|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is it ok to be Homosexually Agnostic?
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
So I don't know where I stand on the debate on homosexuality.
On the one hand I have a broadly evangelical view of the bible (i.e. I would lean towards it not necessarily being factually infallible but being infallible with regards to conduct and doctrine) and I am not convinced by the arguments that interpret the apparent New Testament criticism of same sex sexual expression as being only relevant to the 1st Century culture and irrelevant to 21st century culture.
Plus from what I make of the evidence twin studies do suggest that orientation isn't determined by genetics (while having a genetic component like most things).
On the other hand I think the church should be welcoming of all people (and its hard to do that if you disapprove of something that people think is good and fundamentally part of who they are). Homosexual orientation is clearly experienced as something that is given rather than chosen. And gay friends would describe how their same sex sexual relationships have been a blessing to them. Also while its easy to talk about the best way of interpreting particular verses how can I be 100% confident of how to interpret books written in a very different culture to our own; particularly when scholars say that some/all of the verses about homosexuality have some ambiguity. Being 51% (or even 90%) confident of how to interpret particular verses doesn't seem sufficient to be able to suggest to other people how they should live.
On this basis is it fine for me to be completely agnostic about homosexuality and whether same sex sex is a sin (given that I am straight)? Or is this position in itself wrong and untenable; and I should get off the fence and have a view one way or the other....? Does whether I am in a leadership position in the church make any difference to the answer here?
Interested to hear both the views of more conservative shipmates and gay relationship affirming shipmates.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I'm a liberal who thinks your interpretation's correct, but the Bible's wrong.
Given the harm homophobia does (and I include in that the demand that gay people submit to "traditional teaching"), no, I don't think neutrality's viable.
I do, however, draw a distinction between personal belief, and supporting homophobic policy.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
I approach it the same as any other activity: if I think it is a sin then I don't engage in it.
Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The 'traditional' view is based on a particular approach to Scripture which might be dominant in one tradition but which doesn't represent the whole Christian spectrum. In that respect it is like 'six day creationism'. I'm sure there are some believers, even some whole sects or denominations, in that who would be reluctant to accept anyone with a different view as a fellow-Christian. But I would have thought that most conservatives would accept that they are in a minority and not disown the majority for their different view.
The 'traditionalists' in the homosexuality debate seem unwilling to concede the same respect to their opponents. Maybe it's because they are a much larger minority (but still I think a minority, amongst ordinary Christians in the west at any rate). Matters of sexuality seem to increase the hysteria level, and there is very little acknowledgement that the pro-gay constituency have conscientious reasons for thinking differently. But the only way we will see movement out of the deadlock is a genuine willingness to accept honest disagreement.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Plus from what I make of the evidence twin studies do suggest that orientation isn't determined by genetics (while having a genetic component like most things).
Something needn't be wholly determined by genetics to be determined before birth. There are multiple factors, including hormones, which may not be equal even between identical twins.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
If your agnostic position is only applied to yourself and you are straight, it's not go to matter that much. It's not that different than leading the unexamined life.
If you're in a position of leadership that might affect how a Gay person is treated in your church it does matter. What is your behavior as a result of your agnostic position? Are you saying how that person is treated is a matter of no importance to you or that it's too hard to figure it out?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
On this basis is it fine for me to be completely agnostic about homosexuality and whether same sex sex is a sin (given that I am straight)? Or is this position in itself wrong and untenable; and I should get off the fence and have a view one way or the other....?
I basically am agnostic on the subject. What is important, in my mind, is how you treat people, regardless of what side of the fence you eventually fall on.
I supported the overturning of DOMA (defence of marriage act) here in the US because all people should have the right to marry those they love, and should have the religious liberty to define marriage within their own system of beliefs.
You have a friend (I'm sure) who sins regularly. Do you view him as a drunk, a complainer, a lazy ass, a womanizer, or a queer? Or is he your friend? A person? Just another sinner like me and you? Is your own sin so miniscule that you have time to catalog his? Does it really matter?
I propose it does not. Drawing away from sin does not necessarily equal drawing close to God. Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
If a person is living in sin, and they draw close to God, God will help them sort out their sin. He's done it for me, and you, and others. Why is your faith in Him so small that you feel the need to take on the task yourself?
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
As lilBuddha has mentioned, the current scientific consensus seems to be that sexuality, like handedness, is largely determined by hormonal exposure in the womb during the brain development of the foetus.
I agree with Carex: If you think it might be a sin, then maybe consider not engaging in it. Since you've straight, no problem. I don't feel there's any onus on you to be out campaigning in the streets for the rights of gay people around the world. (If you did, you'd have my respect, but you don't need to go that far to avoid my disapproval)
If you're in leadership, the question you have to deal with is: Is your church actively going out of it's way to harm gay people? Does it do any of the following:
* Say negative or nasty things about them during sermons?
* Actively discriminate against them by refusing to host their weddings?
* Refuse them leadership positions in the church?
* Make them feel unwelcome in the congregation?
If so, then you have a problem. I don't consider any of those acceptable. And if you're in leadership those things are your responsibility to fix. Because being nasty to other people is not a neutral or agnostic position!
[ 21. August 2014, 02:35: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
People who honestly and sincerely express views like yours do not offend me and I respect their opinions. The people that offend me are the ones who are SO SURE of my sinfulness that they go completely out of their way to point it out and explain why it's extra bad and then try to use me in defintions of bad things.
Ambiguity and uncertainty are fine. We have faith not data. Learning to be comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty in a world and culture that places value in data is the hard part.
I think a large part of the angst that more conservative evangelical Christians experience is that they see 'homosexuality' as a THING a defined group and set of specific behaviours - they don't see the individuals and differing journeys, lives and circumstances. For them Homosexuality very often includes promiscuity and irreligiousness which is obviously a big no no for any committed Christian and goes a long way to explaining their objection to it.
As others have said, if you treat a gay person as a person first and gay second and if you bring your concerns and questions to God in prayer I don't think you can go too far wrong.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
From what's been written, I think when we're using the word "agnostic" here, it's synonymous with "morally uncommitted".
If I'm right in that, then I think the answer to the question rests on whether you think the question is sufficiently morally insignificant that you can in good conscience remain uncommitted. To answer this, you could compare the issue with others on which you're morally committed or uncommitted.
I wouldn't want to prescribe a way for you to do this, or to suggest other issues with which to compare. Some people, for example, might compare prejudice against gay people with racism: are you morally uncommitted on racism? But on the other hand, the Bible (which you take as authoritative) doesn't say you should be racist. You might look at the many places in which the Bible seems to condone slavery: is that an issue on which you're morally committed, and if you are, then how do you interpret the Bible to fit your moral position? Again, are you morally committed on the issue of equality for women? If you are, then how do you interpret the Bible to fit your moral position?
Any or all of the above have arguments and counter-arguments, and for many people the road to a position of moral commitment is not an easy one. But anyway, the arguments only apply if you think the issue is of moral importance. Alternatively, you might think that how the Church treats gay people is of no more moral importance than whether or not you take milk in your tea. In that case, it's okay to be "agnostic".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But on the other hand, the Bible (which you take as authoritative) doesn't say you should be racist.
Not true! According to the Bible, you're definitely supposed to be racist against Amalekites, Moabites, and Ammonites.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
If you are agnostic on this, then of course it's OK to be agnostic on this; that's just being honest about what you believe, don't believe, and aren't sure about.
Don't let anyone force you to claim a belief you are not truly convinced of.
I would also argue that the question of what is right morally, or even right morally for Christians, is not the same as that which should be legal between consenting adults.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd rather someone was agnostic than 'certain'. It is those with certainties who bully, harass and assign LGBTs to hell. [...]
And fence-sitters enable them.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I should think it's better to be honest about where you are now in your thinking, but also be realistic that that may change in the future. Recently, I read this very honest blog post, which shows someone who has been on a journey where their ideas have changed on this, and other, matters.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
It's a good blog, and I go back to my distinction between personal, and political. Your personal journey, fine! take as long as you like. It's your prerogative to believe what you like.
But all the while, harmful agendas are being pursued. None of us have the luxury to meditate in a vacuum. Instead, why not employ the precautionary principle, and oppose hatemongers?
The Anglican Communion failed this test abysmally in '98 and again in '03, when Lambeth and the homophobic hysteria over Jeffrey John's consecration erupted. It stuck its head in the sand and refused to accept that appeasement had become surrender.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I take a fairly restrained perspective on matters of sexual morality, and I haven't been convinced that full religious acceptance and affirmation of intimate SS relationships is part of that (although perhaps I could be).
Still, I come from a MOTR tradition where differences in theological perspective (and, frankly, in sexual behaviour) are generally accepted so long as confrontation and disruption are avoided, and that's influenced my attitudes a lot. It's probably the British way, too: CofE bishops made a fuss, and evangelicals squabble among themselves, but SSM inspired no big churchy demos here as it did in 'secular' France!
Regarding SSM in churches, though, there are several problems. Marriage for most Westerners is now primarily a celebration of romantic love, and a means to legal protection. It's largely optional, but access to it represents equality. I can understand why many gay people would want it, and it makes sense for it to be available to them in a secular society.
However, religions aren't necessarily about those things. All forms of organised religion are hierarchical, and there's only limited democracy. Sexual conservatism has been a strategic success for so long within religion that any formal change now seems like a capitulation to secularisation. Romantic love, so prized in our society, is treated with ambivalence at best by most major religions. As a result of all this, I don't think it makes sense to expect SSM to be acceptable in all churches.
IMO, though, the MOTR way, largely ignored in the great obsession with evangelicalism, can perhaps teach us something: how to respect and have pastoral feeling for all groups of people; and also to treat the clergy (and the celebrity 'religious leaders' that some Christians like so much) with dignity but also with a critical eye, rather than putting them on a pedestal. I think both sides of the argument are missing something in their eagerness to 'win', although the most conservative are the ones with the greatest challenges ahead.
[ 21. August 2014, 22:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[...] Still, I come from a MOTR tradition where differences in theological perspective (and, frankly, in sexual behaviour) are generally accepted so long as confrontation and disruption are avoided, and that's influenced my attitudes a lot. [...]
Yup, and religious gay-bashers exploit the moderate aversion to confrontation to win the day. Zealots desire confrontation with primal lust. They riot until they get their way, then use its threat to stay in power.
Failure to confront injustice makes us its accomplice.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I didn't say that the MOTR way was to avert eyes to injustice. The MOTR way, ideally, is to respect different perspectives, which means not just the perspectives of those who take a traditional view, but to those who don't. Allowing homophobic bulling is the very opposite of tolerating difference; it's behaviour that creates conflict and disruption!
I've been wondering if the concern some people have regarding SSM results from a confusion about the theological status of marriage. This article called Marriage Is Not A Sacrament For Christians suggests that the sacramental idea of SSM makes it harder for some Christians to accept SSM. I think that this sort of argument is potentially more useful and instructive than always focusing on 'love and equality'. Of course, such a de-sacramentalisation would only be conceivable in Protestant contexts. The RCC as an institution is so strict on so many matters that it's probably not the best starting point for anyone who places love and equality above all else (but the appeal of RC spirituality on a personal level is another matter, certainly).
To me, there's too much of a fetishisation of marriage - and particularly of weddings - in the culture. Churches have bought into this, inevitably, but it's very difficult for them to put weddings and marriage on such a pedestal and then refuse to conduct wedding ceremonies for gay couples. If SSM makes some churches rethink their whole attitude towards marriage and weddings that'll be an extra and very influential benefit.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Thanks for the responses - lots that I agree with and lots to ponder as well.
Byron - I think it is clearly possible to oppose bullying and hateful behaviour towards a group of people without agreeing with their beliefs. I think for instance that Islam contains beliefs that are just wrong and which I would actively disagree with (both about God and also about how people should live) but I would still oppose hateful and bullying behaviour towards Muslims. In the same way if I am not sure whether having gay sex is a sin that doesn't mean I would immediately think it is ok to bully gay people (nor would it if I was certain it was a sin!); and doesn't mean I would acquiesce if I saw this happening. I don't see any reason why it should. I also don't think that just because someone is gay affirming they would automatically confront bullying behaviour if they saw it either - some people just avoid confrontation.
Adeodatus - my understanding of where you are coming from is that being agnostic on important issues is only acceptable for a period of time while you look into the question; then if something is important enough you really have to make up your mind (presumably going with a "balance of probabilities" on the basis that this must always be possible to decide rather than a "beyond reasonable doubt" which sometimes must genuinely be impossible). I guess my question would be would that advice still apply if I came to a view that disagreed with yours on "the balance of probabilities".
Irish-Lord99 - I've heard this view from a number of evangelical friends of just encouraging people to engage with God, leave what is right or wrong to their own conscience and let the Holy Spirit (who unlike me actually knows for sure) actually convict. I think there is a lot of truth in this - if you saw me my most obviously presenting sins that you would think I should put right might not be the ones that God wants to change first and some might not actually be sins at all. Having said that there is a place for saying something. I have found correcting feedback on my parenting style; which many people would have been afraid to give I am sure; from a friend helpful (although it made me cross at the time!); my brother is grateful to the pastor of his church for challenging him on the amount he was drinking; it was something he was already uncomfortable with but it gave him encouragement to make a change.
Starlight - your challenge is a really good one as to why being agnostic might not work; more so in the areas of leadership and same sex marriage than in the areas of welcome or speaking kindly. To host same sex marriages you really need to be affirming rather than just agnostic I think. I am not sure what I think on the question of leadership positions either; I know for certain I wouldn't be confident about being part of a local church where the main leader of that local church was in a non-celibate gay relationship; which may be the wrong answer and might not be the answer I eventually come to...but that's where I am at the moment.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Macrina: quote:
I think a large part of the angst that more conservative evangelical Christians experience is that they see 'homosexuality' as a THING a defined group and set of specific behaviours - they don't see the individuals and differing journeys, lives and circumstances.
Oddly enough, this interesting illustration of your point just turned up: "Homosexuality" is an entity that can be sued , although the Tea-Partyness of the gentleman who made the statement probably indicates his level of contact with the real world. (and, no, I am not ashamed of dissing the Tea Party)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
That contains so many levels of stupid it is hard to know where to start. It must be a conscious tactic. How could someone of such a minimal level of cognition be allowed out with no supervision?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Just wanted to add my thoughts from my own experience. Being "agnostic" in this matter is perfectly OK. I was "agnostic" for many years. I started from an pretty basic evangelical position of homosexuality is BAD but then found that I had plenty of questions. It was only after I had worked through those questions to my own satisfaction that I could move on from being "agnostic" to being convinced that my previous position was wrong. For me, that process was quite slow but thankfully no-one tried to rush me or force me to take up a position.
Sometimes it really is OK to keep your head down, your mouth shut and give yourself space to be uncertain and non-committal about things.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
In the same way if I am not sure whether having gay sex is a sin that doesn't mean I would immediately think it is ok to bully gay people (nor would it if I was certain it was a sin!); and doesn't mean I would acquiesce if I saw this happening. I don't see any reason why it should.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) Appreciated.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
[...] Byron - I think it is clearly possible to oppose bullying and hateful behaviour towards a group of people without agreeing with their beliefs. I think for instance that Islam contains beliefs that are just wrong and which I would actively disagree with (both about God and also about how people should live) but I would still oppose hateful and bullying behaviour towards Muslims. In the same way if I am not sure whether having gay sex is a sin that doesn't mean I would immediately think it is ok to bully gay people (nor would it if I was certain it was a sin!); and doesn't mean I would acquiesce if I saw this happening. I don't see any reason why it should. I also don't think that just because someone is gay affirming they would automatically confront bullying behaviour if they saw it either - some people just avoid confrontation. [...]
Depends how bullying's defined.
The Anglican Communion thinks it's fine to discriminate against gay people -- in marriage, jobs, and permissible sexual conduct -- solong as no one uses hateful language. (And its definition of hatemongering is narrow enough to give a pass to Nigerian and Ugandan bishops who call for homosexuality to be criminalised.)
The difference with, say, Muslims is that Islam's external. Internal tolerance is a lot more constrained.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Where's the line between saying one believes, or that one's religion teaches, that action X is morally wrong, or notion Y is false, and something legally actionable?
I damn well do not want religions or people to not be able to hold the beliefs they genuinely hold, even if they are wrong about them.
If I founded a religion in which eating meat was a sin, I'd be rightly angry at the government trying to tell me that we couldn't teach that.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Where's the line between saying one believes, or that one's religion teaches, that action X is morally wrong, or notion Y is false, and something legally actionable?
I damn well do not want religions or people to not be able to hold the beliefs they genuinely hold, even if they are wrong about them.
If I founded a religion in which eating meat was a sin, I'd be rightly angry at the government trying to tell me that we couldn't teach that.
I'm all for freedom of religion & separation of church and state, so believe churches should have (tightly drawn) exemptions to employment discrimination laws.
Law & justice are, of course, not one and the same.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Chast: quote:
I damn well do not want religions or people to not be able to hold the beliefs they genuinely hold, even if they are wrong about them.
But, at the same time, those specific religions do not have the right to have their opinion made part of law, so that everyone not in that religion must act as if they believed that "wrong" thing.
This is where much of the friction with religion comes in: why do the opinions of club members trump the rights to an opinion of non-members?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Adeodatus - my understanding of where you are coming from is that being agnostic on important issues is only acceptable for a period of time while you look into the question; then if something is important enough you really have to make up your mind (presumably going with a "balance of probabilities" on the basis that this must always be possible to decide rather than a "beyond reasonable doubt" which sometimes must genuinely be impossible). I guess my question would be would that advice still apply if I came to a view that disagreed with yours on "the balance of probabilities".
Yes, it would. But I'm sufficiently confident of the power of truth that I believe the eventuality wouldn't arise.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Having said that there is a place for saying something. I have found correcting feedback on my parenting style; which many people would have been afraid to give I am sure; from a friend helpful (although it made me cross at the time!); my brother is grateful to the pastor of his church for challenging him on the amount he was drinking; it was something he was already uncomfortable with but it gave him encouragement to make a change.
Well, yes, I may have over-stated my case. Especially if one is in a position of church leadership, then the need to correct a member of the parish may arise.
However, my experience has been that the closer you are to sainthood, the more others will come to you seeking to be corrected and not the other way-around.
This is certainly the way it often plays out in Orthodoxy, but then again we have a formalized system of confession presenting parishioners with the opportunity to seek out a counselor/confessor (often not the parish priest!).
Also to be considered is the need for correction. Even if you do eventually reach the conclusion that the homosexual act is sinful, is this 'sin' causing anyone any harm? Bad parenting and drunkenness may both harm third parties.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
On this basis is it fine for me to be completely agnostic about homosexuality and whether same sex sex is a sin (given that I am straight)?
If you don't know whether God approves of same-sex relationships, then you don't know. You just are agnostic about that. It's not something you have a choice about. You can't make yourself know something that you don't have the data to decide.
Should you guess? Well, you might have to, in a limited sense, if circumstances force a decision on you. If you get invited to a same-sex wedding, you have to decide if your uncertainty about the moral and spiritual status of that union is a reason to celebrate or shun the event. If you're a church leader and are faced with a confession or a request for counselling then you need to say something, even if that something starts with "I'm not sure, but...". It would be prudent to prepare for any such circumstances you are likely to face in advance, but you shouldn't pretend to know something that you don't.
You should be aware, though, that your agnosticism is itself data. Genuinely not knowing what God thinks of homosexuality implies that although you see condemnations in a text you consider authoritative, you can't see any good reason why God should disapprove. You can't see any harm in it. You don't recognise any evil in the same sex relationships you know about (at least, no more so than the opposite sex ones).
That must, surely, imply that only those people who accept the condemnations and the texts as authorities have any reason to disapprove of homosexuality, and those that don't, or who interpret them in different ways, cannot be expected to recognise these relationships as a sin. Therefore people can believe, in good faith, that same sex relationships aren't sinful. No rebellion against God, conscious wickedness, stubbornness or unrepentance need be involved - it is at most a simple mistake of fact. That's all you need, IMHO, to be both undecided and compassionate.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
Another ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) for Eliab!
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The conservative case against homosexuality, were I to defend it, would go something along the lines of God has clearly condemned homosexuality in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition. Furthermore it is a salvation issue. Those who engage in such practices will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Ergo, as a Christian I am obliged to Take A Stand Against This Sort Of Thing lest the unwary be lured into eternal condemnation.
From this point of view agnosticism is an abject moral failure. If people are going to burn in the devils oven then, simply, the whole J.C. Flannel routine will not do. If, on the other hand, it is the kind of question about which persons of goodwill may legitimately differ then what, exactly, is the need to be condemnatory towards people who have found meaningful love towards persons of the same sex. If God regards, homosexuality as being on all fours with the worship of Moloch then, clearly, one's duty is plain. If that's not the case then gay people can be left to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Green Mario, what are your thoughts on bisexuality, or do only Kinsey 6s get your concern?
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The conservative case against homosexuality, were I to defend it, would go something along the lines of God has clearly condemned homosexuality in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition.
When is Tradition a god-inspired thing and when is it a mistake repeated?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Jade - you are right I'd not really considered bisexuals. I guess my thoughts there is since they are operating from a place of choice they should choose heterosexual marriage (or celibacy) since this is normative biblically.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
I am bisexual. It's not a place of 'choice' as you present it. When I fall for a person, it is for that person, specifically--all of who they are, including their gender but far, far beyond it. I can't 'choose' to make that person's gender line up with social expectations in order that I can hetero-date that person, and to 'choose' someone else--to walk away from everything that makes up that person just so I could find someone with a different set of wobbly bits--would be pretty much insane.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
I am bisexual. It's not a place of 'choice' as you present it. When I fall for a person, it is for that person, specifically--all of who they are, including their gender but far, far beyond it. I can't 'choose' to make that person's gender line up with social expectations in order that I can hetero-date that person, and to 'choose' someone else--to walk away from everything that makes up that person just so I could find someone with a different set of wobbly bits--would be pretty much insane.
Your post highlights for me something which has been going around in my mind for quite a while. There must be at least 2 kinds of bisexuals - (i) those who are attracted to both sexes (I know that there are some intersex people, but the numbers are so minimal that I leave them out of this), and when they find the right person obtain all their satisfaction with that one; and (ii) those who cannot, and can only find full satisfaction through having relationships with both women and men. You seem to fall into the first of these but I assume that there are those in the other group. Any thoughts?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Jade - you are right I'd not really considered bisexuals. I guess my thoughts there is since they are operating from a place of choice they should choose heterosexual marriage (or celibacy) since this is normative biblically.
It is not a place of choice. Are you unaware of the Kinsey Scale, and that not all bisexual people are attracted to different genders in equal measure? How can you 'choose' marriage to someone of a different gender (which given that it contains at least one bisexual person is not 'heterosexual marriage') if you fall in love with someone of the same gender?
The idea that bisexuals choose their attraction is incredibly offensive and untrue, and kindly educate yourself before talking such nonsense.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Your post highlights for me something which has been going around in my mind for quite a while. There must be at least 2 kinds of bisexuals - (i) those who are attracted to both sexes (I know that there are some intersex people, but the numbers are so minimal that I leave them out of this), and when they find the right person obtain all their satisfaction with that one; and (ii) those who cannot, and can only find full satisfaction through having relationships with both women and men. You seem to fall into the first of these but I assume that there are those in the other group. Any thoughts?
Are heterosexuals who cannot find full satisfaction with one partner a different type of heterosexual?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
I am bisexual. It's not a place of 'choice' as you present it. When I fall for a person, it is for that person, specifically--all of who they are, including their gender but far, far beyond it. I can't 'choose' to make that person's gender line up with social expectations in order that I can hetero-date that person, and to 'choose' someone else--to walk away from everything that makes up that person just so I could find someone with a different set of wobbly bits--would be pretty much insane.
Your post highlights for me something which has been going around in my mind for quite a while. There must be at least 2 kinds of bisexuals - (i) those who are attracted to both sexes (I know that there are some intersex people, but the numbers are so minimal that I leave them out of this), and when they find the right person obtain all their satisfaction with that one; and (ii) those who cannot, and can only find full satisfaction through having relationships with both women and men. You seem to fall into the first of these but I assume that there are those in the other group. Any thoughts?
That's not really two different kinds of bisexual people, though? That's just how people in general work - some are monogamous, some are not. Not unique to bisexual people, and the idea that bisexual people are more promiscuous than others is deeply harmful.
Additionally, not all bisexual people are attracted to genders in the same proportions. And it's genders, not sexes - intersex people can and do identify as one gender, so many are male or female. You may be thinking of genderqueer or agender people, who are neither male nor female in gender. Thus, I would define my own bisexuality as being attracted to genders that are different and similar to my own (cisgender female), rather than being based on an artificial gender binary. Speaking personally, I am a Kinsey 5, or mostly attracted to the same gender and occasionally attracted to those of different genders. I would still identify as bisexual rather than a lesbian.
--------------------
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
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Jade - you ask me my opinion about something which you were already well aware I haven't fully thought through and reached definitive conclusions on. I give you my tentative opinion because you asked for it (you didn't ask me to make sure I educated myself before I answered you) which you then appear to misunderstand and then you tell me how offensive it is. I may be wrong (or I may just have caught you on a bad day) but it does suggest that you asked me the question because you wanted a chance to be offended.
If you want to change my opinion you are more likely to do this through explanation and argument; which I am keen to listen to hence the reason why I am posting here; rather than telling me how offended you are.
Dealing with the substance in terms of the misunderstanding I did not mean that bisexual people choose their orientation (although this isn't necessarily offensive after all in most situations I think having choice is considered preferable to being pre-determined although I understand why this case might be different due to history); I meant they had the choice of being in a marriage with someone from a different gender that could work (on the basis of attraction) a choice that isn't open to people with a purely homosexual orientation. I was making the simplifying assumption thought when you were talking about someone who was bisexual they could be almost equally attracted to men and women, I can see that this is probably a continuum and that the element of choice is more restricted if the balance is more like 90%/10%.
As for falling for someone and everything they are this doesn't mean that you then can't choose whether to pursue a relationship or not - both of us have already in the past probably chosen not to pursue someone we have fallen for for good reasons (they clearly don't feel the same way about us; they are in a relationship already; we are in a relationship already; they would be bad for us in some way; we would be bad for them in some way; etc. etc.)
As to your point claiming that a marriage between a man and a women if one of them is bisexual in orientation is not a heterosexual marriage seems to be a matter of semantics but a matter of very convoluted semantics. Taking your definition to its logical conclusion in the rare situation that two heterosexual men get married to each other (and men with a basic heterosexual orientation do form gay relationships in certain situations)would you consider that they would be in a heterosexual marriage rather than a homosexual marriage? I am guessing not.
You are right I don't know about Kinsey types - you are welcome to educate me.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Green Mario:
quote:
As for falling for someone and everything they are this doesn't mean that you then can't choose whether to pursue a relationship or not - both of us have already in the past probably chosen not to pursue someone we have fallen for for good reasons (they clearly don't feel the same way about us; they are in a relationship already; we are in a relationship already; they would be bad for us in some way; we would be bad for them in some way; etc. etc.)
But these examples are of harm. I've yet to hear how a homosexual relationship intrinsically causes harm in any way a heterosexual one does not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Jade - you ask me my opinion about something which you were already well aware I haven't fully thought through and reached definitive conclusions on. I give you my tentative opinion because you asked for it (you didn't ask me to make sure I educated myself before I answered you) which you then appear to misunderstand and then you tell me how offensive it is. I may be wrong (or I may just have caught you on a bad day) but it does suggest that you asked me the question because you wanted a chance to be offended.
If you want to change my opinion you are more likely to do this through explanation and argument; which I am keen to listen to hence the reason why I am posting here; rather than telling me how offended you are.
Dealing with the substance in terms of the misunderstanding I did not mean that bisexual people choose their orientation (although this isn't necessarily offensive after all in most situations I think having choice is considered preferable to being pre-determined although I understand why this case might be different due to history); I meant they had the choice of being in a marriage with someone from a different gender that could work (on the basis of attraction) a choice that isn't open to people with a purely homosexual orientation. I was making the simplifying assumption thought when you were talking about someone who was bisexual they could be almost equally attracted to men and women, I can see that this is probably a continuum and that the element of choice is more restricted if the balance is more like 90%/10%.
As for falling for someone and everything they are this doesn't mean that you then can't choose whether to pursue a relationship or not - both of us have already in the past probably chosen not to pursue someone we have fallen for for good reasons (they clearly don't feel the same way about us; they are in a relationship already; we are in a relationship already; they would be bad for us in some way; we would be bad for them in some way; etc. etc.)
As to your point claiming that a marriage between a man and a women if one of them is bisexual in orientation is not a heterosexual marriage seems to be a matter of semantics but a matter of very convoluted semantics. Taking your definition to its logical conclusion in the rare situation that two heterosexual men get married to each other (and men with a basic heterosexual orientation do form gay relationships in certain situations)would you consider that they would be in a heterosexual marriage rather than a homosexual marriage? I am guessing not.
You are right I don't know about Kinsey types - you are welcome to educate me.
Except that I have no interest in changing your mind, it's not my job to educate you. It's your job to educate yourself before talking about a subject you don't know anything about. I picked up on your ignoring bisexuality because I'm tired of it being ignored by everyone.
It is offensive to suggest that bisexual (and other non-heterosexual) people choose their orientation, period. That is not for you to decide.
Your reference to 'heterosexual men forming gay relationships' (not heterosexual women?) is just nonsense, frankly. If two men marry and have a sexual relationship, they're not heterosexual by the definition of the word. Straight people don't 'become' gay. If two heterosexual men married for non-romantic reasons and have a totally platonic relationship, I would consider it to be a heterosexual marriage - so you guessed wrong. Given the complexity and variety of gender and sexuality, referring to marriages as 'same-gender' or 'different-gender' seems to be the best option.
As for the Kinsey Scale, it's a very well-known scale of sexual orientation, and is also very easy to Google.
--------------------
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
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Fair point about Google. Having said that part of the reason why I am posting here is in order to "educate myself". I would rather discuss things and learn in that way rather than wait before I have an expert understanding in human sexuality before engaging in any discussion.
quote:
Except that I have no interest in changing your mind.
What is your purpose in posting if you don't want to influence anyone else's opinion?
quote:
It is offensive to suggest that bisexual (and other non-heterosexual) people choose their orientation, period. That is not for you to decide.
As I explained this isn't what I meant when I referred to choice. I wasn't talking about choosing orientation. To be absolutely clear I don't think people do "choose their orientation".
Having said that can you explain why it would be offensive to suggest this? Offensive just because it is factually inaccurate (suggesting a tall person chose to be tall is factually inaccurate but not offensive) or offensive for another reason?
I am not convinced you are correct that people with basically heterosexual orientation can't have "same-gender" sexual relationships. Its relatively common in certain environments (stereotypically prisons and boarding schools and ancient Greece; - but also sexually repressive societies today such as the Pathans in NW Pakistan and Afghanistan).
Why is "different-gender" better than "heterosexual" and "same gender" better than "homosexual". Aren't they just synonyms "hetero" meaning different and "homo" meaning the same?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
quote:
But these examples are of harm. I've yet to hear how a homosexual relationship intrinsically causes harm in any way a heterosexual one does not.
Physical or mental health impacts, no possibility of children; correlation with promiscuity? These are ones I have heard of or could speculate on but I am not convinced that these aren't socially constructed through prejudice rather than being intrinsic. That's part of the reason why I struggle to understand whether the New Testament prohibitions apply to modern day gay relationships.
One explanation is that what is prohibited in the New Testament is the type of homosexual relationships that existed in the ancient world (generally an in-balance of power; older powerful men getting satisfaction from slaves or boys)which seem more clearly harmful rather than relationships that paralleled 21st Century gay relationships (would such relationships have been known of to Paul?).
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Physical or mental health impacts, no possibility of children; correlation with promiscuity? These are ones I have heard of or could speculate on but I am not convinced that these aren't socially constructed through prejudice rather than being intrinsic.
The first is socially constructed through prejudice. The promiscuity has been verified by studies - but there's a huge caveat. The most promiscuous group according to the studies are gay men, and the least promiscuous group are lesbians. We don't know whether it's innate or social - but the problem of promiscuity appears to be correlated with men. As for children, we're massively overpopulated.
[ 03. September 2014, 01:43: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's not really two different kinds of bisexual people, though? That's just how people in general work - some are monogamous, some are not. Not unique to bisexual people, and the idea that bisexual people are more promiscuous than others is deeply harmful.
Additionally, not all bisexual people are attracted to genders in the same proportions. And it's genders, not sexes - intersex people can and do identify as one gender, so many are male or female. You may be thinking of genderqueer or agender people, who are neither male nor female in gender. Thus, I would define my own bisexuality as being attracted to genders that are different and similar to my own (cisgender female), rather than being based on an artificial gender binary. Speaking personally, I am a Kinsey 5, or mostly attracted to the same gender and occasionally attracted to those of different genders. I would still identify as bisexual rather than a lesbian.
I was not thinking in terms of monogamy or polygamy, but in the way in which bisexual people may be able to obtain full satisfaction. I tried to contrast those bisexuals who could quite easily be in a monogamous relationship with a person of either sex, and those for whom monogamy would be difficult as they would still need a sexual relationship with a person of a sex different to that of their partner. Rather different.
And I was not thinking of genderqueer or agender people at all. I had not heard these words before, and having read the Wikipedia articles on them (yes, I know) am no better informed on what they may mean. I suspect that they mean nothing and are just labels thought up in a pop psychology book.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Jade Constable and Green Mario
Just stick to the arguments, please. If you get offended by posted comments, then Hell is the proper place to air that. As we make clear, Hell is for the pissed off. Take that option, or drop the personal stuff.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
