONLY debate is where the line is to be drawn, and what constitutes behaviour that is spiritually damaging to the participants. Now I have no hesitation in arguing that sexual activity by adults with children is harmful - despite that the fact that many other societies have affirmed it as normal and acceptable. And until very recently our society placed a similar condemnation on gay relationships; that is no longer the consensus of our society - but it's not legitimate to argue it's obviously wrong because it rejects who they are. Unless you are going to offer the same free pass to paedophiles...
There is a difference between paedophilia and homosexuality because...
But as that wasn't the point of my post, it's irrelevant here; I was seeking to challenge the suggestion that it is illegitimate to challenge a gay person because it's so fundamental to their identity.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
5) Bishops who have knowingly consecrated bishops in gay relationships, or who have endorsed liturgies blessing gay relationships will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference in 2018.
Where do you get this one from? Is there a reference you can give?
The OP asked us what we wished Justin had said; that's just an element in what I'd like him to have said...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
People are multifaceted, rich and extraordinarily complex. To reduce a person to one single aspect, one single desire, as though the sexual drive is all-important, and the be-all and end-all of a person, is worrying, and harmful.
I agree 100% - and that was not my intention at all. Nobody's sexuality sums them up, any more than my sexuality is all there is to me (I would have thought this goes without saying, to be fair)
I am sure that wasn’t your intention, and I’m sure you think it does go without saying. However, I would imagine that a gay person (and indeed any person at all), struggling with their sexuality, and where it touches their faith, would find it a heavy burden to hear that any rejection of their sexuality is “total rejection of who they are”, and “if you reject a person's sexuality and treat it as a temptation to be resisted, you reject them as a person too”.
This is not just you, and I am sorry to pick you out, but your post is an example of the rhetoric and attitude that pervades our culture. The sexualisation of the self. As though if you are not fulfilled sexually, you are unfulfilled totally. This is problematic on a wider scale, but specifically to the debate on homosexuality, it is damaging to anyone who is struggling to understand their sexuality – it puts undue pressure on them to pursue and fulfil desires they may be confused about, or which may not be right for them at the time. To create such a hothouse environment that forces people to define themselves by their sexual interactions, desires and experiences, is not healthy.
I am undecided on the issue of whether homosexual practice, within a monogamous, committed relationship, is blessed by God or not, but what attracts me by certain ‘no’ voices like Vaughan Roberts and Justin Welby (and even Enders Shadow at times - when he leaves off the paedophilia similes) is that it treats homosexuality as just one small desire among the whole, that it presents homosexual people not as ‘Homosexuals’, but as ‘people’ just like anyone else, with loves, likes, temptations and thorns of sin they are struggling with just like everyone. Vaughan Roberts for one does not define himself by his sexuality – he talks about it as just one thing he struggles with, along with many others. And that, to me, is an attractive position.
This thread is one example of the single-issue ‘pro’ voice – that a new archbishop makes a long speech and the fulcrum point on whether people approve of him or not is reduced to a single issue he briefly touches on. The entire church is judged on its stance on this one issue, and every speech and decision is turned around to address it. Homosexuality is not the biggest issue addressing Christians today but for the Pro voice, it is the biggest, indeed, often in the rhetoric - the only, issue that matters, obscuring all other aspects of the Church, and its important work.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
The Bible orders the genocide of entire peoples in Joshua. Therefore the Bible is not a perfect guide of what is good, unless you think that mass-murder is good. And best of luck arguing that one.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
This thread is one example of the single-issue ‘pro’ voice – that a new archbishop makes a long speech and the fulcrum point on whether people approve of him or not is reduced to a single issue he briefly touches on. The entire church is judged on its stance on this one issue, and every speech and decision is turned around to address it. Homosexuality is not the biggest issue addressing Christians today but for the Pro voice, it is the biggest, indeed, often in the rhetoric - the only, issue that matters, obscuring all other aspects of the Church, and its important work.
I'm guessing some reasonable people said exactly the same thing about the abolition of slavery, the campaign against apartheid and so on.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But the Church has made a point of treating this "one issue" as a major sticking point for the last decade and more.
Many, probably most, people outside the church have come to realise that gayness/homosexual preference is simply what some people are blessed with*. The Church has made this one issue into a big deal, so the Church, including it's leader/spokesperson, has to find a way to deflate the issue.
Given that too many of the bishops want to do the GOP thing and kill the Church over OoW, I'm not holding my breath on the GLBT thing.
* from the T-shirt: "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Well I don't know if there are big enough ruptures here to cause a split, but I'd think it highly likely. Everyone will eventually get tired of having the same battles, surely.
Possibly Welby will be the last head of the Anglican Communion as we know it.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But as that wasn't the point of my post, it's irrelevant here; I was seeking to challenge the suggestion that it is illegitimate to challenge a gay person because it's so fundamental to their identity.
Then you'd better think up a different sexual attraction to use as an analogy if you want people to listen to your argument. Because as soon as you mention paedophila in this context people are going to stop hearing whatever else it is you were trying to say. You just made it all about you. Discussion is over. You mention raping children and the topic stops being about the point you said you wanted to make, and starts being about others perceptions of your prejudices.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Many, probably most, people outside the church have come to realise that gayness/homosexual preference is simply what some people are blessed with*....
* from the T-shirt: "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any"
And at the risk of getting rocks thrown at me again - substitute the word Paedophiles for homosexuals and see if your logic holds water.
For the record, I'm a lot more personally involved in both those issues than most of you, I suspect, so don't even think of accusing me of point scoring from a comfortable place; no - I'm not going to expand on that statement.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
nd at the risk of getting rocks thrown at me again - substitute the word Paedophiles for homosexuals and see if your logic holds water.
For the record, I'm a lot more personally involved in both those issues than most of you, I suspect, so don't even think of accusing me of point scoring from a comfortable place; no - I'm not going to expand on that statement.
It is hard for me to take seriously an argument that equates consenting homosexual adults to paedophilia, whatever your experience is or is not.
To me your argument simply smacks of the one against mixed race marriages - on the basis that we're not supposed to have sex with animals.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Many, probably most, people outside the church have come to realise that gayness/homosexual preference is simply what some people are blessed with*....
* from the T-shirt: "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any"
And at the risk of getting rocks thrown at me again - substitute the word Paedophiles for homosexuals and see if your logic holds water.
For the record, I'm a lot more personally involved in both those issues than most of you, I suspect, so don't even think of accusing me of point scoring from a comfortable place; no - I'm not going to expand on that statement.
Why do you persist in substituting the word paedophile? Why not substitute adulterer? Divorcee? Prostitute?
Still, you clearly know so much more about this than I do, so there's no point debating the issue. Not much for anyone else either.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Ender's Shadow - the whole reason I personally, and I suspect others, have a problem with paedophilia* is that the adult, usually man but not always, may well be consenting but the child cannot give informed consent, they do not have the maturity to do so. You're equating that with two adults having a consensual sexual relationship.
* I am using paedophilia to refer to sex with pre-pubescent children. If you mean hebephilia or ebophilia those are slightly different arguments, but paedophilia attracts such disgust because the child is not physically sexually mature let alone psychologically.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There is your problem, the idea that same sex sex is a sin/temptation.
**
You may not call it homophobia, but it is total rejection of who they are just the same.
Well said.
On the new AofC thread, the phrase 'the will of God' was used to mean the way to decide what is right. If 'the will of God' is so right, why doesn't God make it for all people instead of for Christians, since the only way that any Christian can decide on what is 'the will of God' is by what other people say it is. They may say it is from the bible, but that was entirely composed by people. Presumably they thought, and stil think that it is expressing 'the will of God' but what about the billions of others who do not agree, or even know it?
(If this is the wrong place to put this post, will hosts please move. thank you.)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Many, probably most, people outside the church have come to realise that gayness/homosexual preference is simply what some people are blessed with*....
* from the T-shirt: "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any"
And at the risk of getting rocks thrown at me again - substitute the word Paedophiles for homosexuals and see if your logic holds water.
For the record, I'm a lot more personally involved in both those issues than most of you, I suspect, so don't even think of accusing me of point scoring from a comfortable place; no - I'm not going to expand on that statement.
Why do you persist in substituting the word paedophile? Why not substitute adulterer? Divorcee? Prostitute?
Sorry - I'm obviously not making myself clear. My response to the quote on the tee shirt is an attempt to undermine what I'm hearing as the suggestion that 'God made people homosexual, therefore it must be all right'. IF that logic is applicable, then it surely applies to paedophiles, on the working definition that they are people ONLY sexually attracted to children, in the same way as homosexuals are only attracted to people of their own gender. That is the limit of my argument. Sound byte slogans that are deeply flawed deserve to be challenged...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Sorry - I'm obviously not making myself clear. My response to the quote on the tee shirt is an attempt to undermine what I'm hearing as the suggestion that 'God made people homosexual, therefore it must be all right'. IF that logic is applicable, then it surely applies to paedophiles, on the working definition that they are people ONLY sexually attracted to children, in the same way as homosexuals are only attracted to people of their own gender. That is the limit of my argument. Sound byte slogans that are deeply flawed deserve to be challenged...
Nope, you're not making yourself clear - because it sounds like you are equating homosexuality with paedophilia. Which is on the same level as saying eating chips is as bad as eating anthrax, because they'll both kill you.
The slogan is sound, your reasoning is not.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Many, probably most, people outside the church have come to realise that gayness/homosexual preference is simply what some people are blessed with*....
* from the T-shirt: "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any"
And at the risk of getting rocks thrown at me again - substitute the word Paedophiles for homosexuals and see if your logic holds water.
For the record, I'm a lot more personally involved in both those issues than most of you, I suspect, so don't even think of accusing me of point scoring from a comfortable place; no - I'm not going to expand on that statement.
Why do you persist in substituting the word paedophile? Why not substitute adulterer? Divorcee? Prostitute?
Sorry - I'm obviously not making myself clear. My response to the quote on the tee shirt is an attempt to undermine what I'm hearing as the suggestion that 'God made people homosexual, therefore it must be all right'. IF that logic is applicable, then it surely applies to paedophiles, on the working definition that they are people ONLY sexually attracted to children, in the same way as homosexuals are only attracted to people of their own gender. That is the limit of my argument. Sound byte slogans that are deeply flawed deserve to be challenged...
You're making yourself perfectly clear. From the statement on the shirt "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any" you draw the conclusion that "God made people homosexual, therefore it must be all right". That does not necessarily follow. As a consequence, if God made paedophiles, then we could not assume simply from His creation of paedophiles, that that too must be all right.
You have taken the argument beyond its limits.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
People are multifaceted, rich and extraordinarily complex. To reduce a person to one single aspect, one single desire, as though the sexual drive is all-important, and the be-all and end-all of a person, is worrying, and harmful.
A gay person is not just gay, and if they never have a sexual relationship, by choice or by circumstance, does that mean they are denying themselves entirely, or just one small aspect of the whole? Surely a celibate man with homosexual desires is still a man with a full and fulfilling life, a well-rounded character, and a diverse and rich nature, despite him not expressing one of his desires - for whatever reason.
Perhaps a little perspective needs to be maintained?
Why reduce homosexuality to sexual desire, as opposed to love and companionship? [I realise you were reacting to a post by Boogie that did exactly the same thing.]
ISTM that a married man's wife is a fairly important facet of his existence. Ergo, a gay man's partner is an equally big deal.
[ 12. November 2012, 13:29: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
IF that logic is applicable, then it surely applies to paedophiles, on the working definition that they are people ONLY sexually attracted to children, in the same way as homosexuals are only attracted to people of their own gender.
The logical problem is that this argument then turns back on your position. The Bible is rather silent on age of consent issues. Sex with a child is no worse or better than sex with an adult. There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that a man can't contract a marriage with a pre-pubescent girl. So if you're going to start from the premise that paedophilia is wrong, you then have to accept the premise that the Bible is not a sufficient guide to morality.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Sorry - I'm obviously not making myself clear. My response to the quote on the tee shirt is an attempt to undermine what I'm hearing as the suggestion that 'God made people homosexual, therefore it must be all right'.
You are making yourself very clear but as I said before by persisting to use this analogy you are making the argument all about yourself and your outrage. Its no way to persuade people who don't agree with you.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Why reduce homosexuality to sexual desire, as opposed to love and companionship?
Because that's the definition of homosexual, and the sticking point for many people.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Involving, related to, or characterized by a sexual propensity for one's own sex; of or involving sexual activity with a member of one's own sex, or between individuals of the same sex."
Love and companionship between people of the same sex isn't homosexual by definition - there needs to be a sexual element, either desire or activity, for it to be defined as such.
If two (or more) people of the same sex live together without any sexual desire or activity between them then the church has historically had nothing but good things to say about the relationship. Especially if there is love and companionship involved.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Love and companionship between people of the same sex isn't homosexual by definition - there needs to be a sexual element, either desire or activity, for it to be defined as such.
If that is so, then celibates are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. They are asexual.
That simply isn't true.
If a celibate has no sexual desire for anyone then that is the very definition of asexual.
Most celibates do have sexual desire though, and choose not to act on it. And if that desire is towards a member of the same sex then that desire is homosexual, according to the dictionary definition above.
I'm not sure why you feel that isn't true. Could you elaborate?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Hawk: quote:
Homosexuality is not the biggest issue addressing Christians today
I'm not sure about this. Certainly there are bigger issues facing the world, but this is one of the biggest facing the Church, if not the biggest.
What I mean is that issues such as world poverty, or global warming, are more serious for the planet as a whole since they are life and death for many people. But the Church can do little to solve those by itself (not that I'm suggesting these issues get ignored, or that all the excellent Christian work in these areas ceases).
On the other hand, treatment of homosexuals is an issue where the Church, and individual Christians, can make an enormous difference. Even in the West homosexuals may be bullied at school and insulted at work (both of which can lead to depression and suicide), whereas in some other parts of the world they can face the death penalty just for being gay (see what is happening in Uganda at the moment). If Christians spoke out with a united voice opposing such behaviour I think it would make an enormous difference to the lives of many people.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well I don't know if there are big enough ruptures here to cause a split, but I'd think it highly likely. Everyone will eventually get tired of having the same battles, surely.
Possibly Welby will be the last head of the Anglican Communion as we know it.
I assume his approach will be that of his predecessor; try to dither untill the issue goes away.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I strongly endorse the work of the True Freedom Trust and other organisations committed to providing mutual support and encouragement to gay people seeking to live celibately.
Despite the great psychological damage that these organisations do to people?
Evidence please? And a few stories of people who've dropped out from 'these organisations' isn't evidence. Incidentally, TFT isn't into expecting people changing their orientation, so if that's what you are complaining about, you've missed your target.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
