Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
I'm also astounded that they seem unaware of the gross damage done over many decades and centuries by people in the church (that's "the church", not the conservative christian version) professing love and compassion while in fact treating certain people in such a way that they are driven to despair and death -- sometimes at their own hands, sometimes at the hands of good "christians" who read the church's subtext as being "get the gayz".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Blaming the victim for not being strong or not realizing that the people who ostracize and maltreat them really love them, deep down, or for running when a posse is chasing after you with clubs -- seems a little...unaware of what has been happening in the real world for a good long while.

Real people have died real deaths because of what the church has said and because of how christians have acted. It would be nice to get some real acknowledgement that this has happened. And that it's not the fault of the victims.

John

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And that's why I say Christian teaching is essentially a shell game. Apologists will hand wave away any teaching or behavior they don't personally like as "not really Christian", while others do the same to them for taking contrary positions. In essence this leaves Christianity an empty shell saying nothing beyond "it's nice to be nice".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that marriage is connected to procreation and then say Oh BTW, it doesn't matter if the couple chooses not to have children. Since we do not deny marriage to couples who have no intention on having children, there is no logical reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

---

Er, that was my original point that attracted the ire of Louise, Joanna et al.

I said that I thought that marriage assumes children, I just didn't say that marriage = children.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...
Suicide, he thought, was the only answer.

---

Well, he was wrong.

If Christianity changes it's collective mind and allows that homosexuality, homosexual acts, homosexual unions being called 'marriage', etc., is all ok, there will be no more violence against homosexuals, and none will commit suicide? I don't think you would get that result. Why? Because it is not Christianity that is at fault here.

Violence (including gay-bashing) is wrong. Suicide is wrong. However, those are both contrary to Christian teaching as well.

What is the root cause of violence against homosexuals? If you say it is Christian teaching, then what about Islam? Does it not also teach that? What about Judaism? Certainly there are other groups as well who hold similar beliefs relating to homosexuality. One could argue that one possible cause is a distorted/wrong understanding of Christianity. My argument is that it is not Christian teaching which causes violence towards homosexuals, because Christianity also teaches loving your neighbour, praying for those with whom you disagree, etc.

A true Christian groups all that teaching into a response towards homosexuals that is based on love, not violence and hatred. That is why I say it is not Christian teaching that causes such violence.

However, love doesn't always mean 'agreeing with'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you trying to say that in your view intention to have children is necessary, but not sufficient?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
It doesn't ultimately matter, does it, because either way you'd still need to contort some reason why infertile couples do not invalidate the rock-solid requirement of capacity for procreation, unless the cause of their infertility is having gotten two of the same box from the Heavenly Ikea. I once read a comment on Fr Haller's blog that tried passionately to argue that infertile straight couples were still really oriented toward procreation in a way gay couples weren't, because, well, they just are, you know?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you trying to say that in your view intention to have children is necessary, but not sufficient?

---

Yep, pretty much.

I am well aware that not everyone shares my definition (pace John Holding) but I would argue that it is still very much a mainstream view.

I'm not an Anglican but was married in the CofE. We had a standard ASB service at the time. I'm also very familiar with the BCP. They both explicitly state procreation as one of the purposes of marriage (not the main one, but certainly one of them).

All those Anglicans and Episcopalians out there - what do you feel when that bit is formally said at every wedding?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And as to the prayer book, when I realised that the critical bit in Genesis 2 says nothing about procreation I went and asked my Anglican Minister about the basis for that part of the marriage service. Didn't get much of an answer. I'm not sure whether I've been to a wedding since I asked him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Some people are given to glutony. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches it is a sin?

Some people are given to gossip. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches it is a sin?

Some people are compulsive liars. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches it is a sin?

Some people don't honour their parents, worship idols, covet their neighbour's possessions, etc. Do they get beat up and commit suicide because the church teaches they are sins?

No. No. No. and No.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
...To be fair to LQ and others I think that is the point they are making. ...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Er no, stuff like that most certainly does work, what you need to do is single out not a sin which everyone is prone to but one that tars a particular minority group, ask European Jews and Scottish Catholics how that worked. We used to have groups stoning catholic religious processions in the name of religion down til the 1930s under the name Protestant Action and we still have sectarian attacks. There is no doubt that the anti-catholic teaching was started and perpetuated by the church - there was appalling and well documented anti catholicism even among ministers at that time. When the church backed away from it the teaching had been so long and so pervasive in Scotland that it lingered in yahoo football supporters and groups like orange Lodges who still claim their religious connection.

Anti-gay prejudice has worked in a similar manner. the churches which first spread the rot are starting to recover but they've left a hell of a legacy that will take a long time to clear up.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.

---

Since we obviously understand each other's position, but are at an impasse, I think I will have to sign off.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Yes, there really isn't much middle ground on this topic, I agree. The Christian churches can either choose to remain oblivious to the pain and death this teaching causes, or become aware of it and stop.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Yes, there really isn't much middle ground on this topic, I agree. The Christian churches can either choose to remain oblivious to the pain and death this teaching causes, or become aware of it and stop.

---

I think Sharkshooter's point is that all the extra shit that gays have to deal with and gossips don't does not follow inevitably and necessarily on homosexuality being contrary to a church's teaching. He's not saying that it doesn't exist. He's not saying that it's right. He's saying that it is (at least theoretically) possible for a church to condemn a form of sexual conduct and yet not treat the people who do it in the way that many churches have treated gays.

Louise's point that homosexuality is a 'sin' of a minority group, not a failing common to all humans, is a good one. It means that a Christian minister convinced of the sinfulness of homosexuality, but knowing that neither he nor most of his congregation would be tempted by it, ought to approach the subject with the greatest humility and sensitivity. I don't think that it establishes that the churches all ought to accept homosexuality unreservedly. There's clearly an issue to be addressed, if one takes the Bible as authority, and the case for acceptance is not proven by the mere fact that many non-acceptors have acted appallingly.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But do you not see the problem, even here? That - for very little reason - gay people are again singled out as unworthy and punished severely for something that we haven't chosen and that in fact harms nobody else? That we're being asked to live lives that most heterosexuals would consider unlivable and in fact subhuman?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrsDoyle:
The Roman Church goes further than saying we are "intrinsicaly disordered", the current pope added a very nasty caveat :
-Ratzinger, in fact, apparently worried that the 1975 statement did not go far enough. He noted that in the public discussion that followed the Declaration, “an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good.” For the sake of removing ambiguity, he went on to write, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
Even in celebacy it would seem just being gay is not nuetral and we have a greater tendency to "moral evil"

---

quote:

---

Please notice that there are two logical barriers which the ecclesiastical argument cannot jump without falsifying it’s own doctrine. The first is this: The Church cannot say “Well, being that way is normal, something neutral or positive, the Church respects it and welcomes it. The Church only prohibits the acts which flow from it”. This position would lack logic in postulating intrinsically evil acts which flow from a neutral or positive being. And this would go against the principle of Catholic morals which states that acts flow from being – agere sequitur esse. The second barrier is this: the Church cannot say of the homosexual inclination that it is a desire which is in itself intrinsically evil, since to say this would be to fall into the heresy of claiming that there is some part of being human which is essentially depraved – that is, which cannot be transformed, only covered over.

....

[The] characterisation of the gay or lesbian person as a defective heterosexual is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the prohibition, as the authors indicate with the “must be considered” of their phrase. The problem is that, for the characterisation to work properly within the doctrine of original sin and grace, it would have to be the case that the life of grace would lead the gay or lesbian person to become heterosexual in the degree of his or her growth in grace. That is to say, in the degree to which grace makes us more patient, faithful, generous, capable of being good Samaritans, less prisoners of anger, of rivalry and of resentment, just so would it have to change the gender of the persons towards whom we are principally attracted. The problem is that such changes do not seem to take place in a regular and trustworthy way, even amongst the United States groups which promote them with significant funds and publicity. As the senior representatives of such groups indicate: at most, and in some cases, a change in behaviour is produced, but the fundamental structures of desire continue to be towards persons of the same sex.

This then is the conflict: for the prohibition of the acts to correspond to the true being of the person, the inclination has to be characterised as something objectively disordered. However, since the inclination doesn’t alter, unlike desires which are recognisably vicious, the gay or lesbian person would have a desire which is, in fact, intrinsically evil, an element of radical depravity in their desire. And we would have stepped outside Catholic anthropology. Or, on the other hand, the same-sex inclination is simply something that is, in which case grace will bring it to a flourishing starting from where it is, and with this we would have to work out which acts are appropriate or not, according to the circumstances, and we will have stepped outside the absolute prohibition passed on to us by tradition.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

A bound conscience is one which cannot go this way or that, forward or backwards, is paralysed, scandalized. In that sense it is a form of living death, and those afflicted by it are living dead, and many of us are or have been such people. For example: we are familiar with the notion of a ‘double-bind’ or a ‘Catch 22 situation’. A bound conscience is a sense of being formed by a double-bind or a series of double binds. For instance: ‘My command is that you should love-but your love is sick’; or, ‘You should just go away and die-but it is forbidden to kill yourself’; or ‘The only acceptable way for me to live is a celibate life, but if they knew who I really was, they wouldn’t allow me to join’, or ‘Of course you can join, but you mustn’t say who you really are’; or ‘You cannot be gay, but you must be honest’. Many of us have been inducted into such patterns of desire over time. They classically follow the form, ‘Imitate me, do not imitate me’. If you find yourself drawn towards someone, and yet the underlying message is, ‘Be like me, do not be like me’, you will be scandalised, eventually you will judder to a halt, unable to move forwards or backwards.

What I would like to suggest is that in all these cases we are dealing with a self that has been formed by being given contradictory desires without being given any ability to discern where they might appropriately be applied. In other words, two instructions are received as on the same level as each other, pointing in two different directions at once, and the result is paralysis. This is what σκάνδαλον-skandalon-refers to in the New Testament-scandal, or stumbling block. Someone who is scandalised is someone who is paralysed into an inability to move. And the undoing of σκάνδαλα-skandala – which means the unbinding of double binds that do not allow people to be, is what the Gospel is supposed to be about.

I want to make it quite clear that we are dealing with something very basic and central to the Gospel here. It is perfectly possible to present the Gospel in such a way that it is a sort of double-bind. Any sort of presentation of the Christian faith which says, ‘I love you but I do not love you’, or ‘I don’t love you as you are, but if you become someone different I will love you’, is in fact preaching a double-bind, a stumbling block, a pathway to paralysis.

Let’s imagine the conversation between a false god and the self:

False god: I want to love you, but I can’t love you as you are, because you are sinful and objectively disordered.

Self: Well, what then must I do to be loved?

False god: You must become someone different.

Self: I’m up for it, show me how.

False god: Love isn’t something that can be earned, it just is.

Self: Well then how do I become the sort of person who can be loved?

False god: If I were you I would start somewhere else.

Self: That’s a great help. How do I start somewhere else?

False god: You can’t, because even starting off for somewhere else starts from you, and you can’t be loved.

Self: Well if I can’t start off from somewhere else, and I can’t start off from where I am, what can I do?

False god: Give up on the love thing; just obey and be paralysed.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

Louise's point that homosexuality is a 'sin' of a minority group, not a failing common to all humans, is a good one. It means that a Christian minister convinced of the sinfulness of homosexuality, but knowing that neither he nor most of his congregation would be tempted by it, ought to approach the subject with the greatest humility and sensitivity. I don't think that it establishes that the churches all ought to accept homosexuality unreservedly. There's clearly an issue to be addressed, if one takes the Bible as authority, and the case for acceptance is not proven by the mere fact that many non-acceptors have acted appallingly.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

I do think, though, that someone ought to be able to hold the opinion that it is, without being responsible for all the evil stuff that others who have held that opinion have inflicted.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

Are you saying that being gay is a form of infertility? Or (more likely) I've completely misunderstood you?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you trying to say that in your view intention to have children is necessary, but not sufficient?

---

Yep, pretty much.

I am well aware that not everyone shares my definition (pace John Holding) but I would argue that it is still very much a mainstream view.

I'm not an Anglican but was married in the CofE. We had a standard ASB service at the time. I'm also very familiar with the BCP. They both explicitly state procreation as one of the purposes of marriage (not the main one, but certainly one of them).

All those Anglicans and Episcopalians out there - what do you feel when that bit is formally said at every wedding?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[See: Book of Common Prayer: Holy Matrimony (Warning PDF!)

---

quote:

---

Bestow on them, if it is your will, the gift and heritage of children, and the grace to bring them up to know you, to love you, and to serve you. Amen.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.

---

Since we obviously understand each other's position, but are at an impasse, I think I will have to sign off.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

Later I would find out that during that period when conservative Scots Christians queued to write to the letter pages and denounce gay and lesbian people across the media from TV to tabloid newspaper, the number of attacks on gay people went up. To those of you who want to claim this sort of thing doesn't happen, I can only say, it happened here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
This is also why I have little patience with attempts to take us back into the 1st arts philosophy classroom and to claim we have to establish a foolproof basis of all morality before we take our foot off the neck of our neighbour. Firstly, I don't think such a thing exists, so this is pretty much saying 'let's put it off til Doomsday', secondly we don't say 'let's convene a seminar and establish the basis of morality' before we feed the poor or clothe the needy, do we? I bet that's not your normal response, Johnny, to finding out that people about you are suffering. I bet you're one of the first people to help others and probably do a lot more of that than an obsessive historian-type like me who too easily goes chasing historical research in her spare time. I bet Sharkshooter is a far better more practical person who does far more good than me too.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
This is one of the clues that the "conservative" position is not a "faithfully-held position of conscience." Faced with hard questions about their position that they cannot answer satisfactorily, its proponents simply declare an "impasse" (meaning that they've run out of counter-arguments) and offer to "agree to disagree" (meaning to retain their position after it has outlived the arguments they gave in support of it). Sincere positions are discarded when they can no longer be accounted for.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.

---

Since we obviously understand each other's position, but are at an impasse, I think I will have to sign off.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
And as far as the virgin birth bit goes doesn't it have to happen to be a miracle? I don't think hypothetical miracles count. I'm not being flippant here - God could do just about anything hypothetically. I am aware of couples conceiving 'miraculously' - and the scriptures are replete with them - but I'm not aware of this ever happening to a gay couple. I don't get the point you are making - i.e. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, just confused as to why you think this is significant.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The sin is that the church continues in its anti-gay teaching, when it's become blindingly obvious how much damage it does and continues to do.

---

Since we obviously understand each other's position, but are at an impasse, I think I will have to sign off.

---

Because you've hit upon the problem for Christianity and homosexuality. I'm increasingly becoming convinced that there is no way for a Christian to both uphold traditional teaching on homosexuality and be faithful to Christ's command to love God and to love neighbor.

Homosexuality is not the same thing as gossip, gluttony, or any other trait that the Church traditionally condemns. In those cases, the Church provides a pastoral response that allows a person to fully repent of this trait and be faithful to one's integrity. What LGBT people are saying is that to conform to the traditional teaching on homosexuality requires one to violate one's own integrity. In essence you are asking us to violate the commandment to bear false witness to be faithful to Romans 1.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
This is one of the clues that the "conservative" position is not a "faithfully-held position of conscience." Faced with hard questions about their position that they cannot answer satisfactorily, its proponents simply declare an "impasse" (meaning that they've run out of counter-arguments) and offer to "agree to disagree" (meaning to retain their position after it has outlived the arguments they gave in support of it). Sincere positions are discarded when they can no longer be accounted for.

---

No. You cannot have your cake and eat it LQ.

On several occasions, even on this thread, I've been asked why I bother posting on this thread if I haven't changed my mind yet. Intransigence and remaining in the discussion has been repeatedly cited as evidence for how callous I must be.

When someone like Sharkshooter treats individuals with respect don't confuse that with copping out of the discussion. This issue is not just about 'communities', it is about individuals too. I may 'agree to disagree' with someone when I can see that they are getting personally distressed by my arguments but that doesn't (necessarily) mean that I'm no longer able to account for my position.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you rather missed the point that many people believe it already HAS happened once.

There's a serious theological question there. If God thinks that heterosexual sex is so incredibly vital and important, why did he completely bypass it himself?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Withdrawing from the discussion because your position has not prevailed is not respect, it is copping out. It is the abdication of the responsibility of moral reasoning in order to defend one's ego from cognitive dissonance. No one is distressed by your arguments; we are distressed by your perseverance in your view in the absence of argument, as one by one they are called into serious question, and your only response is an assertion that you are able to account for your position. Well, that's good, but would you like to share that account with the rest of us? Because saying you can do it isn't the same thing.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I worked for a Lutheran Missouri Synod church for a couple of years. Although their theology is much more conservative than mine, I was impressed at how conscious they were of how we all sin and miss the mark, and thus they were much less apt to go pointing their fingers at other people. Also, I was with them at the time of Desert Storm. At the outbreak the church had an evening service. It was not just a "protect our brave soldiers" rite. There was meditation on how war, any war, was part of the brokeness of the world. And we prayed that God would help all involved come to a peaceful resolution.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus was never married and he even said that there will be no sex in marriage.

---

I assume you meant no sex in heaven?

--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
What's always been frustrating to me - and to a not-negligible number of gay people, including I think quite a few on this thread - is that I'm fairly conservative myself, theologically!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
What's always been frustrating to me - and to a not-negligible number of gay people, including I think quite a few on this thread - is that I'm fairly conservative myself, theologically!

---

We should form a new denomination, or movement, or something. I'm not sure we're as rare as you think...

---