|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What homos do in bed
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Unless what homosexuals do in bed is to propogate works of supererogation or vainly parade the Sacrament around, I too fail to see the immediate relevance!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Now that conjures up a picture....
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
I don't know any "homos" in real life, but after reading this thread, I think I know what they do in bed: They study all sorts of theological subjects so they can keep up with the discussions on the Ship of Fools.
Best wishes, Mary ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 29. February 2008, 12:34: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
marian
Apprentice
# 12097
|
Posted
Sorry - I linked homosexuality and Articles Of Religion together by accident. Poor editing....I am linking the two issues together however as reasons why The Essentials movement was formed and now is creating so many waves within the rest of the Church.
I would also like to know from other Anglicans how much discussion goes on within their churches regarding the impact of these two issues.
Posts: 3 | From: canada | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
WEll in my parish, we had a couple of sessions talking about the gay thing several years ago when we were asked to do so. General feeling seemed to be that a bible-based position was to be inclusive and welcoming to everybody. We don't turn away single mothers. We don't turn away anyone.
But then, we'd had the experience of Spirit-filled participation in our parish of gay men (single), and of married gay men. Oddly enough, they're just people -- and just like other people.
SPeaking personally, I'm all for faithfulness in marriage -- something modelled at least as well by the gay couples I know as by the straight couples I know, both inside and outside the church. And what I don't know isn't my business, or the church's (especially if by that you mean the parish or its clergy) -- it's God's.
The ANglican CHurch in Canada and elsewhere has always ordained gay men (and women too I suppose in the last couple of decades), some of them active sexually -- it's just preferred not to know. I remember a bishop who lived openly with his same-sex partner in the bishop's house for several years...and then in the deanery of the cathedral in a different city where he went when he resigned his see. No one uttered a word -- neither his congregations nor his clergy nor anyone else at all. And this was in the staid old 60s. For anyone to get upset now is, in the classic sense, trying to shut the barn door long after the horses have escaped. That wouldn't make it right, of course.
What does make it right, in my opinion (and I have to say I have issues with clergy and laity who are sexually active outside marriage -- but then, no one seems to be upset about heterosexual fornication) is that the ministries of many of these people are clearly blessed by God -- they show the fruits of the Spirit as set out by Paul. God has blessed them, and I'm not going to say He's wrong.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marian
Apprentice
# 12097
|
Posted
Thank you John. I frankly don't care what anyone does in bed. I do care about how we perceive each other. And how we judge each other. I feel that the current crisis is caused partly because our Church has not been active enough in bringing the Enlightenment into our century.
Some of us are still 'seeing into the glass darkly'. If one does believe in a personal God - this is the time for Him. As in the words of a play "There are a lot of people down here Lord in great distress. They deserve more than silence"
Posts: 3 | From: canada | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
What does make it right, in my opinion (and I have to say I have issues with clergy and laity who are sexually active outside marriage -- but then, no one seems to be upset about heterosexual fornication) is that the ministries of many of these people are clearly blessed by God -- they show the fruits of the Spirit as set out by Paul. God has blessed them, and I'm not going to say He's wrong.
Absolutely.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Prompted by reflections from RuthW and the Silent Acolyte in the San Jaoquin thread, I'm led to wonder why is homosexuality the hot-button du jour?
What is it about what homos do in bed that gets so many people so exercised?
Ok so it's yucky. But lots there are lots of yucky things that don't send certain kinds of conservatives shrieking out of communion with their co-religionists or flying to their Bibles to tote up injunctions against what are, in effect, a very small minority of people (even amongst Episocopalians).
I don't want to stray into the over-trod territory of whether homosexuality is right or wrong; I'm interested in why it is an issue of such moment that someone would break communion over it (when they would not over, say, the Doctrine of the Atonement or theology of the Eucharist).
Why are conservative hets so obsessed about the 'mos?
"Okay, so it's yucky". Oh yeah? Well, I consider heterosexual sex to be "yucky". Ewwwwww, penises! Yuck, yuck, yuck! Why did you feel the need to throw that comment into the discussion? Although I am a lesbian, I don't frequently say negative things about my straight friends sexuality.
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marian:
*snip*
I would also like to know from other Anglicans how much discussion goes on within their churches regarding the impact of these two issues.
I've heard lots of monologues in recent years, but precious little discussion. Perhaps I've been unlucky in my geography.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Spikey Pants, I don't think he was saying he thinks it "Yucky" though perhaps I'm wrong. I think HT was noting one of the common objections. It may not be logical (isn't!, I'd say) but to many people it's a gut reaction that certain things are yucky and shouldn't be done. While it's scarcely an argument, I do think that's the biggest thing many people have against gay sex. It feels anathema to them, so they wish it were an anathema to others. (Not claiming that anyone on this thread feels so, but I've definitely heard the argument stated that way.) If it were just a logical argument, one could try to defeat it.
ETA a subjunctive
[ 27. March 2008, 20:33: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I agree, Gwai, but it does explain why us queers get so angry about the discussions had in churches. Like you, I think sex is sex is sex and its all either a bit sqeamy or none of it is. But the discussion is too often framed that only queer sex is yucky and therefore we are a bit yucky as well. And perhaps not quite human.
That's certainly my experience, anyway.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amiyah
Shipmate
# 11989
|
Posted
quote:
Again and again, throughout his ministry Jesus sought to undermine the link between morality and disgust. Touching lepers, menstruating women, dead bodies: in his culture these were powerful gestures that challenged all those who would construct morality on the basis of repulsion
This article by Giles Fraser is about the yuck factor and sex. I think it's spot on. He is right - the reality of life is sticky, squelshy and smelly.
There are a lot of times in life when something or someone might seem revolting on a visceral level, which might be easy to reject and run away from, but where we are actually morally obliged to put aside that revulsion and be kind.
--------------------
Previously called MirrorMouse
Posts: 120 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MirrorMouse:
[There are a lot of times in life when something or someone might seem revolting on a visceral level, which might be easy to reject and run away from, but where we are actually morally obliged to put aside that revulsion and be kind.
Or at least polite. That's what got me over and over in church circles - how rude people were to me and my beloved.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Really, if one truly believes that homosexuality is an immoral choice, does one also believe one can encourage another to give up that choice by being rude to them? Or is it more that one figures the other will not change (of their own stubborn, sinful self-will), and thus is to be treated rudely, as Jesus encouraged us to do? Or...? I sense a new thread.
(Not speaking with a lot of margin of course because I am insufferably rude far too often, although generally speaking I am an equal-opportunity boor.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Well I always wondered! Specially after a long afternoon listening to anti-gay ministers salivate over the supposed perversions they attributed to us queers. I came to believe it was their form of pornography.
However, to be really fair, I actually preferred the really vocal anti-gay people to those who cloaked their opinions behind a facade of caring for my soul. Much easier to deal with.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beachlass:
My point.
And that's even setting aside the lesbians and their cats.
What about me and my cat?!
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
I'm offended by the idea held by some that all gay people are sex-crazed perverts. Speaking as a gay man, I would simply like to have a companion to walk my life of faith together. Yes, sexual activity is a part of a relationship, but it is not the only part.
IMHO, a thoughtful Christian ethic emphasizes the values of compassion, reciprocity and justice. I certainly believe that everyone is called into lives of holiness. But I believe that holiness can be realized in either a homosexual or a heterosexual relationship.
I agree with you about having a life companion. My partner and I, both committed (or committable!) Christians have many medical issues that definitely keep us from being sex-craving fiends! Also, we just don't like that sort of nonsense. We work, in our own small ways, for justice, peace, mercy for all God's children. Why, then, are we still condemned for our "lifestyle"? I'm so sick of people policing others on things that are not their business!
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Spikey Pants, I don't think he was saying he thinks it "Yucky" though perhaps I'm wrong. I think HT was noting one of the common objections.
Just so. Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
So I understand how the popular perception might find the idea of gay sex unpalatable, I *don't* understand why it's the deal-breaker in church circles.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
Folks, I've got news. To the best of my knowledge, the proportion of straight couples (1 male, 1 female) that have engaged in that yucky activity is significantly higher than the corresponding proportion of gay (2 males) couples. And as for straight men thinking anal sex is yucky, have you heard of the "Butt Man Does ... " series of videos? They're for straight men.
In other words, there's a very good chance that a significant number of those heterosexual people going on and on about anal sex being yucky are actually doing it and (presumably) enjoying it. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Makes you think of another word that starts with H, doesn't it? Maybe the real problem with what homos do in bed is that they aren't lying about it. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Spikey Pants, I don't think he was saying he thinks it "Yucky" though perhaps I'm wrong. I think HT was noting one of the common objections.
Just so. Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
So I understand how the popular perception might find the idea of gay sex unpalatable, I *don't* understand why it's the deal-breaker in church circles.
Ooops! Sorry! You know how we oppressed people can be: Always seeing discrimination lurking around every corner and hiding under every bush. Uhhh, "bush" meaning a small shrub and not a stupid current American president or a slang term for a woman's....ahem!
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
beachpsalms
Shipmate
# 4979
|
Posted
If you haven't figured out that it's a clitoris hiding behind the bush, and not discrimination: You're doing it wrong.
--------------------
"You willing to die for that belief?"
"I am. 'Course, that ain't exactly Plan A."
Posts: 826 | From: a hamster's cheek-pouch full of raisins | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
Folks, I've got news. To the best of my knowledge, the proportion of straight couples (1 male, 1 female) that have engaged in that yucky activity is significantly higher than the corresponding proportion of gay (2 males) couples. And as for straight men thinking anal sex is yucky, have you heard of the "Butt Man Does ... " series of videos? They're for straight men.
In other words, there's a very good chance that a significant number of those heterosexual people going on and on about anal sex being yucky are actually doing it and (presumably) enjoying it. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Makes you think of another word that starts with H, doesn't it? Maybe the real problem with what homos do in bed is that they aren't lying about it. OliviaG
I think it has little to do with anal sex being "yucky", but is all about old fashioned gender roles. In anal sex, there is a receptive and an active partner. For many, heterosexual anal sex is ok as long as the woman is the receptive partner and the man is the active partner. It is strongly patriarchal, as long as the man is "on top", everything is ok.
The reason why some find anal sex between two men revolting is because they see it as a man willingly taking on the role of a woman. It has to do with the construction of masculinity. The idea of a man being a "bottom" disgusts people who grow up with certain perceptions of gender roles.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
Indeed. Research indicates that young kids (especially boys) use 'gay' as an insult long before sex and sexuality is a significant concern for them** and before they even understand what homosexuality actually is. It's about policing the boundaries of masculinity. And so situational homosexuality is "OK" in some sub-cultures, particularly in prison, but only if one is the penetrator.(Just like it was in ancient Rome - see the "Peter and Paul" thread.)
**This was before 'gay' morphed into an all-purpose kidspeak term of disapproval a la Eric Cartman btw.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beachpsalms:
If you haven't figured out that it's a clitoris hiding behind the bush, and not discrimination: You're doing it wrong.
And I always thought it was a clematis in my back-garden
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
Folks, I've got news. To the best of my knowledge, the proportion of straight couples (1 male, 1 female) that have engaged in that yucky activity is significantly higher than the corresponding proportion of gay (2 males) couples. And as for straight men thinking anal sex is yucky, have you heard of the "Butt Man Does ... " series of videos? They're for straight men.
In other words, there's a very good chance that a significant number of those heterosexual people going on and on about anal sex being yucky are actually doing it and (presumably) enjoying it. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Makes you think of another word that starts with H, doesn't it? Maybe the real problem with what homos do in bed is that they aren't lying about it. OliviaG
I think it has little to do with anal sex being "yucky", but is all about old fashioned gender roles. In anal sex, there is a receptive and an active partner. For many, heterosexual anal sex is ok as long as the woman is the receptive partner and the man is the active partner. It is strongly patriarchal, as long as the man is "on top", everything is ok.
The reason why some find anal sex between two men revolting is because they see it as a man willingly taking on the role of a woman. It has to do with the construction of masculinity. The idea of a man being a "bottom" disgusts people who grow up with certain perceptions of gender roles.
So, by this argument, the same people offended by homosexual anal sex (but seemingly less so by married heterosexual anal sex) would be more bothered if the woman were to use an implement (say, a dildo) to penetrate the man than if the man was buggering the woman.
Clearly, someone has to do a research survey on this... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why the to Peppone LQ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
This might be a complete tangent, but today I was having a look through some research into gender and sexuality for aspies, and was amazed to read that, according to research by someone with the unpronoucible name of E. Ingudomnukul, women aspies are eight times more likely to be bisexual than women who are 'neurotypical', and that both characteristics (aspie and sexuality) are directly linked to the amount of testosterone measured in the individual.
My lesbian friends will be delighted with the potential news about me, though hubby seems a little ambivalent about it
Anyway, it seems to me to be more evidence that people really could be born to prefer particular genders. Intriguing...
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
It's very hard not to be sceptical about claims that the "reasserter" lobby is "rooted in love." For one thing, their own rhetoric belies any such suggestion. Second, as Ricardus and DJO point out, the historical facts don't back up such a claim. And finally, the response to homosexuality has simply been disproportionate.
I find it hard to articulate this, but it's weighed on me, so bear with me.
The people who argue against homosexuality in current Anglicanism take a very different stance than I would if I happened to believe that same-sex unions were a sinful form of sexual expression. Were I to be persuaded of such a position, my practical approach to same-sex pairs would actually change very little. It certainly wouldn't resemble that of most people who hold that position.
At worst, I would maintain that same-sex partnerships were a fallen form of sexuality, but I wouldn't be so naďf as to propose a blanket requirement of celibacy. I would continue to hold that persons who found that they were homosexual should (as Anglo-Catholic confessors used to counsel) avoid promiscuity and form faithful relationships. I would continue to support a form of liturgical recognition for such relationships (much like the Orthodox allow second marriages, even though they are seen as falling short of the ideal). And I would continue to reject a difference in standards for clergy and laity.
So, it's not that I can't understand holding the "contra" position. I just can't understand why they draw from it the conclusions they do, rather than following a train of thought like what I've described above.
[cross-posted with amber.]
[ 15. May 2008, 19:11: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So, by this argument, the same people offended by homosexual anal sex (but seemingly less so by married heterosexual anal sex) would be more bothered if the woman were to use an implement (say, a dildo) to penetrate the man than if the man was buggering the woman.
Clearly, someone has to do a research survey on this...
People have done research on this topic, and exactly this distinction is maintained in a number of cultures. Here is an article on attitudes towards penetration in Norse and Welsh mythology that I came across when writing my poem Gwydion which is a retelling of the Fourth Branch of the Mabinogion. (How disconcerting to find that my notes to the poem come up second when you type "Gwydion Mabinogion penetration" into Yahoo. It doesn't show at Google at all.)
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The argument from Tradition is I think the strongest one. I heard from conservatives who argue that liberals are arrogant to basically say to the vast majority of Church Fathers and the Saints that they are all wrong in opposing same-sex genital contact.
Generally the conservatives have a point. Most of the Church Fathers were far from "gay-friendly" and saw homosexuality mixed in with idolatry and the excesses of the Roman culture.
But my response is that even the Church Fathers are not infallible. Many Church Fathers, with the exception of Justin Martyr, wrote certain things that today would be construed as anti-semitic. Some Church Fathers said nasty things about women.
My approach to Tradition is to engage with it both respectfully and critically. To accept Tradition blindly is IMHO to shut our brains and to deny our own very authentic experiences that might be the will of the Spirit working in our lives.
Basically just saying that Tradition speaks against Homosexuality is not sufficient. I need to understand the reasons why. I don't believe God gave me a brain for me to follow every order from Church and Tradition blindly.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why the to Peppone LQ?
As ever, Martin's posts are hard to understand (but so often worthwhile trying to persevere!) but I felt compelled to investigate what this could be referring to. I may be wrong but the only time I could see that Peppone had posted on this thread was in the first few posts on page 1 (back in February). And LQ's response included the
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) smiley not the one. So I'm still confused by what point Martin is trying to make here.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Gracious Reb - YEEE ha ... dang muh britches yer right boor. Hot & Hormonal I might be, but LQ used Tear. I just thought I'd stir the pot again, get the tasty burned stuff up from the bottom.
LQ seems to be implying that Peppone is being sweetly naieve. Or just sweet. Dunno.
Whereas Peppone is being orthodox AND liberal. Liberal by disposition, orthodox by ... faith.
I'm positively perverse by disposition. I mean it WOULD frighten the horses. 'ang on, no not THAT bloody bad, but bad enough. The dead man is still walking. I might not get up to much ... now ... but my hypnagogic and less hypnopompic mind ... my me ... can be spectatuclarly lurid.
Impure.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is that Julian Clary getting in to my spectacular?
Strewth!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Straight people tend to equate 'gay sex' with buggery and (especially) straight men think anal sex is yucky.
Folks, I've got news. To the best of my knowledge, the proportion of straight couples (1 male, 1 female) that have engaged in that yucky activity is significantly higher than the corresponding proportion of gay (2 males) couples. And as for straight men thinking anal sex is yucky, have you heard of the "Butt Man Does ... " series of videos? They're for straight men.
In other words, there's a very good chance that a significant number of those heterosexual people going on and on about anal sex being yucky are actually doing it and (presumably) enjoying it. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Makes you think of another word that starts with H, doesn't it? Maybe the real problem with what homos do in bed is that they aren't lying about it. OliviaG
I think it has little to do with anal sex being "yucky", but is all about old fashioned gender roles. In anal sex, there is a receptive and an active partner. For many, heterosexual anal sex is ok as long as the woman is the receptive partner and the man is the active partner. It is strongly patriarchal, as long as the man is "on top", everything is ok.
The reason why some find anal sex between two men revolting is because they see it as a man willingly taking on the role of a woman. It has to do with the construction of masculinity. The idea of a man being a "bottom" disgusts people who grow up with certain perceptions of gender roles.
So, by this argument, the same people offended by homosexual anal sex (but seemingly less so by married heterosexual anal sex) would be more bothered if the woman were to use an implement (say, a dildo) to penetrate the man than if the man was buggering the woman.
Clearly, someone has to do a research survey on this...
I gather many evangelicals might not be aware of what strap-on sex is.
It seems weird to me. The female clitoris and the male prostrate are places of sexual stimulation. None of those organs is related to procreation. If God only intended that sex was to be for procreation only, why did he create the clitoris and the prostrate?
Perhaps there is value in sexual pleasure alone, within a life-affirming relationship of course.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I gather many evangelicals might not be aware of what strap-on sex is.
How could they have missed all of Dan Savage's columns on pegging? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If God only intended that sex was to be for procreation only, why did he create the clitoris and the prostrate?
Prostate, my good man, prostate. Whether or not God intends for us to have sexual pleasure lying flat on our stomachs (=prostrate) is a conversation for another day.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Good Heavens. All these years I've been singing, "All hail the power of Jesus' name. Let angels' prostates fall." It didn't make a whole lot of sense.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bonabri
Shipmate
# 304
|
Posted
Prostate/prostrate!
MT
Deep joy!
Posts: 274 | From: Brighton and Hove, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I gather many evangelicals might not be aware of what strap-on sex is.
How could they have missed all of Dan Savage's columns on pegging? OliviaG
Dan's columns are a constant source of education
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And since the anti-Christian German philosopher has been brought into the discussion, I will bring the ancient and modern understanding of the Church on passions. Is homosexuality another passion or not? Because that's how the desire for another person of the same sex has been experienced by the church in the past two thousand years.
I think this hits it. Constructing an identity called "homosexual" allows us to easily forget that any of us are liable to these feelings or temptations, and that orientation is much more fluid than most of us (straight or gay) are comfortable admitting : plenty of men who were predominantly straight in their 20s turn out to be interested in men 20 or 30 years later, and the phenomenon of Lesbian Until Graduation is also well-documented.
I don't think it's accidental that Christian thought on the matter has focused on actions rather than ontology : sodomy as something someone does , rather than something he is . It seems to me that although a through-line can be drawn from prohibitions in Jewish law, the more telling rhetoric comes through the Greek ethicists who disparaged boy-love.
I do happen to believe that we aren't to engage in same-sex sexual activity, but this is not a prohibition we have any right to enact on the world at large. And the more any given crusader foams at the mouth about the issue, the more convinced I am that he's nurturing some curiosities and desires he doesn't want anyone to know about.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
With all respect, I completely disagree that all of us are likely to feel homosexual interests. Certainly some people do and certainly some may repress these feelings so that they do not know it until later. Perhaps you have felt these feelings so you think we all have. However, many (I suspect most) gay people have never been attracted to a member of the opposite sex and many (most?) straight people have never been attracted to a member of the same sex. I do agree that perhaps there is a continuum and some people could go either way, but that scarcely proves we all can naturally do so.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
:To the best of my knowledge none of the Saints ever argued in favor of same-sex couples. None. From the oldest times of the Old Testament to the most modern elders. None argued in favor... This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the advocates of same-sex couples in church."
So David and Jonathan doesn't count?
It seems to me that citing David & Jonathan as a prototypical gay couple is anachronistic. What textual evidence can you point to that suggests their friendship was sexual, or even romantic?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by Otter:
the automatic assumption that all homosexuals relationships are shallow and tawdry
I'm actually rather curious about this. I recently went to one of the residences in my college to visit a friend, while she and her floormates predrank before going out for the evening to a college function. While I was there, I met one of the denizens of my friend's hall, who apparently has something of a "pervy" reputation. He remarked to us that on a certain level he wished he were gay, since he would have a more varied and active sex life. I was reminded of Michael Thomas Ford's essay in which his heterosexual friend laments that "If I were gay, I would get head all the time" to which Ford replies in the essay that his friend has clearly never dated any of the men Ford has.
Similarly, I have a friend who is similar to me in many ways. We are both relatively traditional Catholic Anglicans who aspire to the priesthood. He, though, is a heterosexual, and periodically has sexual intercourse with his girlfriend. However, he has made very clear his belief that if I should enter into a union of exclusivity and intended permanence, I should not expect to be considered a suitable candidate for Holy Orders. He says this with no trace of irony, and insists that his relationship is Biblically sanctioned purely because it is heterosexual in nature.
He's a hypocrite, but you already knew that.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
:To the best of my knowledge none of the Saints ever argued in favor of same-sex couples. None. From the oldest times of the Old Testament to the most modern elders. None argued in favor... This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the advocates of same-sex couples in church."
So David and Jonathan doesn't count?
It seems to me that citing David & Jonathan as a prototypical gay couple is anachronistic. What textual evidence can you point to that suggests their friendship was sexual, or even romantic?
The textual evidence is not going to "convert" anyone. Obviously people on both "sides" are going to read it the way the choose. The "reappraiser" argument is that the language in the passage in question is not used for any (other) platonic friendship in the Bible.
Personally, however, I think that seeking a Biblical sanction for same-sex relationships is pointless. I'm much more interested in talking about how we use the texts we've inherited - and, in the case of the ones we don't, why not.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I gather many evangelicals might not be aware of what strap-on sex is.
It seems weird to me. The female clitoris and the male prostrate are places of sexual stimulation. None of those organs is related to procreation. If God only intended that sex was to be for procreation only, why did he create the clitoris and the prostrate?
Perhaps there is value in sexual pleasure alone, within a life-affirming relationship of course.
Ahem, AB.
The prostate is, in fact, related to procreation. It produces between 10-30 % of the seminal fluid in which those little guys squirm, and the smooth muscles contained in the prostate also help to expel the ejaculate, without which none of us would be here today. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Also (though it's probably been pointed out to you already), there is a difference between "prostrate" and "prostate".
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
:To the best of my knowledge none of the Saints ever argued in favor of same-sex couples. None. From the oldest times of the Old Testament to the most modern elders. None argued in favor... This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the advocates of same-sex couples in church."
So David and Jonathan doesn't count?
It seems to me that citing David & Jonathan as a prototypical gay couple is anachronistic. What textual evidence can you point to that suggests their friendship was sexual, or even romantic?
None!
I believe that those who assume David and Jonathan were gay have a limited sense of the nonsexual possibilities of passionate same-sex friendship?
Rabbinic tradition insists adamantly that their relationship was platonic. In the ancient Near East covenants were agreements or oaths made to resolve differences between conflicting parties, vassal and lord, or conqueror and conquered. The word love used in covenant making denoted the kind of attachment people had to a king more than interpersonal affection.’
Feminist theologians talk of texts of terror for women. This could be a text of terror for men. Why? It’s about a young man whose father is trying to force him to go into “the family business,” - monarchy. Jonathan has no desire to be king: he keeps throwing away the opportunity through making impetuous moves on the battlefield,
arguing with his father, stripping off all his symbols of office and handing them to David, making repeated efforts to save the life of the only person who can overthrow the throne.
Some scholars rationalise Jonathan’s abdication to David because they cannot understand a noncompetitive, intimate, loving relationship between men. Gay men more readily recognise and credit human love and not politics as the most important arena of life. Jonathan puts personal affection before social and family approval. Saul is quick to judge, just as our society is quick to judge. Saul seems to assume that Jonathan’s relationship with David is sexual. He lashes out at Jonathan: “You son of a crooked whore, do you think I can’t see that you have chosen the son of Jesse, to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?
This story makes friendship look dangerous. The men get hurt emotionally: men today are so unsure about emotions that they avoid them whenever possible, especially the ones that hurt. Jonathan appears to foul up his career by feeling for David. Since male identity comes from what we do for a living and from success
the threat of emotions destroying a career is frightening.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bonabri:
Prostate/prostrate!
MT
Deep joy!
Surely not deeper than a couple of inches at most?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Well, there's that bit where David mourns Jonathan, saying "Your love for me was wonderful/surpassing the love of women." And they sure kiss a lot for straight guys.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Been reading Andreas - strikes me that his vision of healing brokeness to become ?like God? is very similar to the buddhist path to nirvana.
Just out of interest, given that the bible says absolutely nothing on the subject - is there any specific teaching on lesbian relationships in the Orthodox tradition ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
bonabri
Shipmate
# 304
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by bonabri:
Prostate/prostrate!
MT
Deep joy!
Surely not deeper than a couple of inches at most?
I just knew when I posted this that it was going to be interpreted in that fashion. Some people!!
Posts: 274 | From: Brighton and Hove, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
