|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality - living as an ethical conservative
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
This continues a tangent from the homosexuality book request thread here. A brief summary of the discussion points there that interested me:
- iGeek's contention that a Christian writer and speaker (Andrew Marin) who argues for better understanding and dialogue between Christians and gays may have a hidden agenda on the basis that he (probably) has a conservative sexual ethic.
- Louise's argument that to take a conservative position, especially one based on an acts/orientation distinction, is to align oneself with a tradition of prejudice and discrimination and therefore to invite suspicion.
- A discussion on what exactly are the negative connotations of phrases like "the gay lifestyle" and whether it is reasonable to presume that someone using the phrase intends to endorse those negative views.
- JaneR's question "But if you really believe that your holy book says that having sexual relations with other men is wrong for you, why don't you want to persuade all your (male) friends that it's wrong for them as well?"
If anyone thinks that this summary misrepresents their stated position, then I speak subject to their correction.
I want to take those issues a bit further in this way:
Suppose I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's authoritative word (infallible/inerrant, if you like, but the essential point is that I acknowledge some sort of overarching obligation to do what, properly understood, the Bible tells me). If it makes the empathy any easier, you may add that I also accept to some extent the authority of the Christian church's tradition as a means or guide to interpreting scripture.
Suppose that, having those views, I read Leviticus, and Romans, and the rest of the homosexuality verses, and it looks to me that they do intend mean, and are intended to mean, that every instance of sexual activity between persons of the same sex is forbidden. I find my view supported by a historical Christian tradition.
Suppose that I then go on to consider, in good faith, all context and the counter-arguments, every reasonable other interpretation, and find nothing to convince me. I do genuinely understand what is being argued against the conservative position, but I cannot in good conscience accept it. I feel that to do so would be an attempt to evade the consequences of what my best judgement of what the Bible says would require.
The question is - what are my obligations having (hypothetically) reached that position?
I'm aware that the position itself has been argued against (on occasion, by me) but for this discussion I want to take it as a given. Is it possible that, holding those views, one could live out one's principles in a consistent, ethical, loving and Christian way? Is it right, or possible (or even desireable) that any person holding those views has a right to be treated by gay people without hostility or suspicion? If so, in what circumstances?
Or is it the case that the conservative position is inherently wrong, or inherently damaging? That it is not, and ought not, to be acceptable to gay people (and their sympathisers) for others to even hold it as a private opinion, just as we would condemn privately-held racist opinions?
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?
What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think that the conservative position is inherently wrong and inherently damaging.
So I would ask those who hold to it to re-think their position. Just as I would anyone who holds racist views.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Is it possible that, holding those views, one could live out one's principles in a consistent, ethical, loving and Christian way? Is it right, or possible (or even desireable) that any person holding those views has a right to be treated by gay people without hostility or suspicion? If so, in what circumstances?
Or is it the case that the conservative position is inherently wrong, or inherently damaging? That it is not, and ought not, to be acceptable to gay people (and their sympathisers) for others to even hold it as a private opinion, just as we would condemn privately-held racist opinions?
I think this question comes down to how much the "it's my religion" excuse absolves one of having to answer for one's morality. I think your suggested analogy with racism is a fairly decent one. The amount of leeway we give to privately-held homophobic opinions sincerely based on religion should be about the same as the leeway we grant to privately-held racist opinions sincerely based on religion.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Suppose I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's authoritative word (infallible/inerrant, if you like, but the essential point is that I acknowledge some sort of overarching obligation to do what, properly understood, the Bible tells me). If it makes the empathy any easier, you may add that I also accept to some extent the authority of the Christian church's tradition as a means or guide to interpreting scripture.
Suppose that, having those views, I read Leviticus, and Romans, and the rest of the homosexuality verses, and it looks to me that they do intend mean, and are intended to mean, that every instance of sexual activity between persons of the same sex is forbidden. I find my view supported by a historical Christian tradition.
Suppose that I then go on to consider, in good faith, all context and the counter-arguments, every reasonable other interpretation, and find nothing to convince me. I do genuinely understand what is being argued against the conservative position, but I cannot in good conscience accept it. I feel that to do so would be an attempt to evade the consequences of what my best judgement of what the Bible says would require.
The question is - what are my obligations having (hypothetically) reached that position?
Having reached that position, you have an ethical choice.
On one hand you can love your neighbour as yourself, and treat other people as you would be treated.
On the other hand you can do unto others that which would be hateful unto you. You can act against love and against charity. You can judge and cast stones.
Your choice. And as said above if you've been carefully enought taught to believe in and practice religious based bigotry, I don't care whether it's racism, sexism, or homophobia.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The question is - what are my obligations having (hypothetically) reached that position?
Not to go around buggering other men.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Is fellating allowed?
Depends on if you're giving or receiving. That may sound like a joke, but I've known men who claim there's a difference, theologically speaking.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
Eliab, as a Gay man in a long term realtionship who happens to be in ordained ministry what do I ask of conservative Christians? I work alongside theologically conservative people, I even teach and minister to some of them!
Simply that they relate to me as a person, get to know me and people in my position as people. A brother for whom Christ died if I want to get pious about it. Some cannot accept my ministry, ok but never treat me as a non person.
Also that debates about the issue respect and show care for those of us who are Christian and Gay, Lesbian, Bi or Trans.It is mightily unpleasant to be at the receiving end of a rant! Or to be treated as if I were invisible to avoid the most simple of pleasantries.
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Is kissing allowed:
Allowed? It's practically a Christian requirement.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
a) with tongues?
b) without?
Depends if your Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
My answer would be: How would you treat others who arguably violate Scriptural and traditional prohibitions, but seem to be committing no objective harm to others?
What about those who accumulate [many] possessions? Charge interest on a loan? Are in an interfaith marriage, or in a second marriage while the first partner still alive? Or those who use birth control?
Would you obligate all wealthy people to sell their possessions and give the money to the poor and to stop storing up treasures on earth, as Jesus commanded? Would you invoke 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and tell all remarried people to reconcile with their first partner or choose lifetime celibacy? Or use church tradition to argue against usury or family planning?
Even if one believed that scripture condemns all forms of same sex activity, why would one treat gay Christians any differently than all other sinners who may disagree with your interpretation of Scripture and tradition out there? Why would they be under different obligations than others?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Even if one believed that scripture condemns all forms of same sex activity, why would one treat gay Christians any differently than all other sinners who may disagree with your interpretation of Scripture and tradition out there? Why would they be under different obligations than others?
It's been observed that certain strains of Christianity, particularly among evangelicals and fundamentalists, have reduced the whole of Christian ethics to opposing abortion and making life hard for homosexuals. One of the things that makes this kind of "genital Christianity" so attractive is its simplicity and the fact that it mostly involves condemning sins committed by other people.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Agreed. I'd also assert that it's wrapped in patriarchy in a way that the other sins aren't.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One of the things that makes this kind of "genital Christianity" so attractive is its simplicity and the fact that it mostly involves condemning sins committed by other people.
Except not really. What I find so baffling about the assertion that SSUs are sinful (apart from the lack of harm noted by Dan) is that it's so difficult to tease out what "sin" the homosexual is committing that his married heterosexual accuser is not committing. In order for one type of union to be sanctifiable and the other not, there has to be a moral quality that is a feature of only and all heterosexual relationships and absent from only and all homosexual ones - or vice versa. And try as they might, "traditionalists" can never find that smoking gun.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Eliab, Boogie’s response to your post is illustrative of the problem the conservative view has connecting with other views.
The conservative evangelical response might be something along the following lines.
The conservative view isn’t primarily a question of sexual ethics, it’s a consequence of the view of the inerrancy and authority of scripture. The authority of scripture goes to the heart of the conservative evangelical view of what it means to be a Christian. To abandon the conservative position on sexuality would involve rejecting the authority and inerrancy of scripture. Some in the conservative position might go further and say that homosexuality being on Paul’s List of Bad Things makes it a question of salvation and that people need to be told so, that any alternative theological view is ‘false teaching’ (it’s for your own good), or that while non-Christian’s are not expected to toe the line Christians are.
This is all very well, but the outworking of that theological position will be anathema to people who don’t share its starting point.
I think Marin’s suggestion is to let God do the judging, show Christ-like love, and gay people to discern his plan for them (whatever that might be). Within that, you might hold a theologically conservative position, but reconciliation should not mean capitulation to that position. Similarly, seeing Marin as a kind of Trojan Horse for conservatism is again like reconciliation meaning capitulation. Knowing a person's views means you then know what you should think about them and how you should treat them.
The Bible says what it says. Personally, I think there’s plenty of room for looking at the big picture stuff, being a good neighbour and not being judgemental. There are lots of tensions in being a Christian (e.g suffering v loving God); maybe this is one where the Bible needs less to be an instruction manual and more a map.
My answer to your questions (Eliab) are:
1. Humility, one might feel that it would help if others understood the conservative view but I don’t think one should expect it.
2. nothing.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I would ask a Christian conservative how restoring the quasi-marital blessings of same-sex partnerships that the most conservative parts of the church performed for hundreds of years (in a few remote corners, I gather, still do) would not be a conservative thing to do.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
To abandon the conservative position on sexuality would involve rejecting the authority and inerrancy of scripture.
Well, no. It would involve abandoning a particular interpretation of what the words in Scripture actually mean.
Sorry to pull you up on this one sentence, but it's one of my major bugbears. I consistently get the message that if you believe the Bible is the Word of God, etc etc, then you can't possibly accept homosexuality.
Whereas the basis of my acceptance of homosexuality is that more than one interpretation of is open, and that the interpretation that what the Bible condemns is homosexual rape, homosexual ritual orgies and homosexual exploitation fits far better than the interpretation that all homosexual sex is inherently wrong.
That doesn't involve any rejection of the authority and inerrancy of scripture.
EDIT: Later in your post, you say "The Bible says what it says". What it says is a mere starting point for figuring out what it means.
[ 14. October 2011, 01:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Orfeo said: Sorry to pull you up on this one sentence, but it's one of my major bugbears. I consistently get the message that if you believe the Bible is the Word of God, etc etc, then you can't possibly accept homosexuality.
You're right, but that's how conservatives often see it.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?
Would you mind shutting up and going away, please?
quote:
What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?
Should we take care not to let the door hit us in the ass on the way out?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?
Would you mind shutting up and going away, please?
quote:
What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?
Should we take care not to let the door hit us in the ass on the way out?
Why are the answers different?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?
Would you mind shutting up and going away, please?
quote:
What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?
Should we take care not to let the door hit us in the ass on the way out?
Why are the answers different?
What, you're suggesting that perhaps the conservatives should be asking the gays to shut up and go away, for example?
I think the answers are different because the history of verbal, psychological and spiritual abuse between Christian conservatives and gay men and women has been something of a one way street. Provide me with anecdotes or statistics on how many Christian conservatives have been driven to self harm or suicide by the oppressive teaching of gay men and women, and I might change my mind.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...What, you're suggesting that perhaps the conservatives should be asking the gays to shut up and go away, for example?
...
I'm suggesting that what is fair and reasonable is that each treat the other with equal respect. If I am expected to shut up and go away, how do you hold me to a standard of treating you with respect?
That is unreasonable.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sharkshooter, they are different because in the one case, conservatives may be expressing an opinion on the relationships of gay people. In the second case, gay people are not, in general, passing any judgement on "the heterosexual agenda" as it were. When that starts to happen, then it would be quite in line for conservatives to tell gays to stop banging on about how perverted and depraved they find straights.
As ken pointed out upstream, if you hold what, for the sake of argument if not accuracy, we shall call a conservative view of homosexuality, then no-one is obliging you to engage in it.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think this question comes down to how much the "it's my religion" excuse absolves one of having to answer for one's morality. I think your suggested analogy with racism is a fairly decent one. The amount of leeway we give to privately-held homophobic opinions sincerely based on religion should be about the same as the leeway we grant to privately-held racist opinions sincerely based on religion.
That's not exactly what I meant by ‘privately-held' since (according to the link) the movement you cite generally supports racial segregation. If so, they have moved from the private sphere to the public with their view.
If they didn't do that, but supported full legal equality for all races, I think I would still consider it reprehensible to believe that people of one race are worth more than those of another. Racism is an injustice in itself - you have the right to be considered a human being in the full sense whatever your race, and I don't need to actively discriminate to deny you that right.
It seems to me that there is a distinction between acts and orientation for homosexuality which there isn't for race. I am well aware that the distinction has been abused, and from the parent thread to this one, it seems that even raising the issue can invite suspicion of homophobia, but that doesn't mean that it is not valid. Orientation is analogous to race, but conduct isn't. Judging a person to be worth less because of their sexuality is unjust for the same reason that racism is unjust, and thus inherently wrong.
But disapproving of sexual behaviour isn't in the same class, it seems to me. Everyone in the world has the right to have me ascribe basic human dignity to them, but no one in world (except possibly my immediate family) who needs or is entitled to my endorsement of their sexual ethic. Nobody is required to seek my approval before having sex, and no one is wronged if I (privately) withhold that approval. I can agree that someone has the right to decide for themselves who to have (consensual, non-abusive) sex with, and at the same time think their decisions in that area while none of my business, are such that I would not, for moral reasons, have taken them. And I can say so (sensitively) if asked.
Matariki's response above, as well as being enormously gracious and thoroughly Christian, also implies that while conservatives may not accept his ministry, he does not need their approval. And he doesn't. He has his own vocation to pursue and if he (and those to whom he ministers and is accountable) see no problem between that and a partnered gay home life, then what any outsider thinks is irrelevant. Would it be unfair to him if I said "Fine, and I hope God blesses you, but I personally would not seek ordination if I were in a gay relationship, and would not begin or continue a gay relationship if I were ordained.*"? Would it injure or demean him to know that I had a different sexual ethic and would make different choices? I think not.
The weakness in that is that it seems so hard to stop at mere polite disagreement. I don't think there is any necessary progression from "I wouldn't live in that way if ordained" to "Ordained people should not be allowed to do this" to "We need to get rid of all gay priests". But it seems to happen a lot, especially on this issue. Living with disagreements seems to be something that Christians find it hard to do.
(*For clarity - this is a hypothesis. I wouldn't say that, not least because I have, as far as I can tell, little inclination to homosexuality, and no call to ordained ministry, so I don't know what I would do. The liberal arguments about the gay verses in the Bible seem plausible, but not compelling to me - I genuinely do not know how much I would dare to rely on them if I were gay, but I have a strong disinclination to judge any Christian facing that decision, whichever way he or she makes it.)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...
As ken pointed out upstream, if you hold what, for the sake of argument if not accuracy, we shall call a conservative view of homosexuality, then no-one is obliging you to engage in it.
What you are looking for is a one-sided debate on the issue. As long as one side is free to express their opinion, the other side will continue to exercise the same freedom.
If both sides agree to shut up, that is fine. I am ok with that.
So, for example, if you want to say "any discussion of homosexuality is off limits" I'm good. But you cannot let the "pros" talk and expect the "cons" to sit idly by.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...
As ken pointed out upstream, if you hold what, for the sake of argument if not accuracy, we shall call a conservative view of homosexuality, then no-one is obliging you to engage in it.
What you are looking for is a one-sided debate on the issue. As long as one side is free to express their opinion, the other side will continue to exercise the same freedom.
If both sides agree to shut up, that is fine. I am ok with that.
So, for example, if you want to say "any discussion of homosexuality is off limits" I'm good. But you cannot let the "pros" talk and expect the "cons" to sit idly by.
Sorry, lack of clarity of expression. the "it" to which I refer in the sentence you quote is homosexual activity, not debate about it.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...
As ken pointed out upstream, if you hold what, for the sake of argument if not accuracy, we shall call a conservative view of homosexuality, then no-one is obliging you to engage in it.
What you are looking for is a one-sided debate on the issue. As long as one side is free to express their opinion, the other side will continue to exercise the same freedom.
If both sides agree to shut up, that is fine. I am ok with that.
How about treating each side as they generally advocate treating others? Loving who we want to on the gay side. And denouncing the Conservative side as wicked, perverted, and sex-obsessed. Throwing them out of churches. I could go on.
Now I don't think that the cons entirely shutting up is what should happen. But I do think that handwringing that these people are being mean in suggesting it is intensely hypocritical.
[ 14. October 2011, 11:36: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...What, you're suggesting that perhaps the conservatives should be asking the gays to shut up and go away, for example?
...
I'm suggesting that what is fair and reasonable is that each treat the other with equal respect. If I am expected to shut up and go away, how do you hold me to a standard of treating you with respect?
That is unreasonable.
I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
I get it. The best way to stop you beating us up is for us to go away.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
Let's see. In one corner we have people wanting to live together and get married. In the other corner we have people sometimes going so far as to try to pass laws to kill them. The linked law was inspired by Conservative Christians.
Your side is doing active and direct harm to the other. From raping them to jailing them to killing them. Are you seriously saying that they shouldn't be protesting against this?
And if you aren't suggesting that they should roll over and let themselves literally be killed by groups of homophobes such as Conservative Christians, how the fuck dare you suggest that they shut up. How the fuck dare you suggest that they allow your people to advocate that they be killed without pushing back?
The serious heat is coming from the homophobic side of the debate. Your side is leading to deaths. To rapes. It is therefore only your side that can back down. Your side can stop persecuting. Can stop lining up and throwing stones.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
I get it. The best way to stop you beating us up is for us to go away.
If you were treated with respect, that would stop the beatings? No?
Are you really saying that unless we are silent, you will get beaten up? That our speaking on the issue is the cause of the beatings?
That's a load.
There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian.
Obviously there is no room for discussion here, so, have fun.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It seems to me that there is a distinction between acts and orientation for homosexuality which there isn't for race. I am well aware that the distinction has been abused, and from the parent thread to this one, it seems that even raising the issue can invite suspicion of homophobia, but that doesn't mean that it is not valid. Orientation is analogous to race, but conduct isn't. Judging a person to be worth less because of their sexuality is unjust for the same reason that racism is unjust, and thus inherently wrong.
If you prefer to analogize with religious discrimination, that's fine with me. The distinction between orientation and conduct seems an artificial way to obscure hatred. For example, if someone claimed to be perfectly okay with Jewish belief (for example), but had strenuous objections to Jewish conduct (wearing a yarmulke or tallis, keeping kosher, attending synagogue, learning Hebrew, etc.) most of us would see that as a distinction without a difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The weakness in that is that it seems so hard to stop at mere polite disagreement. I don't think there is any necessary progression from "I wouldn't live in that way if ordained" to "Ordained people should not be allowed to do this" to "We need to get rid of all gay priests". But it seems to happen a lot, especially on this issue. Living with disagreements seems to be something that Christians find it hard to do.[/QB]
Part of the reason is that most conservative formulations of Christianity also posit that it is the duty of all believers to actively spread their beliefs and "rescue" those who violate God's Will™ from an eternity of torture at the hands of their Merciful Deity. Under that kind of reasoning just about anything done to homosexuals is justified, provided it turns at least one of them from his/her course.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian.
Ahem.
quote:
Assault Complaints Filed after Incident at Church
A gay Gibson County couple said they were assaulted when they tried to attend church services at the Grace Fellowship Church in Fruitland last Wednesday.
"I went over to take the keys out of the ignition and all the sudden I hear someone say 'sick'em,'" said Gibson County resident, Jerry Pittman Jr.
Pittman said the attacked was prompted by the pastor of the church, Jerry Pittman, his father.
"My uncle and two other deacons came over to the car per my dad's request. My uncle smash me in the door as the other deacon knocked my boyfriend back so he couldn't help me, punching him in his face and his chest. The other deacon came and hit me through my car window in my back," said Pittman. He said bystanders did not offer assistance. He said the deacon yelled derogatory homosexual slurs, even after officers arrived. He said the officers never intervened to stop the deacons from yelling the slurs.
That Scotsman sure gets around.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If you were treated with respect, that would stop the beatings? No?
Are you really saying that unless we are silent, you will get beaten up? That our speaking on the issue is the cause of the beatings?
That's a load.
I have already provided a link showing that Conservative Christians preaching what they do leads to people trying to make being gay punishable by death.
quote:
There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian.
Except when it is the behaviour of a group of Conservative Christians including the pastor. And that was earlier this month.
quote:
Obviously there is no room for discussion here, so, have fun.
There is room for discussion. There is room for discussion about whether it is possible to be a Conservative Christian and a civilised human being. You seem to be the main advocate in this thread for it to be impossible to be both.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
Ahhhh... the old "both sides do it" fallacy.
I don't have to go to Africa to find many, many, many instances of Conservative Christians doing their upmost to make life hard for gay people. It's happening here in North America.
Last time I checked it isn't gay people who are trying to pass laws barring Conservative Christians from applying and holding jobs free from discrimination based on who they are. It isn't gay people who are sponsoring amendments to stop Conservative Christians from getting legally married. It isn't gay people that were demonstrating against anti-bullying initiatives that made it safe for Conservative Christian kids to go to school free from harassment. It isn't gay people who are setting up "ministries" in order to convert straight Conservative Christians to homosexuality (while ignoring repeated statements from professional psychological and psychiatric societies that state out how emotionally harmful this kind of therapy is.)
And all too often I turn on the news to watch Conservative Christians demonize gay people, inciting hatred toward us. These self-identified Conservative Christians tell the most outrageous lies (yes lies) about us with a so-called "straight" face, for Jesus (!). Gay people aren't trying to put laws in place to make being a Conservative Christian illegal, but some pretty mainstream Conservative Christians still advocate reinstating "sodomy" laws (and some even advocate Levitical punishments.)
I just watched all of this lying for Jesus happen (again) here in New York State during the gay marriage debate (after witnessing it in Canada in 2004). Pentecostal pastors and Roman Catholic bishops alike were making the most un-Christian, untrue statements about gay people and our lives. It made me (again) embarrassed to be a Christian. These lies are even written into denominational papers and statements by influential mainstream Conservative Christian denominations as broad as the Roman Catholic Church, LDS and Southern Baptist Convention.
We don't do this stuff to you. We don't organize to take your rights away. We don't tell baldface lies about what your lives are like. Many of us came from Conservative Christian families. Some gay people are still Conservative Christians themselves.
Everything we've gained; repealing "sodomy" laws; enacting anti-discrimination laws; enacting domestic partner/civil union and ideally marriage laws that give our relationships equality before the law; anti-bullying programmes that make it possible for gay kids to get support if they are bullied in school; or protection from violence based on perceived sexual orientation. All these things that make our lives bearable happened ]b]despite[/b] Conservative Christian opposition. We have never, as a community, done this to you.
The "both sides do it" assertion is just an emotional dodge to make bigoted people feel better about themselves by pretending that this is a debate by equal partners on equal terms. It isn't. It's about you attempting to manage how we live our lives, not us attempting to manage how you live yours.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
[An Aside]
I figured out why I had a difficulty with people who used Romans 1 and Leviticus 22 to condemn all homosexuality.
No one interprets the story of David and Bathsheba to mean a condemnation of all heterosexual behavior. It would not matter in that case if David was straight or gay. The sin was cheating with another person's partner and getting that person killed in an attempt to cover up that sin. The fact that David is a man and Bathsheba is a woman is of no consequence to the primary message of the Scripture.
No one is necessarily saying that Paul is "wrong" in Romans 1. What we are quibbling is whether or not Paul's argument in Romans can be fairly applied to the LGBTs living today. This isn't a matter of Scripture being "outdated", its a matter of whether or not we can extrapolate a condemnation of an entire segment of people based on a scripture passage written in an entirely different historical context.
[ 15. October 2011, 02:27: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
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
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...There is room for discussion. There is room for discussion about whether it is possible to be a Conservative Christian and a civilised human being. You seem to be the main advocate in this thread for it to be impossible to be both.
There is only room for discussion if all accept your definition of "civilized". Sorry, not interested.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...I'm not asking you (generic you, referring to conservative Christians) to treat me with respect. On past form, that would be asking for a considerable miracle. It's enough for me that you (generic, again) shut up and go away - and keep your despicable opinions to yourself.
If you want "us" to shut up, go away and keep our despicable opinions to ourselves, my response is "you first."
Ahhhh... the old "both sides do it" fallacy.
I don't have to go to Africa to find many, many, many instances of Conservative Christians doing their upmost to make life hard for gay people. It's happening here in North America.
Last time I checked it isn't gay people who are trying to pass laws barring Conservative Christians from applying and holding jobs free from discrimination based on who they are. It isn't gay people who are sponsoring amendments to stop Conservative Christians from getting legally married. It isn't gay people that were demonstrating against anti-bullying initiatives that made it safe for Conservative Christian kids to go to school free from harassment. It isn't gay people who are setting up "ministries" in order to convert straight Conservative Christians to homosexuality (while ignoring repeated statements from professional psychological and psychiatric societies that state out how emotionally harmful this kind of therapy is.)
And all too often I turn on the news to watch Conservative Christians demonize gay people, inciting hatred toward us. These self-identified Conservative Christians tell the most outrageous lies (yes lies) about us with a so-called "straight" face, for Jesus (!). Gay people aren't trying to put laws in place to make being a Conservative Christian illegal, but some pretty mainstream Conservative Christians still advocate reinstating "sodomy" laws (and some even advocate Levitical punishments.)
I just watched all of this lying for Jesus happen (again) here in New York State during the gay marriage debate (after witnessing it in Canada in 2004). Pentecostal pastors and Roman Catholic bishops alike were making the most un-Christian, untrue statements about gay people and our lives. It made me (again) embarrassed to be a Christian. These lies are even written into denominational papers and statements by influential mainstream Conservative Christian denominations as broad as the Roman Catholic Church, LDS and Southern Baptist Convention.
We don't do this stuff to you. We don't organize to take your rights away. We don't tell baldface lies about what your lives are like. Many of us came from Conservative Christian families. Some gay people are still Conservative Christians themselves.
Everything we've gained; repealing "sodomy" laws; enacting anti-discrimination laws; enacting domestic partner/civil union and ideally marriage laws that give our relationships equality before the law; anti-bullying programmes that make it possible for gay kids to get support if they are bullied in school; or protection from violence based on perceived sexual orientation. All these things that make our lives bearable happened ]b]despite[/b] Conservative Christian opposition. We have never, as a community, done this to you.
The "both sides do it" assertion is just an emotional dodge to make bigoted people feel better about themselves by pretending that this is a debate by equal partners on equal terms. It isn't. It's about you attempting to manage how we live our lives, not us attempting to manage how you live yours.
Amen, brother! Can I copy this and show it to my pastor and other folks on our church staff??! I go to a mostly Gay church in Atlanta, GA. Our senior pastor is Gay and everyone on staff is too. What you wrote is Amazing. Heartfelt. Angry. Right on target. Again I say, amen to you, brother. From one queer to another, with love.
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The "both sides do it" assertion is just an emotional dodge to make bigoted people feel better about themselves by pretending that this is a debate by equal partners on equal terms. It isn't. It's about you attempting to manage how we live our lives, not us attempting to manage how you live yours.
Amen ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think that one thing that a gay Christian may reasonably ask a conservative Christian is that they look out for the fruits of the Spirit in the lives of the gay Christians around them.
There's a nominalist approach to morality, in which the moral rules are the moral rules, and if they get in the way of human flourishing, so much the worse for human flourishing. God makes the rules, or the moral law is binding on all rational creatures regardless of happiness (secular Kantian variant), and humans just have to obey. On that nominalist approach, whether gay people show signs of goodness, justice, love, peace, joy, etc is irrelevant. But I don't think a nominalist approach to morality is sustainable on philosophical or pastoral or even Biblical grounds.
If someone's not a nominalist, then the quality of gay people's lives should be counted as evidence towards which interpretation of the Biblical and traditional material the conservative favours. I think gay Christians (and non-Christians in a less direct way) can reasonably ask conservatives to be receptive to that way of thinking.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...There is room for discussion. There is room for discussion about whether it is possible to be a Conservative Christian and a civilised human being. You seem to be the main advocate in this thread for it to be impossible to be both.
There is only room for discussion if all accept your definition of "civilized". Sorry, not interested.
My definition of civilised: Does not whip up hatred against an oppressed group. Does not knowingly lie and call it debate. Which of these are you disagreeing with?
You claimed "There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian." It's pretty hard to claim they don't when earlier this month violence was orchestrated by a pastor and included the deacons and happened outside a Church.
Your statement was wrong. Flat wrong. And ignorant. And this has been comprehensively demonstrated. That's OK. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone gets gets things wrong. This is a big world and no one can know it all. However, when your premise has been shown to be clearly wrong then you must rethink and reevaluate or else you become a stone cold liar. Knowingly and willingly lying just because you hate being shown to be wrong and would rather bask in your self-righteous arrogance.
Also you pled an equivalence that isn't there. Toujours Dan has spectacularly eviscerated you on this point.
If you are shown to be wrong in your fundamental premises, you have two choices. The first is to go away and reevaluate. This involves dropping out of the debate and listening. It involves rethinking and checking your assumptions. The second involves doubling down. It involves basing your arguments on assumptions you know to be wrong. And based on false assumptions you can reach any conclusion you like - so if you know your assumptions are false, your opinion is worthless. (And for the record, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "lalalala I can't hear you" is a version of option two).
Which is it? Are you going to rethink and accept that Conservative Christians are responsible for some homophobic violence, and that you line up alongside these people or are you going to stop, shut up, and re-evaluate? Do you follow the prince of lies or do you strive towards truth?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
... Are you going to rethink and accept that Conservative Christians are responsible for some homophobic violence, and that you line up alongside these people or are you going to stop, shut up, and re-evaluate? ...
Here's what I will admit: Some people are responsible for violence against homosexuals, and some of those people claim to be Christians. And I condemn it as much as I condemn the violence against homosexuals by liberal Christians and non-Christians. I also condemn violence against non-homosexuals by anyone, Christian or not.
Such violence is sinful, and unacceptable. However, to label that violence as being a result of Christian faith is wrong, because much violence is also dished out by non-Christians. This violence is the result of sin, and all of us are sinners, conservative Christian or otherwise.
Is that clear enough for you?
However, to say that in order to be an ethical conservative Christian you must accept homosexuality and/or homosexual acts as non-sinful is wrong.
Ethics is a much larger issue than non-violence against homosexuals.
I think you can be ethical and have more than one option in the homosexuality debate.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
However, to say that in order to be an ethical conservative Christian you must accept homosexuality and/or homosexual acts as non-sinful is wrong.
The thing that bothers me is that people can claim to follow someone as INclusive as Jesus - then come out with such EXclusive statements as this.
If you call someone sinful for who they are - something they have no choice about - how is that any different from calling them sinful for being black or tall or fair haired?
Jesus didn't condemn people for being human - but conservative Christians who call homosexuality sinful are doing just that imo.
You may as well call me sinful for being born a heterosexual woman.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
...
If you call someone sinful for who they are ...
Sin is what one does (not what one is). Being sinful is performing sinful acts. All of us sin, and therefore, all of us are sinful.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
... Are you going to rethink and accept that Conservative Christians are responsible for some homophobic violence, and that you line up alongside these people or are you going to stop, shut up, and re-evaluate? ...
Here's what I will admit: Some people are responsible for violence against homosexuals, and some of those people claim to be Christians. And I condemn it as much as I condemn the violence against homosexuals by liberal Christians and non-Christians. I also condemn violence against non-homosexuals by anyone, Christian or not.
Such violence is sinful, and unacceptable. However, to label that violence as being a result of Christian faith is wrong, because much violence is also dished out by non-Christians. This violence is the result of sin, and all of us are sinners, conservative Christian or otherwise.
Is that clear enough for you?
1: You claim to "condemn [violence against homosexuals] as much as I condemn the violence against homosexuals by liberal Christians and non-Christians". You should condemn it more for two reasons.
The first is that Conservative Christians are your own people - people listen to their own far more than they listen to outsiders. So if you are actually interested in changing minds and behaviours, deal with the groups that you are accepted in.
The second is that I'd be interested in seeing the homophobic attacks made by liberal Christians. Evidence that they happen at all would be nice. Because the teachings of liberal Christians are not ones that lead to people having anything against gay people. The teachings of Conservative Christians do.
And just because other people than Conservative Christians preach homophobic bigotry of a sort that leads to violence doesn't let Conservative Christians off the hook for being one group that does this any more than the Indian caste system and untouchables means that Klansmen aren't responsible for racist violence. There can be more than one cause - and one cause is Conservative Christian teachings.
2: You claim to condemn violence against homosexuals by people that aren't conservative Christians as much as violence against homosexuals by people that are conservative Christians. But on this very thread you yourself posted "it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian". So before this thread you did not condemn Conservative Christians for homophobic violence because you didn't believe it existed.
Which leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either you did not condemn homophobic violence by Conservative Christians or you did not (and for all I do still do not) condemn any homophobic violence. Which is it?
quote:
[b]However, to say that in order to be an ethical conservative Christian you must accept homosexuality and/or homosexual acts as non-sinful is wrong.
Ethics is a much larger issue than non-violence against homosexuals.
I think you can be ethical and have more than one option in the homosexuality debate. [/QB]
Oh, indeed.
However there are several other debates going on here at the same time. Ones you appear to be doing your best to ignore. Off the top of my head, two of them are "is all bigotry wrong?", and "what should we do with groups that preach bigotry that leads to violence?" Or don't you like there being more than one ethical opinion on these debates?
And if all of us are sinful, then let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And if you can't do that, then stop chucking stones at groups that aren't yours.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
]Sin is what one does (not what one is). Being sinful is performing sinful acts. All of us sin, and therefore, all of us are sinful.
Exactly right.
So if you say it's not sinful to be homosexual - then you can't also expect people to deny who they are, unless you'd be willing to do exactly the same.
So you'd have to be willing to deny your own sexuality if you were expecting others to do just that.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You [Sharkshooter] claimed "There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian." It's pretty hard to claim they don't when earlier this month violence was orchestrated by a pastor and included the deacons and happened outside a Church.
Strictly speaking this particular pastor seems to be using his son's homosexuality as a justification to beat him and his partner up, but, it isn't the real reason. I did a bit of a check and the pastor is in the midst of a nasty separation/divorce from his wife (he has also been arrested from stealing from his wife's company). I suspect the son sided with his step-mother. Admittedly this attitude is probably worst in that it assumes that justice should overlook a beating because the victims were gay (it also seems to have worked initially).
I note the recent US Pentagon decision to _allow_ military chaplains to preside over unions between same-sex couples in the US jurisdictions that recognize these unions. The conservative Christians are reacting as though chaplains are being forced to do so (they are not, the decision to officiate has always been up to the chaplain and his denomination [e.g., no Catholic military chaplain has to marry non-Catholics or divorced people]) and want the Pentagon to forbid all chaplains from officiating over same-sex unions even when the chaplain has no problem.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...
Which leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either you did not condemn homophobic violence by Conservative Christians or you did not (and for all I do still do not) condemn any homophobic violence. Which is it?
...
Really, I must pick one of your choice of answers? Sorry, no.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
