|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: An interesting time in Perth, Australia on Human Sexuality
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
We in the Anglican Church in the diocese of Perth have been having an interesting time in the human sexuality arena recently.
Bit of background here.
Media release from the Archbishop today says this:
quote:
MEDIA STATEMENT
THE MOST REVEREND ROGER HERFT AM
ARCHBISHOP OF PERTH
SYNOD MOTION – HUMAN SEXUALITY
Gay, lesbian and people of other sexual orientations are welcome in parishes in this diocese. In fact, there are gay and lesbian clergy serving in the priesthood. They are licensed by me and are honoured and respected as priests who serve as others do with integrity and holiness.
Lay people who identify as gay and lesbian are welcome in our churches. Some of them bring their children for baptism and are warmly welcomed into our parishes. There are particular parishes in which special services are held for gay/lesbian/transsexual persons, their partners, parents, siblings and supporters.
I have promised to stand firm against any discrimination or phobia exhibited against persons who identify as gay and lesbian.
The church is like parliament in that it has checks and balances at various levels with clergy, laity and bishops having input into a final decision. The Synod is but one level, and as the governing body of the Diocese of Perth, it must exercise due care in the resolutions that are passed. That is why when the motion came before the Synod in 2012 I dissented from this resolution giving reasons for this. It has been raised again, but what does the resolution actually say:
“That this Synod:
1 recognises diversity within the Diocese of Perth, both in our sexual identities and in our theologies of human sexuality;
2 note the support from many within the Anglican Church for committed same-sex couples being able to register their relationships as ‘civil unions’ in Australia; and
3 acknowledges that legal recognition of committed same-sex relationships may coexist with legal recognition of marriage between a man and a woman.”
I believe the first part is theologically flawed and has serious consequences in terms of the message it proclaims.
Our primary identity and place before God is not sexual. We are sexual beings but this is not the sum total of who we are.
There is a further difficulty with the open-ended recognition of diverse theologies and sexual identities. The Royal Commission has made us more aware of how careful we must be with our actions, our words, and our legislative language.
There are priests who have used the concept of diversity to justify their abuse of another person. It is ordinarily inappropriate for a governing body to be so general in its wording in this way.
The second part of the motion notes support for civil unions for same-sex couples. An in-principle support for civil unions might be recognised as an important step for gay and lesbian people. However, the difficulty in Western Australia is that this legislation has not been passed by parliament. For synod to endorse legislation it has not seen is fraught with difficulty.
The third part of the motion claims that the legal recognition of committed same-sex relationships may co-exist with the legal recognition of marriage between a man and a woman. We have no legislation that has been passed at a federal and state level to know what the legislation looks like, but the words “legal recognition of committed same-sex relationships” may be seen to include the recognition of same-sex marriage.
This part of the motion, in the context of the motion as a whole, is likely to have unintended consequences in terms of the Fundamental Declarations of our church regarding the Sacrament of Marriage.
These matters require further consideration and I will inform the synod within the next 30 days of my decision.
What do youse think?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
The archbishop makes good sense when he says:
"I believe the first part is theologically flawed and has serious consequences in terms of the message it proclaims.
Our primary identity and place before God is not sexual. We are sexual beings but this is not the sum total of who we are."
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
The only thing it might influence is a schism.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Wow... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
LOL.
Thanks for sharing that. I dug up the link to the official release ( http://www.perth.anglican.org/news/1/?id=238 ) so I could save the archbishop's reply to my computer and reread it any time I need a good chuckle.
"The archbishop makes good sense"
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
So, um, let me get this straight... the synod passed a resolution that, to paraphrase, basically says "some people in the diocese support LBGT rights". Wow, a resolution stating an obvious fact. Well, if Anglicans can agree on nothing else these days, best stick to agreeing on obvious facts. That way it at least looks like the synod is in agreement, and has a general air of getting things done.
But to those obvious facts, the archbishop responds (my paraphrase):
"I'm not at all homophobic! Really! And I promise I have some gay friends. But...
I'm seeing an inkling of support for LBGT people in your resolution, so of course I'm going to veto it.
Reasons? Wait, you want reasons? Um, yeah, got some of those somewhere... ~searches around~. Oh, um, yeah, let's start with a made-up theological reason. They're good because they always sound theologicalish and can say whatever I want because they don't have to actually make any sense. So, it's therefore my considered theological opinion that human sexuality needs a theology. Or something. That's a reason, right? I'm pretty sure a Royal commission said something about that at some point.
Oh, and a second reason: How can people support legislation that hasn't been passed yet? Hah! You civil unions supporters can't support civil unions, because it hasn't been passed! And we all know that legislation needs to be passed before it can be supported. Hmm, wait, do I have that backwards? I dunno. I get confused sometimes. Hmm, where was I. Oh yes, you can't support legislation that hasn't been passed! So, obviously you can't support gay marriage either, because that hasn't been passed. Gosh, you'd think all those gay marriage supporters would realise that they can't support bills until after they've passed!
And what would a gay marriage bill even look like anyway? It would be so totally unprecedented in world history that I have no idea what one would even be like... the imagination boggles. It's a pity no other country in the world has ever introduced a gay marriage bill, otherwise we might know what to expect. Sorry, gay marriage supporters, tough luck.
Although I'm not actually sorry, if that makes you feel any better."
I am left in awe of his mental gymnastics.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Our primary identity and place before God is not sexual. We are sexual beings but this is not the sum total of who we are."
You know something? Most lesbian and gay people would agree with you. Its not us who keeps on bringing it up, however, its the church. I'd have loved it if the church had looked past my sex life to the person and treated me like any other person.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Looks liks the Church in Australia is becoming as preoccupied with sex as the Church of England.
Personally, I'm shocked that all these clergy should spend so much time speculating on the sex lives of others - its nothing but smut.
Someone try to get them to lift their minds above the waist for a change - please.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Our primary identity and place before God is not sexual. We are sexual beings but this is not the sum total of who we are."
You know something? Most lesbian and gay people would agree with you. Its not us who keeps on bringing it up, however, its the church. I'd have loved it if the church had looked past my sex life to the person and treated me like any other person.
Ummm... No. The church isn't bringing up same-sex marriage. But it is necessary that it provides a response.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
The church isn't bringing up same-sex marriage. But it is necessary that it provides a response.
Agreed. It's a basic Christian obligation to support those who are being oppressed, and to support love. The Church needs to stand publicly in support of same-sex marriage in order to remain true to the message of Jesus.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The Church needs to stand publicly in support of same-sex marriage in order to remain true to the message of Jesus.
What compels you to believe that?
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Looks liks the Church in Australia is becoming as preoccupied with sex as the Church of England.
Personally, I'm shocked that all these clergy should spend so much time speculating on the sex lives of others - its nothing but smut.
Someone try to get them to lift their minds above the waist for a change - please.
Above the neck would be even better.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Our primary identity and place before God is not sexual. We are sexual beings but this is not the sum total of who we are."
You know something? Most lesbian and gay people would agree with you. Its not us who keeps on bringing it up, however, its the church. I'd have loved it if the church had looked past my sex life to the person and treated me like any other person.
Ironically, once a Diocese allows clergy to conduct same sex marriages, the blessing of a civil marriage or civil union for same sex couples, and ordains clergy in same sex relationships, this focus on sex seems to dissipate.
Here in the Diocese of Long Island in New York, being gay or straight became a non-issue years ago. Gay people are integrated into their parishes, cease to be something we must always discuss and have just become Fred and Dave the Rector of St. Such-and-Such and his spouse, or Julie and Elizabeth, that young couple who sing in the choir.
My parish is supposed to be the Integrity parish for our Diocese, but we have stopped doing any Integrity-related activities because no one was really interested. They'd rather be involved with activities at their home parishes.
This isn't to say that the Diocese is apathetic to gay and lesbian concerns - it gave space and $200,000 to open a shelter for LGBT homeless youth, but we just don't have these endless debates and resolutions about gay people. We've moved on.
[ 13. October 2013, 14:31: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The Church needs to stand publicly in support of same-sex marriage in order to remain true to the message of Jesus.
What compels you to believe that?
Throughout his ministry Jesus sought out those who were shunned by the religious leaders of his society. He associated particularly with people who were being rejected by society. Those particularly included the poor, the 'unclean', prostitutes, the sick, etc. Repeatedly he challenged the social order and the idea that these people should really be outcasts, saying "the last shall be first and the first shall be last". In line with this, he appears to have treated woman as equals to men, despite his society's social roles. The gospels make clear that what drove his ministry was love. He really loved and cared about these people, and could see their suffering, much of which was unnecessary suffering inflicted by society shunning them. So Jesus created a group in which they were welcome, an alternate society for them in which they could live and help each other, which later became the Church.
The religious authorities condemned him for associating with the people they deemed unclean, and that their religion told them were 'bad'. They felt God had clearly told them that these people were sinners who needed to be condemned, excluded, and outcast. Jesus called the religious authorities all sorts of named for their stubborn foolishness. Looking more carefully at the difference, we can see in the gospels two competing notions of morality. The Pharisees looked for commands of God to follow, looked for things that God had said were 'wrong', and condemned and excluded on behalf of God anyone who was doing 'wrong'. Jesus loved people, and cared about them. He saw those who were suffering and he wanted to help them.
Today the situation repeats itself with the LBGT community. Social stigmatization, driven largely by religious authorities has been strong against them over the last century. Yet over the last decade, almost every single professional scientific organisation in the Western world has issued statements in support of LBGT rights, saying that scientific research shows no negative consequences of being gay or gay marriage, but that plenty of negative consequences result from society stigmatizing this group of people and rejecting them.
And yet the modern day Pharisees continue to insist on rejecting and oppressing these people - they campaign to have homosexuality be a criminal offence, or to have their relationships not be recognized by law, or that their relationships be officially stigmatized as something less than marriage. And their continued attempts at oppression have real consequences - the effects of social stigma against gay people are well documented, but one of the most tragic results to my mind is the massively increased rate of suicide among gay people. That group is 4 times as likely to commit suicide than straight people, due to the stress of social rejection they face. The statistics of it are difficult to obtain precisely, but approximately 1000 gay people in the US commit suicide per year who wouldn't otherwise have done so had they not faced social rejection (that could be out by up to a factor of two either way). So the modern Pharisees don't simply have hands that are red with the blood of those their rejection and hatred has killed, they're pretty much wading in it.
The Church, following Jesus, has an obligation to side with those being needlessly oppressed and rejected by society. The Church itself was created for those people in the first place.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Starlight -
I would say more - but I try very hard to stay overtly neutral on this Board...
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
You have no question from me that Jesus ministry was based on love.
He sought out the lost, the sinner, the sick, and the outcast, not to wallow in the muck with them, but to liberate them from it.
Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but he told her to 'sin no more'.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
He sought out the lost, the sinner, the sick, and the outcast, not to wallow in the muck with them, but to liberate them from it.
He certainly provided compassionate assistance to those who were suffering. He also vehemently condemned the religious establishment which was causing much of that suffering in the first place by treating those people as outcasts and sinners.
The notion of 'liberating' gay people from being gay makes little sense, as scientific research has shown repeatedly that there are no negative effects of being gay on oneself or others - other that what is caused by social criticism and prejudice! (Whereas the negative effects of poverty, sickness, adultery, etc are rather obvious, and so the notion of liberating people from those conditions and behaviours makes good sense) Likewise, therapies which attempt to change peoples sexual orientation have been consistently found to not work and often result in harmful side-effects. I recommend a read of the American Psychology Association's FAQs on homosexuality.
I think it is being disingenuous to use the word "love" or "liberation" to describe the motives of people who want to see gay people stigmatized, or imprisoned, or forbidden to marry the people they love, or forced into ineffective and harmful sexual-identity change therapy. If a person says they love someone but puts their efforts into making that person's life miserable to the point of suicide, then their actions speak a lot louder than their words. That isn't love, and it isn't liberation, and calling it such simply demeans the notion of love.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
No. Jesus condemned the religious establishment because they were hypocrites. Jesus was interested in the redemption and reconciliation of sinners and outcasts, but gave no such license to sinful behavior.
So if homosexual love should be affirmed, what about other kinds of love?
Does love = license to you? If it doesn't, where do you draw the line and why?
How do we discern which types of 'love' should be celebrated?
[ 14. October 2013, 05:26: Message edited by: Pommie Mick ]
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
You have no question from me that Jesus ministry was based on love.
He sought out the lost, the sinner, the sick, and the outcast, not to wallow in the muck with them, but to liberate them from it.
Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but he told her to 'sin no more'.
Homosexuality does not equate to adultery. It equates to hetersexuality.
Homosexual love is no more a sin than heterosexual love. It's how we love that matters - not the gender of our partner.
Why is this such a difficult concept?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
I agree that homosexuality is not an equivalent to adultery.
However, homosexual and other sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded as being sinful, as is adultery.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Homosexual and other sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded as being sinful, as is adultery.
By some. Because someone believes it doesn't make it so.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Does love = license to you? If it doesn't, where do you draw the line and why?
How do we discern which types of 'love' should be celebrated?
The usual rule is consent of everyone involved. Another rule would be whether the relationship exhibits love, joy, peace, patience, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So if homosexual love should be affirmed, what about other kinds of love?
...
How do we discern which types of 'love' should be celebrated?
Loving relationships between consenting adults. Next?
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
However, homosexual and other sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded as being sinful, as is adultery.
And this is part of the Homophobic Catch 22.
Step 1: All sex outside marriage is wrong. Therefore you having sex with the person you love is wrong because you aren't married to them.
Step 2: Of course we aren't going to make it possible for you to marry them. That would be wrong.
You know what's wrong? What's sinful? What's a destruction of charity and that bears forth evil fruit? The destruction, denial, and degradation of love caused by defining it to be sinful and locking people into a Catch 22 situation such that they can not express genuinely felt love.
(And that's without arguing about sex outside marriage).
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
I agree that homosexuality is not an equivalent to adultery.
However, homosexual and other sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded as being sinful, as is adultery.
So homosexual love within marriage is not regarded as being sinful, in your eyes?
Then what's the problem?
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
The problem is that by definition, marriage requires that it is between a man and a woman.
Calling the relationship between two men or two women 'marriage' doesn't make it so.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Starlight
Stonking posts! That means good.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
The problem is that by definition, marriage requires that it is between a man and a woman.
Calling the relationship between two men or two women 'marriage' doesn't make it so.
Your second paragraph contradicts your first. As you say, saying something is so doesn't make it so.
Marriage is a human institution. It is what we make it. In the Bible, marriage is frequently between one man and several women. Pre-empting your likely recourse to "God's definition", I would therefore ask if you believe that we should approve of polygamy. Fact is that neither I nor you are working to a "Biblical model" of marriage because there isn't one, not a single unchanging one at any rate.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
The problem is that by definition, marriage requires that it is between a man and a woman.
Calling the relationship between two men or two women 'marriage' doesn't make it so.
Your argument is totally circular.
You have decided that homosexual sex is wrong because they can't get married. Why can't they get married? - because you say not!
Catch 22.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Catch 22.
Well, Catch 22 in the clothes of the Book of Catches, Chapter 22, beginning to read at the 3rd verse.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
Not at all. Marriage isn't between a man and a woman because I say it is so. I am simply affirming that fact.
Indeed the bible does give us examples of polygamous marriages. The thing is - they all involve at least one man and one woman ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Not at all. Marriage isn't between a man and a woman because I say it is so. I am simply affirming that fact.
Indeed the bible does give us examples of polygamous marriages. The thing is - they all involve at least one man and one woman
But that is not what you wrote above - 'a' man and 'a' woman = 2.
Bible marriages can be 3 or many more people, so Bible marriage has never just been a man and a woman. To claim otherwise is wrong. To say the definition of Bible marriage is solely a man and a woman is to change it.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Not at all. Marriage isn't between a man and a woman because I say it is so. I am simply affirming that fact.
Indeed the bible does give us examples of polygamous marriages. The thing is - they all involve at least one man and one woman
and?
The way you interpret the Bible does not = 'fact'.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
'Fact' here means roughly 'wish' or 'need'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Pommie Mick: quote:
Jesus condemned the religious establishment because they were hypocrites.
So unlike the church of today... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Pommie Mick: Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but he told her to 'sin no more'.
Sometimes I have the feeling that a lot of people must be very relieved that this little sentence is in the Bible. There's this whole story about how we should not condemn people, and how Jesus doesn't condemn people either. And than there's this one little phrase 'sin no more' and you can just completely ignore the whole story before and go on condemning people and casting first stones to your heart's content. Phew!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The phrase 'by definition' is interesting, as in England and Wales right now, marriage is defined as between two adult persons.
I suppose the bigots will at this point object! Oh no, that's wrong, the English and Welsh are off their rockers, or something.
[ 14. October 2013, 17:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
I agree that homosexuality is not an equivalent to adultery.
However, homosexual and other sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded as being sinful, as is adultery.
And in places such as Canada, Spain and (soon) England and Wales, homosexual acts are now staking place inside marriage.
Your point now becomes?
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Come now, you can't just define marriage as you might like, unless of course, you define as I might like. Basic common sense.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Does love = license to you? If it doesn't, where do you draw the line and why?
How do we discern which types of 'love' should be celebrated?
Consent. Because any kind of 'love' without consent is de facto violence. If you say consent is not enough then you set yourself up to tell a married hetero couple how they can have sex as well. (Yes I know the Catholic Church does this but I think the arguments they give are spurious in the extreme).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Just to add: although the Bible talks about marriage, it never defines it. So don't try to pull "the Bible's" definition on the discussion -- there isn't one.
Societies contemporary with "the Bible" -- that is to some part of its 1,000 year period of composition and acceptance -- had a wide variety of definitions of marriage. Roman society for example defined different kinds of marriage depending on whether the participants were patrician or not -- if so, and if they wanted their children to be eligible for certain priestly offices, then the marriage was indissoluble. But if, not. Marriages where no property was involved could amount to a couple saying in front of witnesses "we're married" -- and divorce was just as easy in such a case. Small examples.
The Bible's comments undoubtedly assume a man and at least one woman, plus possibly some (female) concubines in the background -- but then the Bible also assumes things that are demonstrably false. At best some of these assumptions are choices...none are compulsory. I'm free to assume that, as in roughly parallel societies (pastoral, mid-eastern) today or until recently, despite specific prohibitions in sacred writings, men were free to make love to sheep, camels or to their close male friends without any particular censure, so long as they married one or several women as well... and just imagine where we might go with that assumption.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
Perhaps we should remove discrimination against other kinds of love, too?
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So if homosexual love should be affirmed, what about other kinds of love?
Does love = license to you? If it doesn't, where do you draw the line and why?
How do we discern which types of 'love' should be celebrated?
Perhaps we should remove discrimination against other kinds of love, too?
The assumption I think that is behind these questions is one that I think is shared my many conservative Christians, and I see it over and over again in debates on social policy, and I think is worth critiquing explicitly. It is the idea that the only legitimate source of laws and morality is the direct commandments of God. This idea lends itself to the belief that an individual or society has to either follow God's standard* or no standard at all. (* Where 'God's standard' = the particular conservative Christian's own views, which they convince themselves are also God's views. For the record, I don't at all agree with your apparent belief that the bible condemns or teaches against homosexuality at all.) The idea is that if we were to depart from God's standard our society would fall into a moral vacuum and chaos would ensure - conservatives typically envision some sort of slippery slope into apocalypse as godless society engages in more and more immorality since (allegedly) no rules or rationale any longer constrain their moral thinking. The idea is that people would simply have no way to make moral decisions and would be left scratching their heads and wondering if a given thing was moral or not. This view tends to be common among conservative Christians who simply don't know and can't think of any alternative system of morality to that which they have been taught.
Of course, a few moments historical reflection tells us their whole idea is obviously false: There have been thousands of human societies throughout history that weren't Christian and didn't follow "God's laws" and yet got on perfectly well and which weren't destroyed by an immorality apocalypse. The ancient Greeks in particular come to mind - they were essentially the founders of modern Western culture. They also happen to be renowned for their high tolerance of homosexuality. Likewise Roman law became famous before the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as it's religion - ie a society that 'ought' to have been paralysed by total moral indecision and ignorance was nonetheless able to produce the most famous legal code in world history.
"But how do such societies come up with their laws?" wonders the conservative Christian. "Lacking God's revelation how can they possibly know what is right and wrong? How can they distinguish a good law from a bad one?" The answer is that they use their brains to think about what effects a law will or won't have and whether those effects will benefit people or harm people in the society. Thus, they can assess whether any law might be helpful or harmful to their society. The morality that most of the world uses intuitively is a harm/benefit based morality: Things that harm people = "bad", and things that help people = "good". And it works on a continuum - something can have both pros and cons or harmful and helpful aspects, and thus there can be shades of grey. (Remeber that Paul mentions the gentiles can know right and wrong by their god-given conscience.)
I read Jesus and Paul as both deliberately rejecting ideas of morality based on following a list of rules that are "God's commands", and endorsing a instead a love-based morality, which seeks to measure the morality of every action in terms of wanting to help others and not harm them. Jesus' compassion for those who were suffering led him, out of love, to oppose the Pharisees who saw themselves as following God's commands. Paul was very clear that it is not the "law" but the "spirit" that is important. I think both were rejecting the typical conservative religious notion of morality (ie condemning people based on a list of things that are wrong because God has said so), and instead endorsing a type of morality that is concerned with loving people and therefore thinking through the positive and negative effects our actions have on other people.
Thus to answer your questions: I believe that to decide whether anything should or shouldn't be affirmed or supported, one needs to look at the consequences of doing so and examine whether it helps people or harms people. This is always the criteria.
Applying that criteria to homosexuality: Extensive scientific research has concluded in recent years that homosexuality and homosexual marriage has no harmful consequences for individuals or society, but that disallowing it substantially harms homosexual people, therefore the situation is totally unambiguous morally - it is a moral imperative that we support and allow homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and it would be wicked and evil to oppose it. I think a lot of conservative Christians don't actually understand that people really think this - the conservative Christians have a tendency to assume that the idea of 'morality' is theirs and theirs alone, and they therefore don't realise that other people in society actually have a strong view of right and wrong and are judging the conservative Christians as immoral. The Archbishop of Canterbury summed it up well in a recent speech I think: "We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 not only think that what we're saying [about homosexuality] is incomprehensible but also think that we're plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice. We have to be real about that." I personally suspect many in my generation (I'm 30) will never forgive the conservative Christians of the previous two generations for the harm they have inflicted on homosexuals.
Applying the same criteria to 'other kinds of love', as you requested...
Incest: The major concern with incest tends to be with genetic defects in the children - if closely related people have children the children are quite likely to suffer serious and crippling genetic defects which make them suffer all their life. In order to prevent this obvious harm, incest has typically been banned in most societies in world history. A second concern with incest is how marriages between siblings can negatively affect social relationships within families. Of course, by banning incest, we deny a very small number of individuals who would have wanted to marry their siblings the ability to do so, but the massive prevention of harm to their children is usually viewed as more important than the small harm of forcing them to find another partner of their choice.
Polygamy: Polygamy is legal in about 50 countries (Muslim ones), but not in any countries where gay marriage is legal (so the one does not cause the other). Generally the practice of polygamy is associated with limitations to the rights of woman, and perceived harm to women is typically the reason it is banned in the rest of the world. I suspect the vast majority of people who want to engage in polygamy, even in Western society, are conservative Muslims who don't have the same view we do about the rights of women in those relationships. Noteably, the level of harm done to polyamorous people by not allowing marriage to more than one of their partners is not as great as the harm done to homosexuals by not allowing marriage at all to their partner.
Bestiality: Laws against bestiality tend to be random, with it being illegal in some western Christian countries and legal in others - for the most part nobody even thinks about it. (It's quite disturbing how often conservative Christians seem to think of it when talking about homosexuality) The concern usually arises when someone makes the headlines for getting physically injured while engaging in this act which tends to lead to a subsequent ban when people spot that it's harmful.
Underage marriage: Part and parcel of letting people choose who to marry is waiting until they're old enough to make an informed and intelligent decision. Letting people have the freedom to choice who they marry is obviously beneficial for them. (Back in earlier times when people weren't allowed freedom of choice in their marriages, the arranged marriages consequently typically occurred at younger ages)
Hopefully that's given you an idea of how a morality which loves others (and hence seeks to make decisions in a way that benefit others and not harm them) plays out in practice.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Excellent post Starlight.
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Perhaps we should remove discrimination against other kinds of love, too?
This is just sloppy thinking, in my view.
If what you mean by 'other kinds of love' are the things starlight mentioned then all you need to do is think them through and see why they need to be taboo.
If you mean sex before marriage then discriminate away. People will either ignore you, laugh at you or agree with you. Either way - your discrimination doesn't particularly exclude people. If you say 'sex before marriage is wrong for everyone, full stop', then good luck with that! It's amazing what people see as 'not sex' (ask Bill Clinton).
I say, unless they are causing harm, keep out of other people's bedrooms!
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Applause for Starlight.
I'd just add that, even for those who do agree with Pommie Mick that the Bible condemns homosexual activity, it should be perfectly reasonable to argue for equal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.
If it is indeed the case that there's no evidence of harm caused by same-sex relationships / activity (and, in fact, plenty of evidence showing that unequal treatment causes harm) then surely the godly thing is to argue for equal treatment? Let individuals decide what they believe is right conduct, if there's no evidence at all of a negative effect on anyone else.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
Thanks for the homily Starlight -
but I'm not strictly a consequentialist and I don't think Jesus or St Paul were either.
Surely Christianity is about being conformed into the image of God, rather than being a therapy of self-justification and self-aggrandizement? Self-emptying, dying to self and all that?
On the contrary there are considerable risks experienced by those living homosexual lifestyles. Exposure and prevalence of STDs, high rates of domestic violence, risk of mental illness, promiscuity. It concerns me that monogamy is a relative rarity for same-sex couples – particularly males, where their own research concedes that less than 50% of those in committed relationships are monogamous. That rings alarm bells for me, although I am aware that not all heterosexual couples are monogamous, it appears that the ideal of monogamy does not even seem to be desired. Any definition of marriage that dispenses with monogamy is quite different to the one that we have traditionally aspired to.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
So Starlight, just want to check this with you - I must be 'evil' and 'wicked' because I oppose same-sex marriage?
On the polygamy/polyarmory issue, I think you might find that it isn't Muslims pushing for it in the West, but nice middle-class white people. In fact, I have several peers who are or have been in poly relationships. And guess what, they're using exactly the same arguments for the case of affirming their kind of love that same-sex marriage activists have. What do you say to them?
On the contrary - the slippery slope has been confirmed. Marriage is in an extremely poor state that many heteros don't even want get married. The institution has little value in my generation (other than for homosexuals, oddly). Half of those who do marry get divorced, and now homosexuals want a piece of the action, for what? So they can get divorced like heterosexual couples? And now we have the poly community champing at the bit and demanding that discrimination be ended against them. Slippery slope? We're more than half-way down the slide.
[ 15. October 2013, 11:07: Message edited by: Pommie Mick ]
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
On the contrary there are considerable risks experienced by those living homosexual lifestyles.
You really need to define 'homosexual lifestyle' before using the phrase. For example, if two men are married, or in a civil partnership if you prefer, and they live their life in pretty much the same way as their neighbours who are a married man and woman, are they living a 'homosexual lifestyle'? And if not, is 'homosexual' really the best word for what you're describing? Are you perhaps describing a negative stereotype rather than anything real people do?
All my friends in same-sex couples are as committed to monogamy as I or any other heterosexual couple.
It's a bit rich to complain that homosexuals don't have monogamous relationships and then when they want monogamous marriage tell them that you won't let them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Perhaps we should remove discrimination against other kinds of love, too?
What sort of love were you thinking of? Is it between people deemed able to give consent and who do so without coercion? Then yes we should. If it involves children (deemed to be unable to give meaningful consent) or animals (entirely unable to give meaningful consent) then consent is an issue.
Next comment?
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
On the contrary there are considerable risks experienced by those living homosexual lifestyles. Exposure and prevalence of STDs, high rates of domestic violence, risk of mental illness, promiscuity.
If people like you stop trying to turn it into a big thing, then a lot of those issues (like the risk of mental illness) will decrease. And you know what causes mental illness? Being told that your natural desires are unnatural. Being forced into the closet. When someone grows up with violence (and violence against the gay community is high) they learn it, whcih in turn leads to domestic violence. When there is no societally approved method of monogamy, of course promiscuity is going to be common.
Many of the problems you point out are a direct consequence of people who take views like yours. Pushing people to the margins so that things become more marginal. Now stop it.
quote:
It concerns me that monogamy is a relative rarity for same-sex couples – particularly males, where their own research concedes that less than 50% of those in committed relationships are monogamous.
It concerns me that monogamy is a relative rarity for opposite-sex couples, particularly males, where their own research suggestes that 45-55% of women and 50-60% of men engage in extramarital sex at some time during the course of their marriage.
We should therefore ban men from getting married? Or we should assume that gay marriages are very like straight ones?
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
On the contrary there are considerable risks experienced by those living homosexual lifestyles. Exposure and prevalence of STDs,
STDs are a problem for people living heterosexual lifestyles. Governments tend to run public health programs encouraging the use of condoms for that reason. I have no particular interest in supporting or defending promiscuous behaviour in general. Monogamous gay couples don't get STDs, so it's hardly relevant.
quote:
high rates of domestic violence,
This appears to be factually false. Various domestic violence support websites state that the rates are comparable between gay and straight people. The rate appears to be slightly higher for two men and slightly lower for two woman, because men are typically the perpetrators of domestic violence and so the more men in the relationship the more probability of violence. So I guess we should all be lesbians...?
quote:
risk of mental illness
Yeah, you know what causes them to have that? People like you. The psychological effects of being stigmatized and discriminated against are pretty well documented.
I'm a little confused though about what you plan to do exactly to solve this problem of risk of mental illness...? Turn them un-gay? Because, it's pretty well scientifically documented now that ex-gay therapies, in addition to not working, actually increase the risk of mental illness, and so is officially opposed by most psychological organisations in the Western world.
quote:
promiscuity.
Lesbian relationships tend to be less promiscuous on average than heterosexual relationships which are less promiscuous on average than gay men's relationships. Again it's a function of how many man there are in the relationship, not of gay vs straight.
quote:
It concerns me that monogamy is a relative rarity for same-sex couples – particularly males, where their own research concedes that less than 50% of those in committed relationships are monogamous. That rings alarm bells for me, although I am aware that not all heterosexual couples are monogamous, it appears that the ideal of monogamy does not even seem to be desired. Any definition of marriage that dispenses with monogamy is quite different to the one that we have traditionally aspired to.
Do you see the blatent hypocrisy involved in trying to prevent people from marrying while at the same time complaining that their relationships are not committed enough?
FYI, gay men actually have a significantly lower rate of divorce than heterosexual couples. And lesbian relationships are typically more monogamous than heterosexual relationships. So the picture that emerges overall is that men appear to cheat more than women, and women appear to tolerate cheating less than men. Once again the differences showing up in the statistics tell us something about between men and women but not about straight vs gay relationships.
quote:
So Starlight, just want to check this with you - I must be 'evil' and 'wicked' because I oppose same-sex marriage?
I'm sure you've got good intentions, and want to do God's will. So did Saul when he persecuted Christians. So did the al-Qaeda operatives on 9/11. Just because someone thinks they are doing the right thing or doing God's will doesn't always stop them doing things other label evil.
I regard opposition to homosexuality and opposition to LBGT rights as evil and wicked, yes. Why? Because it hurts people. It has real and tangible consequences. It ruins people's lives. It causes people stress and suffering to the point where they kill themselves. LBGT people in the Western world have a four times higher rate of attempted suicides, and when asked what motivates them they point to how society treats them because of their sexuality. You, and people like you, are effectively killing people. Hundreds per year. That is evil, yes. That is wicked, yes. And it needs to stop.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
What a bloody cheek to make comments about homosexual lifestyles, and mental illness, when, as others have pointed out, a lot of this is because of the homophobia that gays and lesbians face!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
On the contrary - the slippery slope has been confirmed. Marriage is in an extremely poor state that many heteros don't even want get married. The institution has little value in my generation (other than for homosexuals, oddly). Half of those who do marry get divorced, and now homosexuals want a piece of the action, for what? So they can get divorced like heterosexual couples?
What you are saying here is that the people who hitherto have had a monopoly on marriage - heterosexuals - have made a mess of it. Your solution? Take it out on the homos. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
