|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Living as a Christian Homosexual
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
From young fogey...
quote:
Who else waves signs announcing to the world what ‘turns them on’?
Er... straight people? Haven't you SEEN them? Out in the streets... touching each other... even kissing publicly? Why don't they just keep their sexulaity to themsleves, that's what I'd like to know.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Young Fogey - while it is normally perfectly in order to link to one's own website in furtherance of an argument, equating homosexuality with bestiality is not acceptable here. In fact, many shipmates (including many heterosexuals) would find much of that section of your site objectionable.
I have deleted the link.
This is a formal warning - take note.
Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
Why is Gay Pride important? Well, it has become more of a rally/celebration than a demonstration event in recent years so its significance is changing. It is a day out. A day of celebration. A day which people can enjoy and in which they can feel pride in being themselves publicly and openly. In some senses it is no different from a heterosexual Mardi Gras event – it’s a party as far as many of the participants are concerned – a party and a laugh. And there is nothing wrong with that any more than with any other kind of Mardi Gras event surely.
But there are still good reasons why Gay Pride holds an importance beyond this. Gay Pride is about sending out a positive message to the world in general and about educating the public to the idea that Gay is Good and that being Gay is something to be Proud of. And it is important that people hear that message – especially young gay men and lesbians who have not yet come out. It’s important they hear the message and take heart from it. Hopefully, in the process of so doing they can build their own self-confidence and achieve their own sense of self-worth in themselves.
For, ultimately, if we are not proud – what are we? If we lack a strong sense of our own self-worth – where does that leave us? If we do not believe that Gay is good – what then do we believe if we are ourselves gay?
I knew of a gay teenage boy once, his name was Bobby Griffith. He was brought up to believe that Gay was “bad” – that is what his church taught and those were the values his own mother sought to teach him. He kept a diary…
quote:
"I am evil and wicked. I am dirt," he wrote. "My voice is small and unheard, unnoticed, damned."
Early one Saturday morning in August 1983, two men driving to work noticed a young man, later identified as Bobby, on an overpass above a busy thoroughfare. As they described the next few moments, the boy walked to the railing, turned around, and did a sudden back flip into mid-air. He landed in the path of an eighteen-wheeler. He died instantly.
That is what happens when you have no Pride.
Maybe, because of Gay Pride, there are a few less young men and women that have shared poor tortured Bobby's fate over the years.
Perhaps people would do better to consider this link, rather than certain others…
http://www.pflagdc.org/education/griffith.php
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317
|
Posted
TonyK,
Of course many shipmates and I don't agree - that's what Hell and Dead Horses are about! I re-read the offending bit last night to be fair and do see your point about consenting adults and all that but really in our view, to paraphrase somebody well outside the Catholic faith, a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin, between consenting parties or not.
Now I happen to hold as an opinion - there are full-faith Catholics who disagree - that unnatural acts are worse that the wrong use of natural ones.
As for the 'oh, the displays of affection' mockery, my argument holds - who in his right mind marches in a parade waving flags and signs telling all his hetero kinks?
As I like to say, there's no such thing as the gay community. Maybe they're just people. I have friends who are homosexual (believe it or not), both practising and chaste, and none primarily define themselves by that aspect. They're better rounded as people.
Perhaps that could have been the answer for the poor boy who killed himself. You're more than an orientation.
As one online pundit recently wrote, the prob isn't orientation/temptation. An orientation never killed anybody. Anal sexual acts can.
Believe it or not I'm not particularly interested in the matter. But the matter is a non-negotiable as far as the faith is concerned.
--------------------
A conservative blog for peace
Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Inflicting your desires on a creature incapable of signifying consent or biologically understanding the experience is a lot different than any act between consenting adults.Bestiality is not an "inclination," it is abuse.Any gay person would have the right to be furious at your comments, Fogey, and to demand an apology.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
TonyK,
Of course many shipmates and I don't agree - that's what Hell and Dead Horses are about! I re-read the offending bit last night to be fair and do see your point about consenting adults and all that but really in our view, to paraphrase somebody well outside the Catholic faith, a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin, between consenting parties or not.
Now I happen to hold as an opinion - there are full-faith Catholics who disagree - that unnatural acts are worse that the wrong use of natural ones.
As for the 'oh, the displays of affection' mockery, my argument holds - who in his right mind marches in a parade waving flags and signs telling all his hetero kinks?
As I like to say, there's no such thing as the gay community. Maybe they're just people. I have friends who are homosexual (believe it or not), both practising and chaste, and none primarily define themselves by that aspect. They're better rounded as people.
Perhaps that could have been the answer for the poor boy who killed himself. You're more than an orientation.
As one online pundit recently wrote, the prob isn't orientation/temptation. An orientation never killed anybody. Anal sexual acts can.
Believe it or not I'm not particularly interested in the matter. But the matter is a non-negotiable as far as the faith is concerned.
Thanks for this, yf. You don't gossip, I take it. Or lie. Or slander. It is a big thing to accuse someone of a mortal sin, friend. For we will be judged as we judge others.
If you don't like gay pride marches, maybe you need to go and have lie down in a cold room and have a think why such things came about in the first place.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Young Fogey
quote:
As one online pundit recently wrote, the prob isn't orientation/temptation. An orientation never killed anybody. Anal sexual acts can.
So can vaginal sexual acts. As far as AIDS is concerned the orifice is immaterial. Semen on a finger cut would be just as effective. I know that your objection rests on more than this ... it's just that your specific reference here is immaterial.
As to "you are more than an orientation" this is certainly true but sexuality cannot be as easily cast aside as this (nor should it). We need to consider how your average heterosexual male or female might react to the teaching that they could NEVER develop a close intimate relationship with the opposite sex and NEVER have sexual intercourse on pain of eternal damnation. Bobby Griffith was not cut out to be a monk. Making him a monk was no one's perogative.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We need to consider how your average heterosexual male or female might react to the teaching that they could NEVER develop a close intimate relationship with the opposite sex and NEVER have sexual intercourse on pain of eternal damnation.
I'm curious about the Orthodox view of this topic. Or have you explained it elsewhere?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
As one online pundit recently wrote, the prob isn't orientation/temptation. An orientation never killed anybody. Anal sexual acts can.
But surely the story of Bobby Griffiths (above) shows precisely the opposite - that the orientation did kill him (in conjunction with the way his family etc reacted).
Another example is an old friend of mine that you can read about here ; it tells the same tale. At least in my friend's case, at the funeral the fact that he was gay was not made into an issue - in fact it wasn't even mentioned, it was just presented as a tragic suicide. I actually learnt the 'truth' years later via a TV documentary - a weird way to discover such a vital piece of news about one who had once been a dear friend.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Freddy
My personal understanding of homosexuality is a minority view in Orthodoxy (as it is in most churches). As a priest I uphold the Church's pastoral practice ... which is to teach continence to those who can receive it. At the end of the day, though, a person must follow his or her own conscience.
When I explain my personal view I always try and make clear that it is my personal view and not the formal teaching of the Orthodox Church. NEVER does the Orthodox say of any individual you are dirt and/or damned.
You will always find examples of individual Orthodox who are hateful and have hate-full attitudes ... but not this priest. This is a very, very difficult area for me.
[ 21. July 2004, 19:27: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
My personal understanding of homosexuality is a minority view in Orthodoxy (as it is in most churches).
I understand. I'm sure that must be difficult, as you seem to be quite in accord with most of the doctrines of Orthodoxy.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We need to consider how your average heterosexual male or female might react to the teaching that they could NEVER develop a close intimate relationship with the opposite sex and NEVER have sexual intercourse on pain of eternal damnation.
I have made my feelings on this issue clear somewhere - it could be earlier on this thread, but I resent the implication of this line of argument - namely that life without sex will always be incomplete. A vast number of godly saints (many of whom were obviosuly very sexual beings, and displayed no pious calling to singleness) have lived this way, and found that God was enough for them - even though it was hard.
It is merely a faulty societal assumption that you can't live without sex.
As a basis for advocating homosexual sex as a "release" for some, it is one of, if not the, weakest I have heard mooted. And very patronising to those of us who live without sex and lump it.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Leprechaun
This is not what I am saying at all! Remember I represent a tradition that rejoices in monasticism, (although not all monks are virgins of course when they take vows). It's the universality of the injunction that bothers me. Every gay person must become a de facto monk. I was simply saying that this had the same impact as saying that every straight person must become a de facto monk.
[ 21. July 2004, 19:47: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Freddy
Strictly speaking doctrines in Orthodoxy are not generalised teachings including ethics. Doctrines are what you find in formal declarations of faith ... scriptural and credal. I have a lot of other issues with Orthodoxy I assure you ... but when it comes to doctrines you will findly me absolutely unmoveable. That doesn't save me though. Only repentance will do that. Doctrines help me to repent.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It's the universality of the injunction that bothers me. Every gay person must become a de facto monk.
I don't know what you are talking about then. If celibacy is something positive and to be valued, what is wrong with saying this to people who are Christian and have a homosexual orientation? (apart from the vows of silence/sackloth stuff, which I assume you don't see as the only manifestation of celibacy) Often it boils down to "they have the right to have the sexual relationships that everyone else in the church has". Which is a peculiarly secular way of thinking.
I am not sure why we are so nervous of commending celibacy - as if we were doing people a great dis-service by doing so.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Young Fogey - despite careful reading I am unable to find the words 'consenting adult' or anything similar in my warning above.
You are at liberty to argue your case - as, of course, are all others here.
You are at liberty to define what you like as a 'mortal sin' - but you have already found some who disagree with you.
But my original warning still applies -the equating (actual or implied) of homosexuality with bestiality is unacceptable. But so long as you don't repeat the statement, there will be no problem.
Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Leprechaun
quote:
If celibacy is something positive and to be valued, what is wrong with saying this to people who are Christian and have a homosexual orientation?
Celibacy is positive and to be valued for those who have a calling to it .... which is not everyone. If I were to suggest that all Protestant ministers should be celibate you would very rapidly fall in line with my reasoning on celibacy I suspect.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317
|
Posted
quote:
Inflicting your desires on a creature incapable of signifying consent or biologically understanding the experience is a lot different than any act between consenting adults. Bestiality is not an "inclination," it is abuse.
That's what I thought TonyK was getting at.
quote:
Any gay person would have the right to be furious at your comments, Fogey, and to demand an apology.
They're not going to get one.
quote:
Thanks for this, yf. You don't gossip, I take it. Or lie. Or slander. It is a big thing to accuse someone of a mortal sin, friend. For we will be judged as we judge others.
Of course there are other serious sins but ISTM the ones involving the wrong use of sex come second to killing and maiming people at the top of the list. The 'you're judgemental; shut up' tack won't work because they're not my standards personally but rather an objective one.
As for subjective guilt, of course I can't judge that. Do I know who's going to hell? Certainly not!
quote:
If you don't like gay pride marches, maybe you need to go and have lie down in a cold room and have a think why such things came about in the first place.
People's vanity and other silliness - thinking one's kinks are of all-consuming interest to anybody else - for one.
quote:
So can vaginal sexual acts. As far as AIDS is concerned the orifice is immaterial. Semen on a finger cut would be just as effective. I know that your objection rests on more than this ... it's just that your specific reference here is immaterial.
And whose sins brought AIDS to the normal world, Father? It originally was called GRIDS - gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome - for a reason. The forces of proto-PCness put a stop to that right quick. But hey, I thought that 'censorship is, like, wrong'.
quote:
As to "you are more than an orientation" this is certainly true but sexuality cannot be as easily cast aside as this (nor should it). We need to consider how your average heterosexual male or female might react to the teaching that they could NEVER develop a close intimate relationship with the opposite sex and NEVER have sexual intercourse on pain of eternal damnation.
Well, Father, that applies to the mad, the ugly and the just plain unlucky who can't or shouldn't marry, doesn't it?
quote:
But surely the story of Bobby Griffiths (above) shows precisely the opposite - that the orientation did kill him (in conjunction with the way his family etc reacted).
Uncharity killed him. I'm not saying be uncharitable to homosexuals - absolutely clear in my banned statement - but making excuses for the practice isn't charity.
quote:
I have made my feelings on this issue clear somewhere - it could be earlier on this thread, but I resent the implication of this line of argument - namely that life without sex will always be incomplete. A vast number of godly saints (many of whom were obviousuly very sexual beings, and displayed no pious calling to singleness) have lived this way, and found that God was enough for them - even though it was hard.
It is merely a faulty societal assumption that you can't live without sex.
As a basis for advocating homosexual sex as a "release" for some, it is one of, if not the, weakest I have heard mooted. And very patronising to those of us who live without sex and lump it.
Of course we're all sexual beings but sex is a privilege not a right and life is often difficult and unpleasant. Deal with it.
quote:
This is not what I am saying at all! Remember I represent a tradition that rejoices in monasticism, (although not all monks are virgins of course when they take vows). It's the universality of the injunction that bothers me. Every gay person must become a de facto monk. I was simply saying that this had the same impact as saying that every straight person must become a de facto monk.
Sorry to infer that you dissent from the universal church on the the subject of this thread, Father.
quote:
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Young Fogey - despite careful reading I am unable to find the words 'consenting adult' or anything similar in my warning above.
I inferred it from what you wrote. I thought that was the basis of your objection to comparing gay-pride parades to hypothetical bestiality-pride ones.
quote:
You are at liberty to argue your case - as, of course, are all others here.
Obviously not.
quote:
You are at liberty to define what you like as a 'mortal sin' - but you have already found some who disagree with you.
Condescending not to me but to the moral theology and theologians of the historic Catholic mainstream.
quote:
But my original warning still applies -the equating (actual or implied) of homosexuality with bestiality is unacceptable. But so long as you don't repeat the statement, there will be no problem.
Scratch a liberal and you get a fascist.
If it's not the issue of consent then why, O all-knowing one?
[ 21. July 2004, 22:39: Message edited by: Young fogey ]
--------------------
A conservative blog for peace
Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I am astonished YF that you can pursue your case like a bulldozer with scarcely little respect for what others have said. Since when did upholding the teaching of the Orthodox Church (but with strictly personal reservations) constitute disloyalty on my part?
As to the genesis of AIDS ... blame cross species transfers from primates in Africa as the most likely source, (obviously they must have been gay as well!). The most likely first cases of AIDS went undetected in the 40's, 50's and 60's whilst still in low circulation. One of the earliest infections was, apparently, a heterosexual sailor. On the issue of the origin of AIDS ... go here ...
Origins of HIV/AIDS
Presumably if God had meant to punish gays with AIDS (or if they were reaping their own sin) why didn't he impose a cordon sanitaire so that straights and children weren't infected. That seems to be a quite inefficient judgement process in my view.
quote:
Well, Father, that applies to the mad, the ugly and the just plain unlucky who can't or shouldn't marry, doesn't it?
Only beautiful married people for whom the dice falls well qualify then? What kind of a creation theology is that?
quote:
Of course we're all sexual beings but sex is a privilege not a right and life is often difficult and unpleasant. Deal with it.
Indeed life is difficult and unpleasant (sometimes). How much more difficult it was made for Bobby Griffiths. How exactly do you tell someone that their desires are abominable without pushing them toward the edge ... literally or metaphorically? You see, what I pick up from your posting STYLE is anger. That's what kills.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chedorlaomer
Shipmate
# 4611
|
Posted
quote:
The 'you're judgemental; shut up' tack won't work because they're not my standards personally but rather an objective one...historic Catholic mainstream...Scratch a liberal and you get a fascist...
"objective" ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Sorry. Back to the discussion.
quote:
And whose sins brought AIDS to the normal world, Father? It originally was called GRIDS - gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome - for a reason. The forces of proto-PCness put a stop to that right quick. But hey, I thought that 'censorship is, like, wrong'.
Can't let this pass. The 'reason' was because of the prejudice that AIDS was somehow a judgement on the homosexual community, despite the fact that AIDS can be passed on through either homosexual or heterosexual activity, or indeed via any sort of bodily-fluid contact, such as blood transfusions. This led to a long delay in recognising and doing something about the disease, which resulted in a more accurate, less judgemental term.
I'm curious - do you recognise that any sort of moral progress in the world is possible, such as the affirming of homosexual people as equal members in society and the body of Christ? Women, slaves, people of colour have attained this (though there is a ways to go), why not homosexuals? You may be confusing your visceral dislike of the homosexual act, which is shared by me and most other heterosexuals (I assume), with universal moral law. And no, an appeal to authority e.g. "the Church has always believed..." "society has always held..." does not cut it.
If the rules of a bulletin board are not to your liking, such as "don't make offending comparisons", or "obeying the host, and if you thing they're wrong, take it to the appropriate board", then I would suggest not posting there.
--------------------
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.
Posts: 119 | From: Auckland, NZ | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
And whose sins brought AIDS to the normal world, Father? It originally was called GRIDS - gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome - for a reason. The forces of proto-PCness put a stop to that right quick. But hey, I thought that 'censorship is, like, wrong'.
Blimey this takes the biscuit. AIDS first emerged in Africa in the Belgian Congo in the 1950s. It has been primarily spread in Africa by heterosexual intercourse. But of course er... that doesn't count, because according to Young Fogey that's not 'the normal world'.
It would still be killing millions of people around the world if there was no such thing as gay people. It would simply have first been noted in the more medicalised western world as a disease of people who had African sexual partners. So instead of having been called Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome it would probably have been called African Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome - with what consequences for people of African descent one can imagine.
The GRIDS nomenclature was dropped because it was inaccurate (much HIV being spread by heterosexual sex, blood transfusions, contaminated needles etc.) and because it was misleading to the point of being life-threatening - it led people to think that only gay people could catch it.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chedorlaomer
Shipmate
# 4611
|
Posted
Apologise for the typos in the last two lines - should read "offensive comparisons...obey the host...think they're wrong"!
--------------------
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.
Posts: 119 | From: Auckland, NZ | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317
|
Posted
quote:
I am astonished YF that you can pursue your case like a bulldozer...
Thank you.
quote:
with scarcely little respect for what others have said.
My posts refute that. For example, I mentioned I re-read the banned text last night, ready to rewrite it if necessary. I didn't think it needed it even though I think I get the objection to the bestiality comparison owing to the difference of consent.
quote:
Since when did upholding the teaching of the Orthodox Church (but with strictly personal reservations) constitute disloyalty on my part?
You seem to be taking your cue on this issue, like mainline Protestantism, from secular society and not from the Catholic faith, including as received by the Orthodox obedience.
quote:
As to the genesis of AIDS ...
Oh, please. It's obvious that in the 1950s the world population was still worried about diseases like the soon-to-be-conquered polio and TB, not AIDS.
quote:
Presumably if God had meant to punish gays with AIDS (or if they were reaping their own sin) why didn't he impose a cordon sanitaire so that straights and children weren't infected. That seems to be a quite inefficient judgement process in my view.
That conundrum: there is an all-good God but innocent people suffer and die. Or, why do bad things happen to good people? I think this is a red herring here.
quote:
Only beautiful married people for whom the dice falls well qualify then? What kind of a creation theology is that?
Basically the way the world really works.
quote:
How exactly do you tell someone that their desires are abominable
Actually the daily prayers in your own rite say that a lot, dangerous if taken out of context and bordering on going overboard but right in keeping the passions in check and teaching that sex isn't something everybody's entitled to, no matter how much advertising and other aspects of pop culture tell you it is.
quote:
see, what I pick up from your posting STYLE is anger. That's what kills.
Ah, the psychologizing tactic. LOL. I'm far from the angriest person here, Dr Freud - what about the person who stamped her feet and f-bombed me in Hell over 19th-century history? - and being called a racist, as I have been in this thread, can cheese one off.
quote:
I'm curious - do you recognise that any sort of moral progress in the world is possible, such as the affirming of homosexual people as equal members in society and the body of Christ?
Strawman. That was answered in the banned link - all are loved and welcome in God's house but the practice is wrong, just like heterosexual sins.
quote:
You may be confusing your visceral dislike of the homosexual act, which is shared by me and most other heterosexuals (I assume), with universal moral law.
The law of God is written in the heart of every man and most people have a God-given revulsion to those acts. Now because the natural order is fallen, that sadly results in uncharity to homosexuals (like the Matthew Shepherd murder), again in no way approved of by me. I don't wish suffering on gays but acts have consequences. The modern approach to sex, straight and gay (non serviam), is mostly about trying to dodge this reality, hence the contraceptive and abortion industries for straights, for example.
quote:
Blimey this takes the biscuit. AIDS first emerged in Africa in the Belgian Congo in the 1950s. It has been primarily spread in Africa by heterosexual intercourse. But of course er... that doesn't count, because according to Young Fogey that's not 'the normal world'.
Do visit the blog. One of my heroes is the young Trevor Huddleston: the Catholic faith vs. apartheid.
--------------------
A conservative blog for peace
Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chedorlaomer
Shipmate
# 4611
|
Posted
Young Fogey, I'm also curious, as you appear to be an intelligent and literate person, why you have posted on this thread, entitled 'Living as a Christian Homosexual', with your watertight, monolithic, and apparently self-evident worldview, expecting...what?
Trip, trap, trip, trap, trip, trap, went the bridge.
P.S. I don't see how you see yourself as being accused of being racist.
--------------------
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.
Posts: 119 | From: Auckland, NZ | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear YF
quote:
You seem to be taking your cue on this issue, like mainline Protestantism, from secular society and not from the Catholic faith, including as received by the Orthodox obedience.
Please go back and read my sentence again. I am required to uphold the teaching of the Church. I am not required to violate my own conscience in respect of those matters with which I disagree; indeed I am bidden by the Church to respect my informed conscience.
By all means attack my personal view point but don't impugn by stated conformity to Church teaching and practice as a priest without evidence that what I do is not what I say.
[ 22. July 2004, 06:25: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
And whose sins brought AIDS to the normal world, Father? It originally was called GRIDS - gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome - for a reason. The forces of proto-PCness put a stop to that right quick. But hey, I thought that 'censorship is, like, wrong'.
(grinding teeth)
(Speaking for the US)People who did not understand (or care to learn) the dynamics of the disease also did not understand the impact that AIDS would have on the "normal world" (more teeth grinding)and therefore ignored it because the only people they heard about it infecting were "not normal" These people cut funding to the Centers for Disease Control ,stonewalled the delivery of importamt information that would help contain the disease because of the language needed to deliver said information, and stood on the floors of Congress gloating over the fate of the "not normal"(remember Pat Robinson and his "reaping the whirlwind" speech? What a hateful, souless bastard)Yeah, you are right, it was people's sin that spread the disease as far as it did.
I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area in the Eighties, and that really scarred me. As a result, I would rather dance the tango with a troupe of lesbians in a Pride Parade while wearing a bikini rather than even give myself the appearence of aligning myself with the kind of folk that would rather argue their position on the horrors of anal sex than save lives.
That image of Pat sneering over the deaths of the "not normal" brings to mind Jesus's comments about people revealing themsleves by their spiritual fruits. What kind of fruits are born by people who silently watch a community die?
I would rather hang out with the perverts, thank you.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Young Fogey
Firstly - do not draw me into your discussion - I have not contributed to this discussion other than as the Host on this board, by making a ruling on a specific situation.
You said:
For example, I mentioned I re-read the banned text last night, ready to rewrite it if necessary.
but that wasn't said until this morning some 8 hours ago. Had you have done this sooner and told me directly I would have allowed you to re-instate the link
Secondly, if you are unhappy with my ruling, take your complaint to the Styx board.
Thirdly, your approach to this discussion is beginning to sound like a crusade - see Commandment 8. It could - as another shipmate has suggested - be seen as trolling (Commandment 1) but I'm not quite sure about this one yet.
Fourthly, and least importantly, please refer to Commandment 6. I host this board with a very light hand (that being all it usually needs). This makes me neither 'liberal' nor 'facist' and I resent your implication that I am either.
Incidentally, when you are quoting from another post, please name the poster. It makes things easier to read when you are replying to multiple posts
Host Mode DE-ACTIVATE>
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Celibacy is positive and to be valued for those who have a calling to it .... which is not everyone. If I were to suggest that all Protestant ministers should be celibate you would very rapidly fall in line with my reasoning on celibacy I suspect.
Sorry - back to this, I can't let it lie.
I would tell you that you were talking rubbish. Which you know you are, and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by mentioning it.
I do not disagree with you over the issue of calling - rather about how such a calling is discerned. My own view is that part of such a calling may be the inability to keep sex within the confines which the Bible and the church have historically been understood as teaching it should stay.
"Calling" does not mean something found easy. Nor does it mean a voice telling you that you have to be celibate. It means getting on with serving God, in whatever circumstances you are in, knowing that he will give the strength to do so, within the way he has laid down.
Thus, this argument (and I am not saying all arguments - I am only making a point for this one) that people just can't be expected to live without sex, so therefore homosexual sex is all right, is null and void.
Young Fogey - I am largely theologically coming from a similar place to you on this issue. But I am afraid on this occasion you are talking crap. (if I am allowed to use this word here.)
[ 22. July 2004, 08:44: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Celsti
Shipmate
# 4523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Speaking for the US)People who did not understand (or care to learn) the dynamics of the disease also did not understand the impact that AIDS would have on the "normal world" (more teeth grinding)and therefore ignored it because the only people they heard about it infecting were "not normal" These people cut funding to the Centers for Disease Control ,stonewalled the delivery of importamt information that would help contain the disease because of the language needed to deliver said information, and stood on the floors of Congress gloating over the fate of the "not normal".
the same thing went on in Australia, the flipside I was just reading about was that people dependent on blood products were not protected from HIV, as these products remained unscreened in Australia for more than two years after the discovery that AIDS spread in blood. The labelling of the epidemic as some sort of retribution on gay people meant that it was easier for the authorities to ignore its effects - including its effects on children and the seriously ill.
(Not that I am suggesting there is a division of guilt or innocence between gay and blood-dependent people!! I am so not.)
The book I was reading
--------------------
Gunwog gumwam gore gadum, Nuda beiwud nadug, manedjare wengi, nuda ganmargmanbun. Mark 1:11, Gunwinggu.
Posts: 787 | From: the beyonderland | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Leprechaun
I can't let it lie either. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Thus, this argument (and I am not saying all arguments - I am only making a point for this one) that people just can't be expected to live without sex, so therefore homosexual sex is all right, is null and void.
Plenty of people can and do live without sexual relations whilst having a fully integrated and redirected sexuality. That is honourable and good ... if it is their calling and / or if it lies within them. St. Paul (marry not to burn) and Jesus (some becoming eunuchs) recognise this.
Where you and I differ is the situation of a whole (and large) group of people who must accept willingly (in which case OK) or accept enforced (in which case not OK) celibacy if they are to be God pleasing or at least avoid damnation. I cannot accept that at all.
Any kind of total (ie., until you die) enforced celibacy is a violation of conscience in my book. There may indeed be penalties in terms of church discipline but can't we take some of the heat out of this? There have been Christian gay people for centuries. The last time people started getting really hot under the collar about this was when some pretty nasty things were perpetrated by "Christians" against their favourite outcasts. None of us (surely) want to return to that era?
[ 22. July 2004, 10:05: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
There may indeed be penalties in terms of church discipline but can't we take some of the heat out of this? There have been Christian gay people for centuries. The last time people started getting really hot under the collar about this was when some pretty nasty things were perpetrated by "Christians" against their favourite outcasts. None of us (surely) want to return to that era?
Hmmm, I'm not sure what you think I am advocating. Certainly not perpetrating evil things against "outcasts".
What I thought we were talking about is the pastoral response to individuals (and I don't like talking about "them" as a "group" because I think there is far more to people than a sexual preference) who find that this is part of their make-up for whatever reason.
What I am saying is that a pastoral appraoch based on celibacy as a positive and fulfilling way of life (no matter how much the person wants sex, which I do not count as a calling to be sexually active) is not to be ruled out of court as "cruel and unusual".
It was the horror with which you stated "no sex, ever" as if that were some awful fate that no one could be expected to put up with, that I found strange.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Clarification ... sorry for the double post.
When I referred to Jesus' teaching about eunuchs I was upholding his recognition that not ALL can follow that. Likewise St. Paul in his marry not burn reference acknowledges that some cannot live the single life chastely, so it would be better for these to marry. Both, therefore, acknowledged with realism each person's capacities and desires. That's all I am trying to do. I cannot believe that this realism and pastoral discretion can only be applied to heterosexual persons even knowing what St. Paul had to say on the matter (see the other Dead Horse). Gay people have the same passions, trials, struggles and ideals as straight people. Some follow a celibate calling successfully, some less so but with intact intention. Some cannot follow that calling at all. (I am using the word "calling" in the sense of making a commitment in the light of conscience and Christian teaching).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young Fogey:
The law of God is written in the heart of every man and most people have a God-given revulsion to those acts.
Well, when did God give you (or Chedorlaomer) psychic powers? How do you know that "most people " have a "revulsion" to such acts (and which acts do you mean?)
Most people I know personally seem to have no such revulsion. Talking about a "God-given" law which somehow we all know innately is theological nonsense, and such a claim is the last bastion of someone who is fast running out of coherent argument.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pegasus*
Shipmate
# 5779
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Of course there are other serious sins but ISTM the ones involving the wrong use of sex come second to killing and maiming people at the top of the list.
Why?
quote:
The 'you're judgemental; shut up' tack won't work because they're not my standards personally but rather an objective one.
And yet your own choice of language seems to deny objectivity. You use the abbreviation ISTM, or it seems to me. So things are "seeming" rather than being and they are seeming so to you rather than to everyone. These two features indicate a subjective position.
[ 22. July 2004, 11:57: Message edited by: Glass Angel ]
Posts: 533 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Can I just say something?
The homosexual lifestyle of 2 committed people, is just like a married couple. They are not having sex all the bloody time, okay!
There is love, companionship, friendship, support, etc.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
And I'll say something else. Young fogey, quit arguing with Tony on this board. If you have a complaint, take it to the Styx. If you post ONE MORE WORD of argument with him or ONE MORE WORD about him I will take great delight in sending your butt overboard for two weeks.
Got it?
Erin
Community Editor
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Scratch a liberal and you get a fascist.
That's why it's much more rigorous and honest to be a socialist than a liberal. Have no truck with those namby-pamby liberals. Don't argue with bigots and fogies - kick them!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
How do you know that "most people " have a "revulsion" to such acts (and which acts do you mean?)
Obviously he asked them.
Anyway, in a fallen world, fallen people ought not to be making moral judgements on the basis of their fallen sense of revulsion.
Maybe the devil is prompting Young Fogey to vomit when he sees two lesbians eating noodles in a cafe together. Who knows?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Scratch a liberal and you get a fascist.
That's why it's much more rigorous and honest to be a socialist than a liberal. Have no truck with those namby-pamby liberals. Don't argue with bigots and fogies - kick them!
ken,
I'm virtually certain that YF would consider you a "liberal", too.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
How do you know that "most people " have a "revulsion" to such acts (and which acts do you mean?)
Obviously he asked them.
He must have been very busy going round asking the thousand or so people it would take to get a statistically viable sample.
Young Fogey, perhaps you could present us with the detailed results of this thorough study ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I think there is some truth that many straight guys feels revulsion about male gay sexual acts. However, their feelings about lesbianism are somewhat different for some reason.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Actually, I don't feel any revulsion at the thought of two men or two women making love. I don't find their public displays of affection revolting. And sexy, romantic movies involving two men or two women seem just as sexy and romantic to me as those involving a woman and a man.
Young fogey might want to consider the phenomenon of slash fan fiction as well; most of these stories of male-male relationships are written by straight women. I doubt they had to overcome any revulsion in order to write them.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
In my experience of talking to people about this Ruth, straight women don't usually have a problem, but I have come across exceptions, but many straight guys have expressed a strong distaste for 2 guys together sexually - not just holding hands, etc.
I remember one day working in a residential home, while I was still in male mode, but I was out. The women were talking about their weekend with their boyfriends, etc, and I piped up about mine. One woman was okay and pally, but the other 2 were quite the opposite. They didn't like it at all, and I said nothing sexual.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
This is the one I was reading, Celsti
Although being a San-Francisco-ite I only have to really refer to my memory of the news.
More evidence of the power of sin in spreading a disease--Straight people were dying alongside gay people all along, alibeit in smaller numbers. A lot of those deaths went unreported (at least publically) because they were renamed "liver cancer" or "watermelon diets" or something less "shameful" than AIDS and the public went along blissfully unaware that anyone who had access to blood and semen could get it.
The people who were too delicate to let officials talk in terms of blood and semen helped spread the disease. The people who called AIDS divine retribution and made people ashamed to admit they had it helped spread the disease.The people who discouraged the use of condoms because it would encourgage pre-marital sex helped spread the disease. Pepole just lost their freaking sense of priorities in the eighties, and we are still suffering for it.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I think there is some truth that many straight guys feels revulsion about male gay sexual acts. However, their feelings about lesbianism are somewhat different for some reason.
That's just a sexual fantasy thing. It's common in soft porn. Men imagining themselves into the scenario as either participant, as the other one is always a woman. Or imagining themselves with two women at the same time.
Fantasising about gay men is repressed because of fear of being thought gay. Even nowadays and hereabouts - I've seen quite serious fights break in pubs out over the percieved insult.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ken
Concerning your straight male lesbian fantasy explanation ... I am sure this is one of the reasons why lesbianism was never defined let alone judged illegal in times past (in the UK anyway).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Do visit the blog. One of my heroes is the young Trevor Huddleston: the Catholic faith vs. apartheid.
Sorry but how does this make your statement about the 'normal world' any less inappropriate?
You seem to be implying a hierarchy of victims - in which the tragedy is that people were infected in some 'normal world' to which the people previously killed by the disease did not belong. Since the bulk of those killed in the early days of AIDS were heterosexual Africans and gay men, this implies to me that these two groups are not part of what you consider to be this important 'normal world'. Or were you deliberately overlooking the disease's initial predominantly-heterosexual transmission in Africa because it didn't suit your anti-gay case?
L.
[ 22. July 2004, 18:01: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I think it has to do with Queen Victoria, Fr Gregory.
I think it was Gladstone who was involved with the legislation, and when he brought up lesbianism to Queen Victoria, she didn't believe women did that kind of thing. So, rather than argue with her, he just let it drop, and lesbianism wasn't included as a crime.
Ken, I think there is an unhealthy attitude to masculinity in our country. To me, Jesus is the perfect man and he was affectionate with his male disciples, especially the one who leaned on his breast. If 2 straight guys did that in a typical pub round here, they'd probably get their heads kicked in.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
quote:
Concerning your straight male lesbian fantasy explanation ... I am sure this is one of the reasons why lesbianism was never defined let alone judged illegal in times past (in the UK anyway).
I thought the reason was that Queen Victoria refused to sign that part of the bill into law because she believed that no woman could behave in such a beastly way!
And whilst I'm here:
quote:
And whose sins brought AIDS to the normal world, Father? It originally was called GRIDS - gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome - for a reason. The forces of proto-PCness put a stop to that right quick. But hey, I thought that 'censorship is, like, wrong'.
There is a point when inaccuracy is so culpable as to become intellectual dishonesty and this crosses the line. AIDS was originally dubbed GRIDS in the US because it was intially diagnosed among gay people. As further data was gathered it became apparent that the syndrome was global and was also passed on by heterosexual sex, sharing infected needles and transfusions of infected blood. Of those four the vast majority of people with HIV/AIDS were infected by heterosexual sex. Hence the name was inaccurate - political correctness had nothing to do with it.
I imagine Young fogey is the sort of person who thinks that it is political correctness that we no longer refer to people with Downs Syndrome as 'Mongols'.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Callan
