|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Living as a Christian Homosexual
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Well, what I got out of that is that are something to do with being able to tell one of the reasons why a given person has some types of illness or a bad reaction to a chemical or whatever, when an ostensibly very similar person doesn't, and that they have to do with DNA and that something to do with genetic tendancies that only a minority of people have. I will admit that I didn't really understand it further than that.
Which shows you what a non-scientist I am, I expect. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flubb
Shipmate
# 918
|
Posted
Unless if they've found something recently, there never was a gay gene to begin with.
Simon Lavey started the trend in 1991 with his study in hypothalamic brain structures between gays and hetero men. His study couldn't say that homosexuality was innate or genetic, and couldn't state that the hypothalamus was either a cause or a consequence of sexual orientation, but when he talked to the NYT, he said the opposite. Newsweek said he was a champion for the genetic side, and hence began the trend to see genetic reasons for behaviour. LaVey never followed up the story and subsequent attempts have apparently found his work equivocal.
Dean Hamer did some work in 1993 that found an association between a chromosome segment and male homosexuality. The problem comes in associating a bit of DNA with a trait, but the study didn't do that. Multiple studies following that up found no meaning association, but the concept of the gay gene was born. What Jonathan Marks notes (from whom I've pilfered most of this) is that the authors of the study reckoned that they had accounted for 5% of male homesexuality. Assuming that homosexuality is equally distributed across a population, that homosexuality is a property (not an act), that all statistical issues raised are invalid, then they account for 2.5% of homosexuality, which is statistically negligable.
So, there is no scientific reason for homosexuality, so you can't blame the genes or biology just yet because there's no evidence. Nobody knows 'why' homosexuality exists (scientifically speaking). If anyone has anything more recent than 2003 that counteracts this view, I'll be interested ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
In cyberspace everyone can hear your spleen...
Posts: 234 | From: St. Androos | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flubb:
Unless if they've found something recently, there never was a gay gene to begin with.
...snip...
So, there is no scientific reason for homosexuality, so you can't blame the genes or biology just yet because there's no evidence. Nobody knows 'why' homosexuality exists (scientifically speaking). If anyone has anything more recent than 2003 that counteracts this view, I'll be interested
I wouldn't try to counter any of that. There is, so far as I have heard, no scientific consensus on why homosexual behavior exists. It is, of course, observed in animal populations too.
Elsewhere (on Purg), I recently discussed this enough to be told to get over to Dead Horses, if I felt to continue. In a nutshell, what I advocate as the truth is: homosexuality (that is, "same-sex" attraction ONLY) is very rare. Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, can increase and decrease according to population pressures. When the population is not too big, "nature's" imperative is to increase population: homosexual behavior decreases. When, as now, population is seen as too high, homosexual behavior increases, evidently as a natural contribution toward birth control. Therefore, bisexualism is far more common than biological homosexualism.
I do not agree that all sexual attractions are biologically mandated: ergo, I dismiss the popular claims of the "homosexual community", that they have no choice in what they find sexually attractive. Much, even most, of what we find sexually stimulating relates directly to our environment, and therefore can be altered and controlled. We are always capable of controlling ourselves. A very few are actually homosexuals; the rest of the "homosexual community" are bisexuals.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Much, even most, of what we find sexually stimulating relates directly to our environment, and therefore can be altered and controlled.
ANy evidence (not just "I beliveve" or "I think") for this opinion?
Is it sort of like saying the hetero guys in prison who get involved with gay sex really are choosing to be turned on by other guys, not just getting off in the only available way?
And if not, I have this horse I think you'll realy, really like getting to know. You can do it, you know you can, if you really decide you want to want to.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I do not agree that all sexual attractions are biologically mandated: ergo, I dismiss the popular claims of the "homosexual community", that they have no choice in what they find sexually attractive.
I find that to be a bizarre argument, quite honestly.
We know that from birth until the age of five, a child's enviroment forms a very major component of who they are. That doesn't mean they are free to change it.
I am sure my love of heavy metal is not biological, but as i found out the hard way, I can choose not to listen to it, but I can't choose not to like it.
Sure a gay man can choose not to have sex, as a straight man can. That doesn't mean he can choose not to be gay. Can a straight man choose not to be straight???
I find your argument both morally and intellectually objectionable.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...In a nutshell, what I advocate as the truth is: homosexuality (that is, "same-sex" attraction ONLY) is very rare. Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, can increase and decrease according to population pressures. When the population is not too big, "nature's" imperative is to increase population: homosexual behavior decreases. ...
Except that that North American indigenous people "Indians"/"First Nations" had a high acceptance of "two-souled persons" or "berdache" and a relatively low population pressure.
Furthermore, let's look at at how "nature" detects "population pressure" - usually from famine. There aren't many hungry people in North America, but there are plenty of gays.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I do not agree that all sexual attractions are biologically mandated: ergo, I dismiss the popular claims of the "homosexual community", that they have no choice in what they find sexually attractive.
I find that to be a bizarre argument, quite honestly.
I find it bizarre too. And I'm curious about the implications of it. What if someone is asexual - if they don't have sexual attractions at all? Do you think they can choose to find someone sexually attractive - and if so, how? I have never before heard an argument that people can choose what they find attractive.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
When the population is not too big, "nature's" imperative is to increase population: homosexual behavior decreases. When, as now, population is seen as too high, homosexual behavior increases, evidently as a natural contribution toward birth control. Therefore, bisexualism is far more common than biological homosexualism.
.
Bollocks.
That's rubbish. Nonsense. Simply untrue. Provably, demonstrably untrue.
For a start, if it were true, homosexuality would be more common in areas of high population density and less in low. That is not the case.
How on earth is "nature" supposed to put pressure on people, or any other animals, to reduce the population? There is no way.
People might choose to have fewer children to reduce the population, that's quire different. But the "natural" thing to do is to try and have as many offspring as possible.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Much, even most, of what we find sexually stimulating relates directly to our environment, and therefore can be altered and controlled.
ANy evidence (not just "I beliveve" or "I think") for this opinion?
Is it sort of like saying the hetero guys in prison who get involved with gay sex really are choosing to be turned on by other guys, not just getting off in the only available way?
And if not, I have this horse I think you'll realy, really like getting to know. You can do it, you know you can, if you really decide you want to want to.
John
You want a research paper or summat? I am not here to get peer review. So if you doubt what I said enough to post sources that disprove it, go ahead.
But if you do disagree with the statement, that we can and do control and alter our perceptions of what is "sexy", then you are against what the psychs do to sex offender prisoners: putting them through all manner of sexual exposure and other methods to turn them away from being predators. If it doesn't work, then why do the psychs do it?
And if it doesn't work, then no psychs can tell me that my rages are controllable either; and that when I feel like killing you that that is somehow wrong, because I can't give into those feelings. It's a matter of degree, then, and not agruing whether or not we humans have any ability to change or control ourselves: biological "programming" then becomes mere, unalterable animal instinct.
Look at male, heterosexuality: in different cultures "sexy" can mean very different things. A facile example is the way women look: hefty, skinny, dark, light. And the way they act: brash, forward, withdrawn, unapproachable (hard to get), whorish, cultured/aristocratic. In cultures where a woman is covered head to toe, the sneak peek of an ankle can drive a man wild with desire. Yet on a California beach tanned skin is the common order of the day.
A friend of mine speaks of his college days, and how guys would get sex from each other because it was easy; but they preferred girls when they could get them. So yes, in prison, guys give each other sex, but that doesn't turn heteros into homosexuals; although it is definitley bisexualism, because a lot of guys in prisons do not indulge and remain strictly heterosexual.
Your horsey will just have to wait for the next bestiality afficianado come along. I bet that Arab of the camel and nun joke is very rare too: most camel-loving jockys would take the nun first, the camel second.
[ 17. March 2007, 18:22: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I do not agree that all sexual attractions are biologically mandated: ergo, I dismiss the popular claims of the "homosexual community", that they have no choice in what they find sexually attractive.
I find that to be a bizarre argument, quite honestly.
We know that from birth until the age of five, a child's enviroment forms a very major component of who they are. That doesn't mean they are free to change it.
I am sure my love of heavy metal is not biological, but as i found out the hard way, I can choose not to listen to it, but I can't choose not to like it.
Sure a gay man can choose not to have sex, as a straight man can. That doesn't mean he can choose not to be gay. Can a straight man choose not to be straight???
I find your argument both morally and intellectually objectionable.
So, according to your objections, I should be allowed to kill you when I get into one of my uncontrollable (biologically predisposed) rages. It isn't my fault.
How are you going to tell what is acceptable biological predispostion and what is not? If it comes down to the argument: "I am not responsible for my needs and have a right to fulfil myself", then we are playing with Pandora's box.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...In a nutshell, what I advocate as the truth is: homosexuality (that is, "same-sex" attraction ONLY) is very rare. Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, can increase and decrease according to population pressures. When the population is not too big, "nature's" imperative is to increase population: homosexual behavior decreases. ...
Except that that North American indigenous people "Indians"/"First Nations" had a high acceptance of "two-souled persons" or "berdache" and a relatively low population pressure.
Furthermore, let's look at at how "nature" detects "population pressure" - usually from famine. There aren't many hungry people in North America, but there are plenty of gays.
What does "plenty of gays" mean? I know very few personally. My high schoolers observe that a lot of kids openly claim to be gay, and "act" that way. It seems a faddish thing of late, because of the popularizing of the homosexual community into martyrs similar to how Black Americans were portrayed in the 60's and since. Look at what a huge cultural change is still taking place because of Black American influences due to that popularizing.
The number of biologically predisposed homosexuals, with genuine "same-sex only attraction", will only increase per capita IF sexual predisposition is NOT already 100% decided at birth (in the womb), as some gay advocates propose (calling upon their self-avowed claim, that they have never found the opposite gender attractive, from their earliest memories). But if bisexualism ends up being proven as the norm in babies, which is then "programmed" into hetero, homo or bisexualism largely through environment: then this would narrow down the issue into what society at large should be permitting as far as sexual exposure to children is concerned.
You bring up two interesting points: Amerindian population pressures, and how the world at large today perceives its total population question.
Amerindians were by and large a subsistence level people. I am not conversant with the differences in various or particular tribes. But I doubt that there was this universal "two-souled" persons ethic. I bet it varied a lot. The Atlantic coastal tribes were highly civilized and stable compared to their descendants who were pushed out onto the Great Plains. The Atlantic coastal tribes were agrarian, built permanent dwellings and shared similarities with early bronze and iron age European settlements. The same is true of the SW tribes, the Navajo, et al. As the history of N. American Indians is largely unknown: should we discern a "two-souled" element to their culture, we could be correct if we assume that earlier they went through a long prosperity period which slowly became restricted by too many people: thus inculcating bisexualism naturally as a birth control. Later, as this had become accepted, it remained as part of their society's sexuality.
Today, the world is very small in terms of people everywhere being exposed daily to each other's lives. Although in the USA we do not have a population problem, we know that world-wide there IS a problem. Millions starve each year. Americans, feeling guilt and concern (and a natural propensity to accept any excuse to not do something that is seen as more difficult, i.e. having large families), have been reducing their procreativity for half a century by now. A natural outgrowth of this perception of world over-population is bisexualism. How it will alter sexuality of society in the future is anyone's guess. But far older societies, (e.g. Amerindians) which had (have) bisexuality and homosexuality as accepted parts of their cultures can offer clues on how this has occurred earlier, and will again now and in the future.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I do not agree that all sexual attractions are biologically mandated: ergo, I dismiss the popular claims of the "homosexual community", that they have no choice in what they find sexually attractive.
I find that to be a bizarre argument, quite honestly.
I find it bizarre too. And I'm curious about the implications of it. What if someone is asexual - if they don't have sexual attractions at all? Do you think they can choose to find someone sexually attractive - and if so, how? I have never before heard an argument that people can choose what they find attractive.
I am not suggesting that once you are aware of what is sexually attractive, that you can just decide to change it. But, as I mentioned in a response just above, prison psychs conduct sexual "rehabilitation" all the time on (especially) child sex offenders, in order to cure them of their sexual attraction. If such was not deemed even possible or practical, would we be spending millions of bucks on such programs? (I am not an advocate of their methods, from what little I have heard of them: I have a friend who was sent up for child sex abuse charges, and refused to enter the sex offender program, because he claimed that he was afraid of letting the crap they expose the patients to into his mind. On the other hand, that, I am told, is a stock excuse of offenders who fear being "cured" of the sex that they like.)
"Homosexual community" does mean homosexuals alone, but all perceived by heteros, because of their sexual activities with the same gender. I propose (because of the directions the research seems to be taking us), that the great majority of the perceived "homosexual community" are actually bisexuals. This is especially true of women, who prefer lesbian friends, except many (half of them?) feel urges to have sex with men during their fertile periods. Male homosexuals, however, almost never swing both ways.
When I say that we can alter our sexual attractions, this is true for people who find both genders attractive. Otherwise, the earlier claims (on Purg) that "a lot" of bisexuals are successfully married, would not be possible, would they? Obviously, the married Bi is limiting his/her urges deliberately, being considerate of their spouse's feelings. That's called self-sacrifice as an act of love.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I know very few personally..
Why am I not surprised?
--------------------
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 MerlintheMad:
So, according to your objections, I should be allowed to kill you when I get into one of my uncontrollable (biologically predisposed) rages. It isn't my fault.
Nonsense. What is natural is not neccesarily good. We are inherently sinful. Its a fallen world.
In fact if you did have uncontrollable biologically predisposed rages in which you were liable to kill people you woudl be loced up in a very unpleasant hosp[ital for the e of your life and force-fed drugs to make you into little more than a vegetable between electric shocks.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
When the population is not too big, "nature's" imperative is to increase population: homosexual behavior decreases. When, as now, population is seen as too high, homosexual behavior increases, evidently as a natural contribution toward birth control. Therefore, bisexualism is far more common than biological homosexualism.
.
Bollocks.
That's rubbish. Nonsense. Simply untrue. Provably, demonstrably untrue.
For a start, if it were true, homosexuality would be more common in areas of high population density and less in low. That is not the case.
How on earth is "nature" supposed to put pressure on people, or any other animals, to reduce the population? There is no way.
People might choose to have fewer children to reduce the population, that's quire different. But the "natural" thing to do is to try and have as many offspring as possible.
Okay, then find some evidence to prove me wrong. I don't make it a hobby of mine, to do the geeky thing and read research papers. But a very savvy friend of mine does. I refer (defer) to him as my walking encyclopedia, and current affairs news source. (Yeah, as I said before, I am lazy that way.) I get confirmation of all that I have said in the posts I have made on this Dead Horse today, from him, just this week in fact. To whit: homosexual men almost never have sex with women, but lesbians (as I recall, up to half) swing both ways, particularly during their fertile periods; research is showing that homosexual behavior (not limited to same-sex attraction only) increases when population increases.
This is not to say that biologically predisposed homosexuality ever increases. But, as I have said, I won't be surprised if the research shows otherwise: that babies are mostly biologically predisposed bisexual. And that environment plays the biggest role in establishing their cultural sexuality: what they most naturally find sexually attractive, which can be altered by drastic means (as in prison sex offender programs). Or, environmental factors such as over population, cause a rise in homosexual behavior among those who have the strongest bisexualism. (As human history has comparatively few periods and locations that have put over population as the main problem -- but rather, getting the population to increase IS the normal problem -- it follows that societies are on the whole strongly heterosexual, thus the evident lack of homosexual behavior....)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So, according to your objections, I should be allowed to kill you when I get into one of my uncontrollable (biologically predisposed) rages. It isn't my fault.
Nonsense. What is natural is not neccesarily good. We are inherently sinful. Its a fallen world.
In fact if you did have uncontrollable biologically predisposed rages in which you were liable to kill people you woudl be loced up in a very unpleasant hosp[ital for the e of your life and force-fed drugs to make you into little more than a vegetable between electric shocks.
You are merely making the distinction, that people see things differently according to what they choose, and their time and place. Different periods and cultures would value my rages, e.g Viking bersarks, Huns, Mongols, in fact many earlier, less civilized cultures. So you can't say it's wrong, only that our current society does not value or allow for it.
But, the dichotomy today is religious versus scientific "morality." Science is supposed to overthrow some or all religious morals, because we discover more and more that "God" is not real, but merely a construct of mankind when we didn't really know the answers to our questions about Existence. (E.g. Pullo and his Primus Pilus -- forget the character's name -- in the first season of HBO's Rome: lying on their backs arguing about what exactly the stars are.) Because we allow science to change the truth for us, we are suddenly supposed to throw out all of our morality? And there's the rub: homosexuals are immorality incarnate, to fundies, and many others too, by their very gut feelings.
I have felt those "natural" (to me) revulsions too. If I remained a religious zealot, I would be arguing in Hell right now with tooth and claw for the right of the "moral majority" to legislate illegal all brands of sexual licence and perversion. But, as I am not such a dim bulb, I allow instead, that sex is not tied directly (solely) to procreation, but is separately, an expression of a person's character in another and very special way. It is FUN (and funny). Ergo, we allow it whenever nobody is violating anyone's civil rights to remain untouched. It is not a sin to enjoy sex under that rather broad umberella.
Where this takes us, vis-a-vis sexual differences living in the same neighborhoods, we have yet to see: who will win out? I put my "money" on the logical, civil thinking set, not the uber religious set.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I know very few personally..
Why am I not surprised?
Why am I not surprised that you mistake my position? It seems the natural reaction to people who discuss this topic from a pro-homosexuality postion, that anyone who gets on "here" is either pro or con. And I have been judged con. Actually, if you read dispassionately (haha) the sum of what I have said, you will see that I am neutral: I only judge immorality on the case by case basis of whether or not a person is being just or unjust. Sex, to me, is utterly neutral by itself (as I expect research to show eventually, by proving that babies in the high nintieth percintile are predisposed biologically bisexual).
As I am very heterosexual, and have naturally mixed with similar company, it should be no surprise on that basis alone, that I know few homosexuals. But I do know some. I don't avoid them....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I know very few personally..
Why am I not surprised?
Why am I not surprised that you mistake my position? It seems the natural reaction to people who discuss this topic from a pro-homosexuality postion, that anyone who gets on "here" is either pro or con. And I have been judged con. Actually, if you read dispassionately (haha) the sum of what I have said, you will see that I am neutral: I only judge immorality on the case by case basis of whether or not a person is being just or unjust. Sex, to me, is utterly neutral by itself (as I expect research to show eventually, by proving that babies in the high nintieth percintile are predisposed biologically bisexual).
What on earth does any of that mean? The 'nintieth percintile' of what? What research?
quote:
As I am very heterosexual, and have naturally mixed with similar company, it should be no surprise on that basis alone, that I know few homosexuals. But I do know some. I don't avoid them....
Most of my social interaction isn't predicated on people's sexuality. What sort of life do you lead where it is?
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
Merlin, one question which is really bugging me as I read your posts on this thread: do you understand that there is a difference between experiencing feelings inside yourself and choosing to act on those feelings? Do you realise that experiencing a particular feeling is one thing, but then deciding what course of action to take as a result of the feeling is, by and large, a process which can be distinguished as being separate to the feeling from which it originated?
eta - fiddling with the phrasing, might still not be as clear as I want it though
[ 17. March 2007, 21:35: Message edited by: mountainsnowtiger ]
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Can anyone unpack for me exactly how any of Merlin's rambling is related to the OP?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
The gay gene tangent started on the previous page but has suddenly racked up a lot of posts today taking this thread a bit too far off topic. It would probably be better on the general Homosexuality and Christianity thread, rather than on this thread about how to live as a gay christian.
Would people move the nature/nurture discussion there, quoting from posts on this thread as need be?
Shipmates should also be aware that there is an open Hell thread, which now has posts relating to this tangent.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
[ 17. March 2007, 23:16: 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
|
|
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Well Freud was a tad weird himself.....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The gay gene tangent started on the previous page but has suddenly racked up a lot of posts today taking this thread a bit too far off topic. It would probably be better on the general Homosexuality and Christianity thread, rather than on this thread about how to live as a gay christian.
Would people move the nature/nurture discussion there, quoting from posts on this thread as need be?
Shipmates should also be aware that there is an open Hell thread, which now has posts relating to this tangent.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Apologies and thank-you, Louise. I have transferred my question to Merlin onto the appropriate thread.
I believe that I'm not the only Shipmate who would very much like MerlintheMad himself to join the Hell thread mentioned and to provide some defence of his views there.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
.... I expect research to show eventually, by proving that babies in the high nintieth percintile are predisposed biologically bisexual).
What on earth does any of that mean? The 'nintieth percintile' of what? What research?
quote:
As I am very heterosexual, and have naturally mixed with similar company, it should be no surprise on that basis alone, that I know few homosexuals. But I do know some. I don't avoid them....
Most of my social interaction isn't predicated on people's sexuality. What sort of life do you lead where it is?
R
Research into the "sex gene". You know, the biological chimera to prove that everyone homosexual has no choice, 'cause they are born that way. I expect the final verdict to be, "Nope, everyone (excepting a few aberations of Nature) is born bisexual, folks."
How do you get the notion that I live in a PLACE where social interaction is predicated on sexuality?? I merely said, homosexuals are very rare around here; they don't demonstrate in public. (The rising generation of school kids seems to be a new trend toward changing that, however.) So I don't know many, because they don't make it a practice to announce their sexual preferences in public; heteros don't do that either, for some reason. Could be old fashioned social decorum?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Merlin, one question which is really bugging me as I read your posts on this thread: do you understand that there is a difference between experiencing feelings inside yourself and choosing to act on those feelings? Do you realise that experiencing a particular feeling is one thing, but then deciding what course of action to take as a result of the feeling is, by and large, a process which can be distinguished as being separate to the feeling from which it originated?
eta - fiddling with the phrasing, might still not be as clear as I want it though
I am a bit miffed, that after all I have said, you could ask such a question.
Acting on feelings is the core experience of being human and mortal. Consequences are not our choice: they will follow inevitably. If we think things through long and deeply enough, we should be able to anticipate natural consequences. And make the best choices, i.e. bring on the consequences we want to live with. (A lot about the homosexual marriage issue is not considered by either side. And the full consequences cannot be known before the fact, because our culture has never openly accepted gays before; much less allowed for their civil unions to be defined as "marriage" with no differences attached to the word.)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can anyone unpack for me exactly how any of Merlin's rambling is related to the OP?
You must fair. This is a DEAD HORSE. I was told to go "here" if I had anything further to say on the topic of homosexuality. You cannot start threads on Dead Horse topics; only comment on already existing threads. I didn't see any thread that started on the same premise that we were discussing, which originated on the thread in Purg about "pastor" Ingham's sermon on a new theology on sex. It morphed (my fault mainly, I suppose), and we got our fingers slapped by the Purg moderator, and told to take it "here."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The gay gene tangent started on the previous page but has suddenly racked up a lot of posts today taking this thread a bit too far off topic. It would probably be better on the general Homosexuality and Christianity thread, rather than on this thread about how to live as a gay christian.
Would people move the nature/nurture discussion there, quoting from posts on this thread as need be?
Shipmates should also be aware that there is an open Hell thread, which now has posts relating to this tangent.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
I give up. You can't start threads here, and ANY thread that goes on for half a dozen or more pages is going to wander on, off and back on, topic. The last thing I am going to do, dear Mod, is go to Hell to comment on a thread started there by some chick who is pissed off at me and making personal attacks. I am not on the Ship to defend myself; I am discussing the topic at hand, and ignoring personal attacks.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
You need not defend yourself. It might aid your credibility and increase the amount of respect you are given if you defend your views, however. Your views provoke in many of us emotions so strong that we are only allowed to vent them on the Hell board. If you wished to post on the Hell thread, ignoring the personal attacks but responding to the attacks on your views, i.e. merely debating the issues under discussion, then I expect that the Hell Hosts would tolerate such posts. Please consider this option.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... announce their sexual preferences in public; heteros don't do that either, for some reason. Could be old fashioned social decorum?
You are in Utah - possibly engagement and marriage announcements in newspapers are unknown there.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The gay gene tangent started on the previous page but has suddenly racked up a lot of posts today taking this thread a bit too far off topic. It would probably be better on the general Homosexuality and Christianity thread, rather than on this thread about how to live as a gay christian.
Would people move the nature/nurture discussion there, quoting from posts on this thread as need be?
Shipmates should also be aware that there is an open Hell thread, which now has posts relating to this tangent.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
I give up. You can't start threads here, and ANY thread that goes on for half a dozen or more pages is going to wander on, off and back on, topic. The last thing I am going to do, dear Mod, is go to Hell to comment on a thread started there by some chick who is pissed off at me and making personal attacks. I am not on the Ship to defend myself; I am discussing the topic at hand, and ignoring personal attacks.
hosting
MTM,
You are expected to stay on topic here the same as on the other boards. There are four distinct threads relating to gay issues here. Each covers different ground - their titles guide as to which is which. Occasional tangents are tolerated but not lengthy derails which belong on another open thread and which start blurring threads together.
If you're in doubt about which thread an issue belongs on, you can always ask a host.
Further discussion of nature/nurture origins of homosexuality tangent can be taken to the main Homosexuality and Christianity thread.
Posts on issues of Living as a Christian Homosexual belong here.
Any personal arguments belong on the Hell thread as per commandment 4 of the Ship's rules.
Any discussion of hostly rulings made here or elsewhere belongs in the Styx, and not on this thread.
cheers
Louise
Dead Horses host
hosting off
[ 18. March 2007, 21:22: 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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... announce their sexual preferences in public; heteros don't do that either, for some reason. Could be old fashioned social decorum?
You are in Utah - possibly engagement and marriage announcements in newspapers are unknown there.
Wedding rings also unknown? Nobody holding hands?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... announce their sexual preferences in public; heteros don't do that either, for some reason. Could be old fashioned social decorum?
You are in Utah - possibly engagement and marriage announcements in newspapers are unknown there.
Wedding rings also unknown? Nobody holding hands?
No pictures of the husband or wife and family on desks at work?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Okay. Public demonstrations/displays of affection (PDA). Wedding rings. Pictures of "family" at work, etc. Utah is not populated by a host of weirdos. We are dominated by a "state religion" (tongue in cheek, only sort of....). It has very strong, outspoken views on what is moral transgression, especially in the area of sex. It is also uber Judeo-Christian. So when homosexuality is raised, the instant response is "No."
Mormon homosexuals, even the celibate kind, are viewed popularly as in a state of sin. It is an antiquated mindset which is only slowly being overturned. It is unfair: for instance, nobody gets societal proscription for admitting in public that they lust after the opposite gender, but manage (with the Lord's healing help) to control themselves: as long as they remain innocent of fornication/adultery, they are in a state of Grace. But, if an individual admits that they are attracted only to their gender, and that they will never marry the opposite gender (still viewed hereabouts, as a public demonstration of cooperating with God in the healing from sin process), they are immediately relegated to the ranks of the unrepentant sinners. They cannot ever be allowed to serve in the church (i.e. "hold a calling"). They are expressly not ever to be allowed association with the young women or young men. They are as distrusted as a pedophile: people are sure that their same-sex attraction includes corrupting little boys (if male), or turning little girls into lesbians (if female). A celibate homosexual (bisexual) Mormon, is therefore not given the same treatment as a celibate heterosexual: they are deemed by their self-professed sexual attraction, to be already guilty of sin, before they have ever done anything to act upon that sexual attraction.
That is why, in Mormon circles at least, here in Utah, that homosexuals tend to remain invisible. In public, you cannot tell gender preference differences, because PDA is almost exclusively heterosexual. I can't recall the last time I saw a couple of gays sitting romantically, ignorning passersby, like heteros do. But times are changing....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So, according to your objections, I should be allowed to kill you when I get into one of my uncontrollable (biologically predisposed) rages. It isn't my fault.
How are you going to tell what is acceptable biological predispostion and what is not? If it comes down to the argument: "I am not responsible for my needs and have a right to fulfil myself", then we are playing with Pandora's box.
I EXPLICITLY drew a distinction between an attarction, and a act (not that Ifeel such a distinction is a good one, but i was pandering to your prejudices).
To equate a homosexual and a murderer is so utterly vile.
Most gays and lesbians I know are good people. Funnily enough, I have yet to meet a hate-filled homophobic bigot who was a good person and when they tell me there bigotry and predudice is ok because Jesus agrees with them, then I just want to puke. To say that Jesus held such attitudes is either a lie, or else Jesus wasn't worth a bean, and his death was a good thing in a quite other way to what the Christians say.
Tell me, when did you decide to be straight? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You still haven't provided the slightest evidence for your extremely ignorant, wrong, duplicitous, evil, blashemphous and repugnant assertion that anything which is a result of enviroment means the person has a choice, I note.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That's called self-sacrifice as an act of love.
And telling people that their love isn't valid because your stupid and ignorant interpretation of some religious books written thousands of years ago says so is, pretty genreally, called ugly, hate-filled bigotry of which you should be ashamed.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Papio, I've specifically asked twice now that the general debate about nature/nurture which includes Merlin's post which you quote about biological dispositions be taken to the homosexuality and Christianity thread where others are responding.
Do not continue discussion of those posts here, especially not in the personal vein you have adopted which is a commandment 4 breach and really a commandment 3 breach as well, though you've tried technically to skate around it. Don't think I've missed that. There is an open hell thread on Merlin's posts (see my earlier post above) where you can take those remarks, should you wish to do so.
Everyone, I have allowed the post on homosexuality in mormonism to stand here as it connects with the matter of this thread. If you are not discussing how to live as a Christian or other homosexual then please do not post on this thread.
Louise
Dead horses host
hosting off
--------------------
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
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Papio, I've specifically asked twice now that the general debate about nature/nurture which includes Merlin's post which you quote about biological dispositions be taken to the homosexuality and Christianity thread where others are responding.
I honestly missed that. Sorry about that.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Mathew
Shipmate
# 12605
|
Posted
http://www.affirmationscotland.org.uk/
No great screeds of typing from me - just check this out.
--------------------
The notes I handle no better than many pianists. But the pauses between the notes - ah, that is where the art resides!
Posts: 80 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by dorothea:
Gay people sometimes become straight, straight people become gay. Sexuality isn't always fixed, you know. People struggle to find themselves. Sometimes they fall in love, sometimes they learn to love. Only God can judge our hearts.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) J
Dorothea,
While I agree that sexuality isn't always fixed and is more fluid then our label-loving society like yo give it credit for, there is the very real problem of the Ex-gay movement (organizations like Exodus) which has caused much suffering to gay people out of a very real agenda.
The Royal College of Psychaitrists 'Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.' concludes: 'Although there is now a number of therapists and organisation in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can
help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible. The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial
has been carried out in this field. There are however at least two studies that have followed up LGB people who have undergone therapy with the aim of becoming heterosexual. Neither attempted
to assess the patients before receiving therapy and both relied on the subjective accounts of people, who were asked to volunteer by the therapy organisations themselves 15 or who were recruited via the Internet. The first study claimed that change was possible for a small minority (13%) of LGB people, most of whom could be regarded as bisexual at the outset of therapy. The second showed little effect as well as considerable harm. Meanwhile, we know from historical evidence that treatments to change sexual orientation that were common in the 1960s and 1970s were very damaging to those patients who underwent them and affected no change in their sexual orientation.'
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eru the Elf - Wolf
Apprentice
# 16530
|
Posted
Alright, I've been reading up to the first 30 pages of "Christianity and Homosexuality", wondering if this topic would be brought up. Given that it is here, guess I have more reading to do as this was my original question when I was beginning to read the thread. I admit I'm new here, so I'll start cleaning the decks and scrubbing floors in a little bit. I honestly cannot express how much hope I got after reading Joan the Outlaw - Dwarf's first post, as well as to her position in the previous thread I mentioned. Can't wait to catch up and see what else I can learn, given that I've been struggling with this issue for the past 6 years.
--------------------
"In everybody's life, there's one thing that's the most important. Everything else is shit. It's up to you to find what's most important." -City Slickers
Posts: 5 | From: La Mirada, California | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Welcome, Eru - glad you've found us.
FYI, I've been here for about 6 years now (off and on), I think, and I've never seen this thread before! So thanks for finding it and bringing it to the top.
Welcome again -
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eru the Elf - Wolf
Apprentice
# 16530
|
Posted
Alrighty. After reading what seemed like an eternity of comments and tangents on the subject. I find myself back at square one. The point of this thread is 'Living as a Christian Homosexual'. My question is, after reading everything in the past 7 pages, is this possible? Joan, Inanna, ChastMstr, iGeek, RainbowKate, and many others are are living proof that it is. I'll share my POV and I'd like to know what everyone thinks. After all, opinions are just that, opinions.
After re-writing this twice... X3, I didn't feel the need of going into my own life story so I'm trying to make this shorter by a long ways.
- Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
cross referenced with
1 Corinthians 8:3 "But the man who loves God is known by God."
And then I bumped into:
Galatians 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
After this, I saw the last thing I wrote down and highlighted, I read the following,
Jeremiah 33:3 "Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know."
I was only able to find inner peace by reading these scriptures after about 5 years of diligent prayer for God to take away my homosexuality. One night after I was crushed both spiritually and emotionally by so many events, I found myself grabbing my Bible and turning it to a random page, then began reading and these are some of the things I found.
I finished concluding that in the end, the Lord Almighty God is the Creator of everything. He knew us since before Creation itself was started. He also shows us Grace and Mercy, else we'd all be in hell no matter what. If we reflect what is the Fruit of the Spirit, are we not doing the calling he has set before everyone? We will be recognized by Him for we are His alone... and He sees the Hearts of the people. We don't. In the end I spent 5 years looking for answers, digging through the Exodus Ministry and much more to become 'accepted by society as a heterosexual'. I failed epically.
--------------------
"In everybody's life, there's one thing that's the most important. Everything else is shit. It's up to you to find what's most important." -City Slickers
Posts: 5 | From: La Mirada, California | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Do not say that you failed. You did not. Let's assume* that there is in fact some "treatment" or "method" which will make homosexuals heterosexual, or vice versa. The events you describe simply show that the methods you tried were no effective for you. It's not your fault.
* And let's face it, there is no acceptable evidence that any "treatment" works, but we'll make the assumption.
[ 13. July 2011, 22:11: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Well, but you can't go by what people write on these boards, though, Eru. Many people are arguing over something that doesn't really affect them after they close their browsers; they don't have a first-hand point of view at all.
First of all, this thread is 10 years old; lots of attitudes have changed since then (and probably most of the people who posted aren't even here anymore!).
All I can say is this: I'm myself "living as a Christian homosexual." So are lots of other people. One thing has very little to do, from what I can see, with the other.
Of course, I was a homosexual long before I was a Christian, and never really saw any reason I should change (even if I could have) - so I'm lucky in that respect. I've never really had to worry about the issue, because I didn't join the church until about 5 years ago, when it was mostly all over but the shouting.
I knew I was gay ever gay since I was about 8 years old. It's always felt like the most natural thing in the world - and by itself that fact has never - no, not once - caused me or anybody else any pain. All the pain came from the outside, in the to me inexplicable hatred of other people for homosexuality. In fact, I never really questioned that homosexuality was normal until I came into contact with the church!
So, for me, it's pretty clear that there is no conflict between being Christian and being gay. Some people still don't like it, apparently, but the tide is now very much turning against that as an old cultural attitude.
I don't know if that helps. I hope so....
[ 13. July 2011, 22:42: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
*raises hand*
Living as a Christian homosexual for the last 4 and a bit years, after spending around 17 years before that trying to get rid of the homosexual part.
I genuinely believe it was God who told me to stop trying to get rid of it.
[ 14. July 2011, 01:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eru the Elf - Wolf
Apprentice
# 16530
|
Posted
Gee, forgive me, for my last statement on 'failure' was indeed sarcastic. I see that I never failed, but that God's intention and plan were for me to be this way.
TubaMirum and orfeo, thank you. I struggled grappling mentally about how to be both and still please God. I find it ironic that when I became a Christian, homosexuality came a few years later. I always wondered if 'being born again' meant this was a change. Thought then that leaves me wondering much about other things as well... not the point.
I am accepting myself and my heart is at more ease about it after reading this 7+ year old thread. Some people can change, not all can. I'd like to believe that because I am gay I am able to love more than before. After all, Jesus suffered more than any of us ever will.
Posts: 5 | From: La Mirada, California | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eru the Elf - Wolf:
I am accepting myself and my heart is at more ease about it after reading this 7+ year old thread. Some people can change, not all can. I'd like to believe that because I am gay I am able to love more than before. After all, Jesus suffered more than any of us ever will.
Well, this is all that matters, in my estimation: acceptance and an easy heart, that is.
I have no doubt that I have some part in God's plan - and that my being gay is part of that plan, too. (I could argue this from a purely secular point of view, too, BTW. In fact, for me, they overlap; we're adherents of an incarnational religion, after all. God came to live life here among us, and his plans are bound up with our real, worldly lives.)
God's plans have often looked unusual, from society's point of view. A stuttering spokesman of the people in Moses? A brother sold into slavery in Joseph? The elder brother serving the younger, who is favored (all over the place!)? A crucified king?
Gay Christians? Yes. God is the great confounder of expectations. Perhaps all this is God's way of clearly making the point to the world that: No! You've had this all wrong all these years!
Anyway, I'm glad you feel more at ease - and that you've found your way to us here.
[ 14. July 2011, 12:32: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
When I had my great "coming out" moment -- which wasn't until I was in my 30's -- I felt as if it were a grace given by God to finally be able to name what I'd suspected I was at least since my teens.
So my first response was "Thank you."
Followed by: "Oh, no...now what?"
As far as role models in the Church -- apart from the realization that there have been faithful gay Christians throughout history, I think one useful thing to remember is that early Christians were often condemned for what was considered their "immoral" practice of celibacy; so being a Christian in a sexual minority is nothing new. And I think for me it's been more important to represent as a gay Christian than to look to someone else for guidance in "how to be." As was mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I think Jesus has provided ample instruction for how his followers are supposed to conduct themselves in this world.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
