|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lesbians and the Bible
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To aggg,
quote:
First you're stating that same sex relationships are disfunctional because they cannot procreate.
thats correct isnt it, can you cinfirm your agreement there? procreation needs sperm and egg provided by male and female.
quote:
But then you're not applying the same thought to my heterosexual relationship.
No. You are. By heterosexual relationship I assume you mean male and female which is the relationship that can procreate as opposed to a one sex one.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
[QB] To aggg,
quote:
First you're stating that same sex relationships are disfunctional because they cannot procreate.
thats correct isnt it, can you cinfirm your agreement there? procreation needs sperm and egg provided by male and female.
I don't accept your definition of disfunction. Not all relationships are based on reproduction - hence I have friends who are elderly. Not all sexual relationships are based on reproduction - see the example I gave above.
quote:
quote:
But then you're not applying the same thought to my heterosexual relationship.
No. You are. By heterosexual relationship I assume you mean male and female which is the relationship that can procreate as opposed to a one sex one.
What? We CANNOT reproduce. Do you need me to draw you a diagram?
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
More to the point, I have lesbian friends who have reproduced - via donor sperm. Sort that one out, then.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
More to the point, I have lesbian friends who have reproduced - via donor sperm. Sort that one out, then.
They're obviously evil. Because BMS said so.
I believe he has also taken a dislike to maroon, the number 37 and all planets which orbit the sun beyond Saturn.
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Amber,
quote:
More to the point, I have lesbian friends who have reproduced - via donor sperm. Sort that one out, then.
The sperm comes from a male so no, your lesbian friends have not reproduced, one of them has reproduced with a male's sperm.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To aggg,
quote:
I don't accept your definition of disfunction. Not all relationships are based on reproduction - hence I have friends who are elderly. Not all sexual relationships are based on reproduction - see the example I gave above.
None of that addresses what I said. The question was do you accept that procreation needs sperm and egg from male and female. If you accept this reality then how can you say that’s not the function of male and female as opposed to one sex together? I think it is outside reality.
quote:
What? We CANNOT reproduce. Do you need me to draw you a diagram?
As I said I wasn’t referring to you, I was referring to male/female being able to reproduce as opposed to male/male or female/female.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
So...if I had a male and female friend who are married and they could only have children via donor sperm or egg, they wouldn't have 'reproduced' either? So does that mean their marriage is invalid too? Jolly confusing, all this.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To aggg,
quote:
I don't accept your definition of disfunction. Not all relationships are based on reproduction - hence I have friends who are elderly. Not all sexual relationships are based on reproduction - see the example I gave above.
None of that addresses what I said. The question was do you accept that procreation needs sperm and egg from male and female. If you accept this reality then how can you say that’s not the function of male and female as opposed to one sex together? I think it is outside reality.
quote:
What? We CANNOT reproduce. Do you need me to draw you a diagram?
As I said I wasn’t referring to you, I was referring to male/female being able to reproduce as opposed to male/male or female/female.
You keep insisting on bringing the subject back to your own questions which you demand answering but you do not do the same courtesy to others, by answering their questions. You just ignore that.
aggg has given you an example but to you it's all about you, and your point of view. You say, "None of that addresses what I said" but how about you addressing what others have said as well? You are just repeating yourself.
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To aggg,
quote:
I don't accept your definition of disfunction. Not all relationships are based on reproduction - hence I have friends who are elderly. Not all sexual relationships are based on reproduction - see the example I gave above.
None of that addresses what I said. The question was do you accept that procreation needs sperm and egg from male and female. If you accept this reality then how can you say that’s not the function of male and female as opposed to one sex together? I think it is outside reality.
The function for male and female is to have children. Thanks for that pearl of wisdom.
quote:
quote:
What? We CANNOT reproduce. Do you need me to draw you a diagram?
As I said I wasn’t referring to you, I was referring to male/female being able to reproduce as opposed to male/male or female/female.
OK listen, let us go thru this very slowly:
TMS: single sex relationships are disfunctional because they cannot reproduce
aggg: ok, but then I cannot reproduce
TMS: yes, but women-women relationships can never reproduce
aggg: ok, but people in my situation can never reproduce either
TMS: you are not addressing my point: reproduction requires egg and sperm
aggg: ok but relationships are not all about reproducing, see my point above
TMS: well I wasn't talking about you.
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Alicia,
quote:
You keep insisting on bringing the subject back to your own questions which you demand answering but you do not do the same courtesy to others, by answering their questions. You just ignore that.
That’s incorrect, I never said relationships were based on reproduction alone, friendships for example aren’t.
If you believe it is courtesy then perhaps you could address my questions in the first place.
Do you accept that procreation needs sperm and egg from male and female. If you accept this reality then how can you say that’s not the function of male and female as opposed to one sex together? I think it is outside reality.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Do you accept that procreation needs sperm and egg from male and female. If you accept this reality then how can you say that’s not the function of male and female as opposed to one sex together? I think it is outside reality.
Nope, it doesn't need sperm and egg. Cloning, for example, can produce perfectly viable life with no male-female reproductive process whatsoever.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
I need to go out for a walk because I'm tired of the circular argument raging over about three threads.
TMS: most human relationships are not about sex. Most human sexual relationships are not about reproducing. Just a fact, son.
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
bms: do you actually deny that there might be relationships among people that aren't based on sex?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Alicia,
[QUOTE]
If you believe it is courtesy then perhaps you could address my questions in the first place.
Do you accept that procreation needs sperm and egg from male and female. If you accept this reality then how can you say that’s not the function of male and female as opposed to one sex together? I think it is outside reality.
I haven't said any such thing, or stated my position on the subject.
If I must answer your repetitive question, then I would state that at this moment in time, procreation needs sperm and egg from male and female, but it is not beyond possibility that in the future this may not be the case, as it turns out, as you can see in this National Geographic Article from 2004. (and as Amber stated, reproduction can also occur by cloning) I don't personally think that reproduction defines reality in any case, however. Loving relationships are not necessarily ones which produce babies, sometimes the opposite is true. This is also reality, for some.
[ 04. January 2010, 11:30: Message edited by: Alicïa ]
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
I can see no point to this so I'm going to bow out.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Stejjie,
quote:
This is the attitude in the sexuality debate that I've never understood: the idea that homosexuals cannot be Christians. Why not?
I would agree with you, anyone can become a Christian.
I think I would go with the interpretation that first you become a Christian, and then God sorts out the problems. Otherwise we are all in trouble.
So, if someone is homosexual and a Christian then either (1) they have not thought about whether this is a contradiction, or (2) the Lord has not brought it to their attention yet because there are other issues to be worked through first, or (3) they have thought and prayed about it and have come to the conclusion that it is not a contradiction.
With regard to (3), you may wonder how they could come to that conclusion, but it is not your place to come down on them like a ton of bricks.
BMS: If you cannot stomach (3) as an answer, then perhaps you would accept (2). In that case you may wonder why the Lord does not immediately convict them of their "sin", as it seems to you to be the most dastardly sin of them all. Well perhaps the Lord knows their heart better than you and will get round to it, once he's dealt with other, more pressing, problems?
For my part, I am always disturbed to find the sins by which I am tempted ("greed", "jealousy", "hatred", "discord", "envy") listed alongside such obvious "big" sins that do not tempt me ("idolatry", "witchcraft", "orgies", "drunkeness") (YMMV). In accepting that I sin in the "little"(*) things, I can more easily overlook the same "little" sin in my brother. But it is all too easy for me to condemn in others those "big" sins that I do not commit or could not imagine myself doing. So I need to address the log in my own eye before trying to help my brother with the speck in his.
-Dal Segno
* FAOD, I put "big" and "little" in quotes because the point is that all of these sins are equal, but that each person seems to consider some of more importance than others.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To aggg,
you have set up your own straw man. Sexual reproduction is the reason for there being male and female, not the reason for relationships. There are different kinds of relationships, friendships, business partnerships, Christian fellowship and they arent dependent on one type of sex.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Alicia,
quote:
If I must answer your repetitive question, then I would state that at this moment in time, procreation needs sperm and egg from male and female, but it is not beyond possibility that in the future this may not be the case,
In that case one wouldn’t need a partnership at all. The reality is there is still a need for a sperm and an egg, which comes from male and female. If you are suggesting the sperm or egg are artificially created it would be no use creating sperm for a male couple.
quote:
Loving relationships are not necessarily ones which produce babies, sometimes the opposite is true. This is also reality, for some.
Not necessarily, it depends on what you interprêt loving to mean.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Not necessarily, it depends on what you interprêt loving to mean.
What do you interpret loving to mean? There are many reproductive relationships with no love, and many non reproductive relationships with love. What do you think it means, and why do you assume it is not real?
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Dal Segno,
Thanks for your post which I think makes some progress.
quote:
I think I would go with the interpretation that first you become a Christian, and then God sorts out the problems. Otherwise we are all in trouble.
I agree.
quote:
So, if someone is homosexual and a Christian then either
If they are a Christian they are a Christian, their sexual orientation is irrelevant because
quote:
(1) they have not thought about whether this is a contradiction,
and
[quote] or (2) the Lord has not brought it to their attention yet
quote:
(3) they have thought and prayed about it and have come to the conclusion that it is not a contradiction.
Then I don’t see how they could be a Christian if the Lord has brought it to their attention and they have prayed about it and decided the Lord is wrong.
quote:
With regard to (3), you may wonder how they could come to that conclusion, but it is not your place to come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Well again I would say it is if you read Galatians 6 and 1 Corinthians 5. It shows they have no place to come to that conclusion, coming to that conclusion means they probably haven’t come to faith in Christ.
Dal Segno, all are entitled to their opinion, it is the justification for the opinion that we debate.
quote:
(2). In that case you may wonder why the Lord does not immediately convict them of their "sin",
Perhaps because they don’t know, believe or trust the Lord?
quote:
as it seems to you to be the most dastardly sin of them all.
No it doesn’t, if you look at my posts you will see the scriptures I have cited and posted show the sins of same sex relations together with all the other sins. I have maintained against a hierarchy.
quote:
Well perhaps the Lord knows their heart better than you and will get round to it, once he's dealt with other, more pressing, problems?
But I have been referring to the word of God in the scriptures, what is the truth, not judging what peoples hearts are.
quote:
For my part, I am always disturbed to find the sins by which I am tempted ("greed", "jealousy", "hatred", "discord", "envy") listed alongside such obvious "big" sins that do not tempt me ("idolatry", "witchcraft", "orgies", "drunkeness") (YMMV). In accepting that I sin in the "little"(*) things, I can more easily overlook the same "little" sin in my brother. But it is all too easy for me to condemn in others those "big" sins that I do not commit or could not imagine myself doing. So I need to address the log in my own eye before trying to help my brother with the speck in his.
What speck? Some are saying there is no speck.
wha speck are you referring to.
Remmeber it is the speck and log I am referring to not whose eyes they may be in. If the speck of same sex relations isnt a spec, then removing the log wont help see any speck.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Brightmorningstar, it's certainly true that human reproduction currently requires an egg from a woman and sperm from a man. But that doesn't have much bearing on whether or not marriage between two people of the same sex is necessarily sinful, unless you believe that the sole, at least primary purpose of marriage is reproduction.
When God made Eve and presented her to Adam, he didn't say anything about reproduction. He said that Adam needed a helper, and he created Eve to help Adam. But to help with what?
To help him by bearing children is one possible answer, of course. But there is nothing in Scriptures that says that. That's an inference that some people have drawn.
A different inference, one that is more commonly accepted in the Eastern Orthodox church, is that he needed Eve to help him become holy. He was created innocent, but God wanted more than innocence from him, he wanted holiness. And human beings have an awfully hard time becoming holy on their own.
Most people will find their path to holiness in marriage. Some will find it in monastic life.
Right now, for an Orthodox Christian, a same-sex marriage isn't possible, but there was a time that a second marriage wasn't possible for an Orthodox Christian, either. The Church decided that, for the salvation of some people, it was better that they enter a second marriage (or even a third) than that they remain single.
It's possible that the Church, some day, may permit gay marriages on the same basis.
In the mean time, since I'm not gay, I haven't a lot else to say on the subject. It's not up to me to tell someone else how best to work out their salvation.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Alicia,
quote:
What do you interpret loving to mean? There are many reproductive relationships with no love, and many non reproductive relationships with love. What do you think it means, and why do you assume it is not real?
I think to love someone, one must love God first, for God is love. So an interaction with someone will only be loving if it is love to God. Essentially God's love is agape, a sacrifical love.
As to sexual realtionships for example, to be loving would be within a faithful man/woman relationship.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
BMS - apologies for the late reply to your post - have been away from my computer for a while.
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Stejjie...
But what they cant become is a gay or straight christian which merely suggests they haven’t yet become a Christian.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) sorry, I really don't understand your point here - please could you clarify?
quote:
That’s like saying one has looked and looked in scripture and one cant see Jesus saying anything about helping the poor. 1 Corinthians 6 is just one example
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Taking your text on-board (and discounting the possibility that Paul might have been talking about a specific issue in Corinth), you've still not clarified why homosexuality is a bigger deal than the other sins listed here. Even if you consider homosexuality a sin (which, I would hasten to add, I don't think I do), it isn't at all clear from this verse that Paul elevates this above adultery, or greed, or theft or anything else. All of which, I'd imagine, are as problematic or more problematic than homosexuality (if you consider that to be problematic).
quote:
I think I have done, to suggest same sex relations aren’t important would be like saying Jesus never said help the poor. It is simply disbelief and denial, of one can ignore and deny what the Bible says about man woman and same sex relationships one could deny anything the Bible says, hence the Lord’s army in Uganda.
Sorry, I don't think you have answered my question: why, in certain circles, is homosexuality elevated in terms of its sinfulness and potential effect on salvation more than other sins? Why, as Mark Wuntoo said, is this so vehemently preached against in certain churches and by certain preachers, when no one mentions the other things?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Brightmorningstar, I honestly wish you could meet my partner and me, come to church with us, hang out at our home with us, and see what our mutually loving, mutually respectful, mutually God-honoring relationship -- supported by our faith community, by the way -- is like. Because your posts have an abstract quality about them suggesting to me that you really haven't had the experience of seeing that up close.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Josephine,
quote:
Brightmorningstar, it's certainly true that human reproduction currently requires an egg from a woman and sperm from a man. But that doesn't have much bearing on whether or not marriage between two people of the same sex is necessarily sinful, unless you believe that the sole, at least primary purpose of marriage is reproduction.
The point I made is that there are two sexes for sexual reproduction so yes any sexual relationship of just one sex is dysfunctional. As to marriage, it depends what you mean by marriage, marriage in the Bible is man and women yet you have implied it can be of two people of the same sex.
quote:
When God made Eve and presented her to Adam, he didn't say anything about reproduction. He said that Adam needed a helper, and he created Eve to help Adam. But to help with what?
But He did, He made male and female and told them to reproduce. You don’t seem to know your Bible.
quote:
It's possible that the Church, some day, may permit gay marriages on the same basis.
Jesus said all authority in heaven and on earth is given to Him so disciples are to make disciples obeying all He taught, so its not up to the church, if a church makes a decision opposite to Christ’s truth then it has no authority from God.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Lutheranchick,
quote:
Brightmorningstar, I honestly wish you could meet my partner and me, come to church with us, hang out at our home with us, and see what our mutually loving, mutually respectful, mutually God-honoring relationship -- supported by our faith community, by the way -- is like.
I cant as its not God-honouring as I have shown by God's word.
I already have friends who are gay and lesbian and in same sex relationships and know all about their love for me, but its not sexual.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Stejjie,
quote:
sorry, I really don't understand your point here - please could you clarify?
Not really, that was my question to you. To have faith in Christ is to believe and trust what He says and seek to do it. Gay means having a same sex attraction, thye opposite of what God has created people for, which is what a Christian would know and trust.
quote:
Taking your text on-board (and discounting the possibility that Paul might have been talking about a specific issue in Corinth), you've still not clarified why homosexuality is a bigger deal than the other sins listed here.
Its not my text, its what Paul wrote, and assuming Paul is making it specifically clear here that same sex sex is a barrier to the Kingdom, you haven’t seen that I have said that homosexuality isn’t a bigger deal.
quote:
Even if you consider homosexuality a sin (which, I would hasten to add, I don't think I do), it isn't at all clear from this verse that Paul elevates this above adultery, or greed, or theft or anything else.
If the text doesn’t elevated it above adultery or greed or theft or anything else and you don’t consider it a sin, then you cant consider adultery greed, theft or anything else a sin.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
If you consider homosexuality to be the same sort of sin as adultery, greed, and theft then why are some churches so quick to condemn homosexuality but do not condemn their members' greedy desires to have bigger houses, better cars, more clothes, and a nice investment portfolio that invests in companies that thieve off the third world?
IIRC, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Not a single word in any gospel. But he said a lot about giving possessions away to the poor. When you have got down to one set of clothing ("if you have two coats, give one away") then come back and talk to us again.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Wottinger would like to return to this subject
quote:
Originally posted by Wottinger:
We had a discussion at Church recently about gays and lesbians. (See "Eunuchs for Christ's sake! on our blog)
We weren't sure if the Bible or Christian tradition actually says much about Lesbians, we thought the unpleasantness against gays was had gay men more in mind.
Any thoughts?
Can I ask that people ignore the posts by the banned crusader brightmorningstar, but it would be great if people could pick up some of the points from the excellent discussion about Lesbians and the Bible over the first three pages or so.
thanks,
Louise
Dead horses Host
--------------------
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
|
|
Wottinger
Shipmate
# 13176
|
Posted
Thanks for the transfer and for pointing to this discussion Louise. I will review it, and look forward to reading comments.
Its always a shame when one person 'shouts' in such discussions.
--------------------
We'd love you to visit our Church's blog. Just click here. Thanks.
Posts: 349 | From: In the night garden | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
QJ
Shipmate
# 14873
|
Posted
thanks for the open and interesting posts. I don't know any gay women more than to say "Hi" etc.... It's good to get some input from peoples lives.
Yes, as a guy i find Lesbians.....sexual and titalating, and i find men with men not good. someone commented about that.
I would think that most people are not so attractive really. to view sexual inteactions of unattractive people might be best to avoid seeing and yet it goes on all over the earth every day. I find it interesting that a womans breasts look so good and think God has programmed me to find them wonderful. I wish that most of the time i could turn off this attraction and get on with life but i can't. I have so much sin in my life and the closer i get to God the more i know i am failing every day. God is merciful though and loves me anyway.
there has been a lot of talk about being rejected by the church where actually, most people in church reject each other every day for so many reasons but we are all so comfortable in our poor quality love. at least for some, they have the gays to focus on and feel a little better about themselves.
I am thankful that most of the time God does not openly tell me what a failure i am in following his example.
thanks for all your comments and thoughts.
--------------------
QJ
Posts: 111 | From: PA | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I have two good friends who are lesbians, both were brought up in the Church but stopped attending when they came out as lesbian. There was no outward animosity but they didn't feel comfortable either.
One has children (by AID) who she brought up with her partner, and the other doesn't. They both have long term relationships.
As far as the Bible goes, surely we can't take social sexual prejudices from 1000s of years ago and make people abide by them?
Many heterosexual marriages still boil down to financial arrangements. At least lesbian and gay marriages are based on love and care (sweeping generalisation!)
I think mutual giving, caring love between partners matters far more than the gender they happen to be - and if God is love he will agree with me ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Boogie: quote:
Many heterosexual marriages still boil down to financial arrangements.
Now that's biblical!
But I'm not sure that all gay relationships come down to being purely for the sake of love. The world is full of the deluded and neurotic of all gender preferences. Sometimes relationship involves financial security; sometimes it involves having someone to fight with continually yet nobody will walk away. And sometimes sex is hardly the point at all. The point is being there to make someone else happy.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QJ:
...Yes, as a guy i find Lesbians.....sexual and titalating...
If I recall my statistics correctly, a view shared by some 60% of men. But do such men actually mean Lesbians, or women hired by porn directors to pretend they're lesbians and act in ways that please men [rather than necessarily would please lesbian women? (generalising wildly)]. If they do mean lesbians, which sort? (There being at least six types, and some would argue many more).
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Many heterosexual marriages still boil down to financial arrangements. At least lesbian and gay marriages are based on love and care (sweeping generalisation!)
Marriages based on love and care are a fairly recent phenomenon. People in medieval Europe wouldn't have understood the point at all, let alone people in Biblical times. Is the "love and care" criterion the only acceptable yardstick with which to measure the quality of a marriage? What else you got?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I found one of the hardest things to be developing a sense of self as a lesbian in the context of a culture that still likes to define women by their relationships to men (not as much as it used to, but it still happens). This culture doesn't really know what to do with lesbians and tends to portray them in one of two ways:
Type 1: beautiful women who are are there for men's titillation in a porn type setting. These women are fun-loving types who are really waiting for the right man to either "turn" them or just join in with the fun.
Type 2: ugly women who can't get a man and have turned to women instead, or have done so because they hate men.
Moreover, if you are young, long-haired and reasonably pretty you can't be a type 2 lesbian so therefore you must really be type 1 and doing it for men so "can I watch" etc. The hardest thing to get across in the wake of these portrayals is that if there's one thing which really, really isn't about men by definition, it's being a lesbian. It's not about arousing or rejecting men. It's just not about men.
Oh I suppose there may be a third type, which is largely reserved for sitcoms: the lesbian ex-wife who shows up with no personality or plot function beyond making her ex-husband feel uncomfortable about his perceived masculinity and whether or not he is responsible for her sexuality.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Yup, I'd agree with that. Or, a third type, the ones like me who have allegedly 'jumped ship' and found a splendid man, who are seen as traitors to their kind by X amount of lesbians. Or seen by society as inevitably to be defined as bisexual, which many of us really aren't, though it's a difficult one to explain.
It gets into the knotty subject of whether it's outward behaviour or internal focus on a gender that is the defining point, I guess. There's three factors: Conscious thought, automatic inclination, and physical deed.
Are some of our churches fairly OK if we display the outward behaviour of marrying the 'right gender', despite us still having a brain that wants to consider 'things female'? Or are some of our churches determined to 'cure' us of both inclination, thought and deed?
It really is the same sort of minefield as it is for gay men, but yet far less talked about in church circles. Perhaps that is indeed because of the porn 'lipstick lesbian' focus that has a fair number of men seeing it as entertainment?
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
The hardest thing to get across in the wake of these portrayals is that if there's one thing which really, really isn't about men by definition, it's being a lesbian. It's not about arousing or rejecting men. It's just not about men.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I found one of the hardest things to be developing a sense of self as a lesbian in the context of a culture that still likes to define women by their relationships to men (not as much as it used to, but it still happens).
I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water here. I agree with your two caricatures about how society tends to 'classify' lesbians, but I think you are missing a fundamental point:
(Within Christianity at least) there is no isolated definition for anybody. It is impossible to define a man without including his relationships to women and vice-versa. Who I am is as much about my relationship to my mother, wife and daughters as it is anything to do with the discrete lump of flesh and emotions and behaviour that is 'me'.
I hope that we will never stop defining men (in part) by their relationships with women, and vice-versa. This is nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with what it means to be human.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I found one of the hardest things to be developing a sense of self as a lesbian in the context of a culture that still likes to define women by their relationships to men (not as much as it used to, but it still happens).
I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water here. I agree with your two caricatures about how society tends to 'classify' lesbians, but I think you are missing a fundamental point:
(Within Christianity at least) there is no isolated definition for anybody. It is impossible to define a man without including his relationships to women and vice-versa. Who I am is as much about my relationship to my mother, wife and daughters as it is anything to do with the discrete lump of flesh and emotions and behaviour that is 'me'.
I hope that we will never stop defining men (in part) by their relationships with women, and vice-versa. This is nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with what it means to be human.
And my relationships with most women aside from my wife, which are sometimes very deep and fulfilling, have little to nothing overtly to do with sex.
I know gay men who have very serious self-defining relationships with women as women. I don't think that sexuality has to enter into all of these relationships (or even gender, at least explicitly, as there are many ways to be a man and probably to be a woman as well.) Practically, it's one problem I have with both sides of this debate; they both want to reduce people to their sexuality. To me sex shouldn't be that big of a deal.
[ 18. May 2010, 03:30: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Practically, it's one problem I have with both sides of this debate; they both want to reduce people to their sexuality. To me sex shouldn't be that big of a deal.
I agree that reducing people to their sexuality is reductionistic.
That said, our sexuality is an important part of us and (IMHO) any definition that ignores our sexuality is as bad as one that reduces us only to our sexuality.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But isn't saying that sexuality is important another sweeping generalisation? For some people, their sexuality is important, for others it's unimportant, and for many their sexuality is somewhere in between, So for those for whom sexuality is not that important, being reduced to their sexuality is offensive, because it really is not that important to them.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Johnny, I see what you're saying, but it's a lopsided thing. Two points: of course our relationships with other people have a profound impact on who we are, as far as relationships with friends, family, colleagues etc goes. This is talking about a more amorphous concept - someone's relationship with "men." Not any particular man but an entire gender. She's teasing/ rejecting/ hating/ unable to form relationships with "men". I have no issue with being seen as one man's daughter, another's sister, and so on. That's completely different.
Secondly our culture doesn't do the same thing with other gender/orientation combos. Gay men take a lot of hate for other reasons, but you don't tend to hear them characterised as being gay because they can't get a woman or hate women. Straight men aren't "rejecting" other men.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But isn't saying that sexuality is important another sweeping generalisation? For some people, their sexuality is important, for others it's unimportant, and for many their sexuality is somewhere in between, So for those for whom sexuality is not that important, being reduced to their sexuality is offensive, because it really is not that important to them.
I don't follow.
I just agreed that reducing people to their sexuality is reductionistic ... and thus offensive.
However, I can't see how someone would be offended to be defined by their sexuality if it was really not important to them. Bemused probably, but not offended. (If that was all they were defined as then perhaps, but not just the label per se.)
My point was that sexuality should not be the thing by which we define people, but it is one part of what makes up who we are.
For example, if a lesbian really saw sexuality as completely unimportant (I'd wonder how she identified herself as such in the first place if this was the case but let's run with the thought experiment for now) then I can't see how she could possibly object to some Christian telling her that God's plan for humanity was for us all to be heterosexual. Again she'd be rather bemused ("whatever") but I don't see how she could object because, apparently, it just isn't important to her.
I suspect, though, that although there is a spectrum of how important we think our sexuality is, everyone places at least some importance on it. Enough such that the definition has some meaning.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Johnny, I see what you're saying, but it's a lopsided thing. Two points: of course our relationships with other people have a profound impact on who we are, as far as relationships with friends, family, colleagues etc goes. This is talking about a more amorphous concept - someone's relationship with "men." Not any particular man but an entire gender. She's teasing/ rejecting/ hating/ unable to form relationships with "men". I have no issue with being seen as one man's daughter, another's sister, and so on. That's completely different.
Secondly our culture doesn't do the same thing with other gender/orientation combos. Gay men take a lot of hate for other reasons, but you don't tend to hear them characterised as being gay because they can't get a woman or hate women. Straight men aren't "rejecting" other men.
Yes, I can see that.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, I can't see how someone would be offended to be defined by their sexuality if it was really not important to them. Bemused probably, but not offended. (If that was all they were defined as then perhaps, but not just the label per se.)
Who wants to be defined by something that's not important? Not just described as, or commented upon with regards to, but defined? I have a scar on my right thigh. It's not important to me. But I'd be pissed if that were all that a person saw about me, or if they defined me as "right-thigh-scarred".
In fact defining any human being by any one trait, whether it's important to them or not, is insulting and presumptuous.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
What MT said. Also bear in mind that people are more likely to define someone solely in terms of one trait if it's a trait they themselves disapprove of. So my sexuality is no big deal to me, really, but how much of a big deal it is to another person can speak volumes.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In fact defining any human being by any one trait, whether it's important to them or not, is insulting and presumptuous.
Three times now I've said I agree with that.
Solely defining someone by just one characteristic is insulting. A whole lot of factors go into defining who we are. Some of them are more important to us than others.
[ 18. May 2010, 15:23: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Do you read what you yourself write?
quote:
However, I can't see how someone would be offended to be defined by their sexuality if it was really not important to them.
You didn't say by their sexuality and other stuff too. You said by their sexuality. Full stop. Have he conviction to stand by what you write, or the humility to admit you were wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
