homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Homosexuality - living as an ethical conservative (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Homosexuality - living as an ethical conservative
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What you are looking for is a one-sided debate on the issue.

Nobody's "looking for" it, it just is. There are, in fact, no homosexual couples trying to tell heteros that the rules don't apply to them and that they must cast off their families to be disciples. It's one-sided because it only goes one way.

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.

Perhaps, but to be a consistent Christian it doesn't really do to tell other people to put away their husbands and wives if you've no intention of doing so. As I said upthread, until and unless "conservatives" can locate in same-gender unions some quality that doesn't apply equally to them, they're not "arguing" an "opinion," just spinning their wheels.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I think you can be ethical and have more than one option in the homosexuality debate.

If you indeed offer an opinion, and offer it consistently to hetero- and homosexuals. No conservative, except possibly the Shakers, meets that description. So, is it in theory possible to be a person of integrity who rejects same-gender unions? Perhaps. That doesn't mean there are in fact such persons of integrity.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
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.
So all are equal, but homosexuals are especially equal.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
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.
Then kindly explain the meaning of your claim that homophobic violence by Christians doesn't exist combined with your claim that you condemn homophobic violence by Christians as strongly as you do by other groups. If neither fits, explain what does. Explain how you have been condemning Conservative Christian homophobia at the same time as claiming it doesn't exist.

And the Pastor might have been going through a messy divorce, using homophobia as an excuse. But that in no way excuses the deacons and the rest of the church. (It doesn't excuse the pastor either for turning domestic violence into a hate crime).

[ 15. October 2011, 17:54: 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
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think he's invoking the "No true Scotsman" defence at this point.

--------------------
"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
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I think he's invoking the "No true Scotsman" defence at this point.

There's always the possibility he could surprise me. Not much chance I think, but a possibility. And I always like nice surprises that make me reevaluate things.

And the more he ducks, dodges, and weaves the more flagrantly obvious it is that his arguments are empty.

--------------------
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      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...Then kindly explain the meaning of your claim that homophobic violence by Christians doesn't exist ...

THat's not exactly what I said, but perhaps my words could have been interpreted that way. For being unclear, I appologize.

Here's what I said...
quote:
There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian.
Perhaps, to be more clear, it should have read...

quote:
it is not Christian behaviour, even though some Christians participate in it.
I will make one more attempt...

I believe divorce is a sin. I also am coming to believe that remarrying is also a sin (just not quite there yet). Now consider the fact that I am divorced and remarried.

That makes me a sinner. I accept that I have sinned, and perhaps continue to sin. I have confessed my sin and asked for forgiveness. And, do you know what? People accept me anyway. The difference is, I do not require them to believe my actions were/are not sinful. They are free to hold to their beliefs that I sinned.

--------------------
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
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have a friend, an insulin-dependent diabetic, who still hasn't really come to terms with his condition. From time to time -- fairly often, in fact -- he will eat a bowl of ice cream because he likes ice cream, and he hates the fact that his illness controls what he eats and when and how much.

I wish he wouldn't. It's seriously bad for him. He's already got some degree of diabetic retinopathy. He's going to end up blind, or with a foot amputated, because of the ice cream.

But he's an adult. He knows exactly what he's doing, and what the consequences are likely to be. If I were his mother, his wife, his daughter, his doctor, his priest, his godmother, his confessor, then maybe -- maybe -- I would say something to him about it. But I'm not. So I keep my mouth shut.

One of my uncles separated from his wife many years ago. They couldn't divorce -- the only grounds at the time were adultery, abandonment, incarceration, or insanity, and neither of them were willing to lie to get the divorce. Eventually (many years later, after all the kids were grown) my uncle took up residence with another woman.

I am quite certain that everyone in the family considered my uncle an unrepentant adulterer. But he was an adult. He knew what he was doing. Again, if I were his wife, his priest, his mother, his daughter, maybe I would have a reason or a right or a responsibility to talk with him about what I considered the rights and wrongs of his behavior. But I wasn't. So I kept my mouth shut.

--------------------
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
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...Then kindly explain the meaning of your claim that homophobic violence by Christians doesn't exist ...

THat's not exactly what I said, but perhaps my words could have been interpreted that way. For being unclear, I appologize.

Here's what I said...
quote:
There are those who will beat up homosexuals. Their behaviour is despicable, but it is not the behaviour of a conservative Christian.
Perhaps, to be more clear, it should have read...

quote:
it is not Christian behaviour, even though some Christians participate in it.

Straight down the line No True Scotsman Fallacy. Right. Gotcha.

If it is that done by Conservative Christians lead by Conservative Christian pastors and Deacons and at a Conservative Christian Church then it is Conservative Christian behaviour. And it is a consequence about preaching about the sins of the other rather than the sins of the self.

quote:
I will make one more attempt...

I believe divorce is a sin. I also am coming to believe that remarrying is also a sin (just not quite there yet). Now consider the fact that I am divorced and remarried.

That makes me a sinner. I accept that I have sinned, and perhaps continue to sin. I have confessed my sin and asked for forgiveness. And, do you know what? People accept me anyway. The difference is, I do not require them to believe my actions were/are not sinful. They are free to hold to their beliefs that I sinned.

You know, that whole argument would cut a lot more ice if you were busy pontificating about the sin of divorce (one Jesus actively preached against) rather than about sins you yourself don't indulge in.

--------------------
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
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But, sharkshooter,you aren't being physically attacked for being whatever kind of sinner, you aren't being actively and maliciously attacked from the pulpit about the sin you have committed (and presumably still are) and you aren't by nature inclined to being divorced and remarried in the first place.

Gays are physically attacked, gays are routinely condemned from the pulpit, and gays are by nature oriented as they are (as confirmed by the former ex-gay preacher)

Why are you so dedicated to attacking gays yourself?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...Then kindly explain the meaning of your claim that homophobic violence by Christians doesn't exist ...

THat's not exactly what I said, but perhaps my words could have been interpreted that way. For being unclear, I appologize.
FWIW, I read your comment to mean "Violence of that sort is unacceptable, and being a conservative Christian in no way justifies or excuses it". Is that fair?

--------------------
"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      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...Then kindly explain the meaning of your claim that homophobic violence by Christians doesn't exist ...

THat's not exactly what I said, but perhaps my words could have been interpreted that way. For being unclear, I appologize.
FWIW, I read your comment to mean "Violence of that sort is unacceptable, and being a conservative Christian in no way justifies or excuses it". Is that fair?
Yes. Thank you.

--------------------
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
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
....

Why are you so dedicated to attacking gays yourself?

I have never attacked a gay. Neither verbally nor physically.

With an accusation like that, I'm done here for good.

--------------------
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
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Classic re-asserter. When their "reassertion" runs dry and they can't answer objections they pick up their ball and go home.

As I've said before, we seem to bump up against a lack of comprehension about the notion of intellectual obligation. When someone refutes your case, you either a) counter-refute it, or b) change your position. Conservatives seem to want to grasp at a third "override" option, where they can't provide a counter-answer but get to hold onto their counter-factual views by fiat on a cognitive level, with some kind of notwithstanding clause. In the last such thread, a few of us provided JohnnyS with several pages' worth of counter-material, all of which remained undispensed-with by conversation's end. Yet I'm sure if you asked Johnny whether he had changed his mind on the matter he would claim not to have, even though in terms of argumentation he never managed to resuscitate his case.

It's baffling to me that some, like sharkshooter, claim to be offended at the accusation of maligning homosexuals, yet not so offended as to actually stop doing so. This notion that the offense subsists not in its commission (by sharkshooter et. al.) but in its identification (by Bree) is a curious kind of playground logic.

If you think you're offended at having what you're doing pointed out, imagine how offensive the actual doing is to those of us you do it to.

[ 15. October 2011, 23:16: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Conservatives Christians want homosexuals to stop being homosexual. They may as well ask tall people to stop being tall - or to sit down constantly so as to deny their height.

I truly don't get it.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting

Whoaaa!

quote:
Classic re-asserter. When their "reassertion" runs dry and they can't answer objections they pick up their ball and go home.
That looks pretty much over the line into personal insult to me.

While attacking arguments is allowed, once it goes over the line into name calling/personal insult that is a C3 violation.

Also please remember that once arguments get personal they MUST be taken to hell or stopped as per C4. This has gotten way too personal. Stop the personal focus or start a Hell thread please

Thanks,
Louise

hosting off

[ 16. October 2011, 03:10: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Louise, I am genuinely puzzled by your comment. And I'm raising it here, rather than in the Styx, because it seems to me to be relevant to this thread.

a) sharkshooter claims s/he is not attacking homosexuals.

b) Various shipmates, who have the courage to be openly homosexual, point out s/he is attacking and that her/his arguments do not stack up.

c) LQ - who is part of b) - gets a warning for using the phrase "Classic re-asserter", which doesn't even register as an insult to me.

Despite the great respect I have for you this doesn't make sense to me. If any offence has been given, I would have thought it was given by sharkshooter. How can this topic be discussed if one side is allowed to make offensive claims, and the other side is not allowed to challenge them?

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It does belong in the Styx, so if you want to take it further, then please do take it there. 'Classic case of re-assertion' would have been fine. But once you say 'classic re-asserter' and add the tag about 'picking up the ball and going home' then you're calling a person something and jeering at them, not the argument. That's the line.

I'm asking people to be aware of that line and not to go over it. If people want to go over it, they simply need to start a Hell thread (which is what I do when I reach that line with someone). It's perfectly possibly to answer without crossing that line, as people have been doing that for most of the thread, but in either case they can answer so long as they pick the right forum for the style they wish to use.

If anyone wants to argue about that/discuss this post, please start a Styx thread.

cheers,
Louise

Dead Horses Host.

[ 16. October 2011, 12:21: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(actually I could have worded the last line of my previous post better - 'This looks like it is getting too personal'. When tempers start to rise, people need to watch where that line is.) In case it's unclear, which in the cold light of day, I see it could be. I'm asking people not to go over that line, not telling them to stop engaging with Sharkshooter's arguments.

cheers,
L
Dead Horse Host

[ 16. October 2011, 12:31: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
'Classic case of re-assertion' would have been fine.

Duly amended, if the -tion suffix is a key distinction. Unfortunately it wouldn't be possible to have the debate without addressing the obstructionist tactics often used, since it's not possible to have it as long as they remain in place.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
LQ, thanks!

/digression

When I'm reading my own posts I check out the same thing - do these words talk about an argument or a person? Are these words more 'things an argument does' or 'things a person does'? Can I be sure I have separated the argument/tactic from the person? If not the posts must then go on a Hell thread. And that is the threshold at which I start a Hell thread- not 'am I raving mad at this person and want to flame them?' but 'Can I frame this post without talking pejoratively about the person or implying that they are a bad person who does bad things? Do these words definitely describe an argument not a person?"

I'm just adding this for clarification as it might be helpful for people to know where and how I draw the line. But discussion would need a Styx thread. I've digressed enough now!

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
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thinking about what I think would be my duty if I were persuaded of the conservative view, I'm going to offer the following as a suggestion of conservative ethics:

1. The ethical conservative Christian will differentiate between acts and orientation.

I was uneasy about putting that it, because as has been said it is often used to mask hatred, and is unpopular, but I think that without it, Boogie's critique that we'd be telling tall people not to be tall is unanswerable.

2. The ethical conservative Christian will assume good faith in her opponents, and will be courteous to them.

Simple application of the Golden Rule. She would rather not be considered a homophobe and a bigot, or be told that her interpretation of scripture is based on prejudice, so she will avoid saying (or thinking) that gays are perverted or depreaved, or that the interpretations of scripture which favour them are based on worldliness or convenience. She will assume that they are arguing from positions of integrity.

3. The ethical conservative Christian will not argue guilt by association, or associate with the guilty on ‘her' side.

She will never use arguments that class homosexuality with bestiality, incest and paedophilia, or that place it on a sliding scale leading down to those offences. She will not consider the hateful, discriminatory and violent anti-gay advocates to be her allies on this issue, and will think that their lack of charity divides them from her much more than agreement on a point of sexual ethics could ever unify.

4. The ethical conservative Christian will be humble.

He will be aware firstly that people have been badly damaged by this issue, and that some of the loudest voices which proclaim homosexuality to be wrong are those of abusers. He will also be aware that he personally is a sinner, and that there are gay people closer to God than he is.

5. The ethical conservative Christian will be sensitive.

He will recognise that this is an issue of tremendous personal importance, that to comply with the conservative ethic could, for a gay person not called or inclined to celibacy, only be done at enormous cost, and that there is an unavoidable risk, whenever the issue is discussed, of inflicting pain and giving offence. Sometimes, these considerations will lead to him keeping his mouth shut.

6. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay rights in areas outside the church.

This seems obvious to me, even though it clearly is not the majority conservative position. People outside the church are (in general) not Christian, and there is no sense in asking them to conform to an ethical injunction which is valid (if at all) only within a Christian context. Employment rights, free speech and expression, age of consent laws, and so on ought not to discriminate against gays. All Christians should be concerned with basic issues of justice.

7. The ethical conservative Christian MIGHT oppose those actively engaged in homosexual activity from exercising public ministry in a conservative church.

I put that in with some misgiving, but I think it is, in fact, a fair extension of the conservative sexual ethic that the public face of the church should live consistently with its teachings in that area. Of course, the ethical conservative Christian will acknowledge that not all churches do so teach, and the argument only applies to conservative churches. Obviously consistency in application is essential - a church which does not routinely exclude all those which by its teachings are unrepentent sinners from leadership, it has no business making an exception for gays.

8. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay marriage.

Again, some misgiving about that, since so few of conservative Christians seem to, and I wouldn't want to call all those that don't unethical, but I can't avoid it. The conservative Christian wishes his own opinions and choices to be respected, and his personal commitments to be recognised, and cannot consistently deny the same consideration to others. The harm of denying legal recognition to gay couples is so obvious and so great, and the harm to others of permitting it is so speculative and intangible, that there is no utilitarian argument that could over-ride that consistency of principle.

It doesn't follow that he will support church recognition of gay marriage. A conservative church cannot endorse what it thinks is forbidden by God (it can pray for domestic happiness for sinners, of course, but not in a way that implies that domestic arragnements are hallowed when by the church's best judgement they are sinful). A liberal Christian or church, so my hypothetical conservative might think, is very welcome to pray for and express approval of a gay marriage, but should not purport to bless a union on behalf of the whole Church of God, because a substantial part of the whole Church believes that God has commanded us to avoid such relationships. The ECC should have no problem with a church saying "we, as a local Christian community, celebrate gay marriage" even if he cannot whole-heartedly join them in that celebration, but would have a problem with them saying "we, Christ's Church on earth/denomination X, celebrate gay marriage" if in fact very large sections of that Church or denomination have serious misgivings.


I'd like to know if there are any things there which the Ship's conservative Christians (whom I generally take to be ethical) if there are any points in my list which they could not in conscience agree to.

And if any of the Ship's gay and pro-gay Christians think that I have left in anything which is completely unacceptable to them (given, of course, that I am legislating for a person who by definition is committed to the view that the Bible authoritatively prohibits homosexual sex).

--------------------
"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
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826

 - Posted      Profile for LutheranChik   Author's homepage   Email LutheranChik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The ECC should have no problem with a church saying "we, as a local Christian community, celebrate gay marriage" even if he cannot whole-heartedly join them in that celebration, but would have a problem with them saying "we, Christ's Church on earth/denomination X, celebrate gay marriage" if in fact very large sections of that Church or denomination have serious misgivings.


But isn't that also true of many other types of marriages across Christendom? Divorced persons remarrying...arranged marriages/marriages of minors in cultures that support those ideas...marriages of the "unequally yoked"...why single out, liturgically speaking, gay marriage as something uniquely repugnant to considerable numbers of Christians when there are a number of marriage practices in various cultures/communities that various Christian sects would object to?

Which begs the larger question of what you think about Christian clergy/worship leaders liturgically speaking on behalf of "The Church" when they're performing any kind of rite with which there's disagreement between Christians. Should such Church-universal verbiage not be used, say, in baptismal or Eucharistic liturgies, then, since those are major areas of theological fistfighting between Christian traditions?

--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com

Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Which begs the larger question of what you think about Christian clergy/worship leaders liturgically speaking on behalf of "The Church" when they're performing any kind of rite with which there's disagreement between Christians.

Yes, you're right. There's a huge can of worms there that gets opened if ethical conservatives object to liberals acting for "the Church". An Anglican priest purporting to solemnise the remarriage of a divorced person on behalf of the whole Church knows perfectly well that the Catholics consider the union to be adulterous, and could raise the same objection to my conservative objecting to gay marriage in liberal churches.

I need to limit the principle - a conservative Christian can object to liberals in the Church doing something if it cannot be done with integrity. Gay marriage MIGHT in some local situations be something that cannot be done with integrity (a faction with bare-majority political support ought not to represent its own agenda as an accurate representation of what the whole church thinks on contentious issues) but is not a special case. And, of course, my ethical conservative is commited to assuming good faith in his opponents if he possibly can, so will prefer to see support for gay marriage as celebrating something which the liberals really believe is hallowed (even if they are wrong) than as an attmept to re-invent the church in their image.

--------------------
"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
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll stick my head above the parapet, and take this injunction seriously:

quote:
I'd like to know if there are any things there which the Ship's conservative Christians (whom I generally take to be ethical) if there are any points in my list which they could not in conscience agree to.
So here goes:

quote:

1. The ethical conservative Christian will differentiate between acts and orientation.

Agree.

quote:

2. The ethical conservative Christian will assume good faith in her opponents, and will be courteous to them.

Seems obvious.

quote:

3. The ethical conservative Christian will not argue guilt by association, or associate with the guilty on ‘her' side.

Yes. It is my biggest issue with Christians I know that they seem rather to jump on the bandwagon of secular homophobia, and think "these people are on our side". They aren't.

quote:

4. The ethical conservative Christian will be humble.

He will be aware firstly that people have been badly damaged by this issue, and that some of the loudest voices which proclaim homosexuality to be wrong are those of abusers. He will also be aware that he personally is a sinner, and that there are gay people closer to God than he is.

Yes.

quote:

5. The ethical conservative Christian will be sensitive.

He will recognise that this is an issue of tremendous personal importance, that to comply with the conservative ethic could, for a gay person not called or inclined to celibacy, only be done at enormous cost, and that there is an unavoidable risk, whenever the issue is discussed, of inflicting pain and giving offence. Sometimes, these considerations will lead to him keeping his mouth shut.


Yes. Added to that, if someone takes a different view on this to you, you can chat about other things in their Christian life and yours without this issue "sitting over" everything. And you will basically never, unless asked, make this a point of a discussion or disagreement with someone gay who is not a Christian.

quote:

6. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay rights in areas outside the church.

This seems obvious to me, even though it clearly is not the majority conservative position. People outside the church are (in general) not Christian, and there is no sense in asking them to conform to an ethical injunction which is valid (if at all) only within a Christian context. Employment rights, free speech and expression, age of consent laws, and so on ought not to discriminate against gays. All Christians should be concerned with basic issues of justice.

Yes.

quote:

7. The ethical conservative Christian MIGHT oppose those actively engaged in homosexual activity from exercising public ministry in a conservative church.

I put that in with some misgiving, but I think it is, in fact, a fair extension of the conservative sexual ethic that the public face of the church should live consistently with its teachings in that area. Of course, the ethical conservative Christian will acknowledge that not all churches do so teach, and the argument only applies to conservative churches. Obviously consistency in application is essential - a church which does not routinely exclude all those which by its teachings are unrepentent sinners from leadership, it has no business making an exception for gays.

Yes. This is, of course, more complicated for churches in mixed conservative-liberal denominations who may (and do) wish to campaign for the denomination to take a particular view. I belong to an independent church, so it is not my business what or who another church appoints as its leader. And yes, if anything, a church should be more likely to exclude someone from leadership for a sin that is extremely prominent in your own community and church - materialism and gossip for example in middle class UK. It's much more important for you to be distinctive in your own community rather than pointing the finger at people you, in likelihood, don't know.

quote:

8. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay marriage.

Hmmm. This is where I stumble slightly. People should be able to legally make whatever personal arrangements they like. I'm not sure "marriage" should be redefined. So perhaps my problem is actually with the state being in control of the definition of marriage. Like I say, I'm not sure. I certainly do not think campaigning against gay marriage as a big ticket issue is good for any group of Christians or individuals.

Can I add, that the ECC should respect and do their best to celebrate the decisions of others who aren't Christians. So the ECC should find a way of celebrating a friend's civil partnership for example.

And finally, the ECC should bend over backwards to actually know and be friends with some gay people, (assuming that there are gay people who want to befriend conervative Christians - it would be understandable if there were those who didn't!) If your theology can only survive in a vacuum of not knowing the people you believe things about it's not worth having. IMHO.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Autenrieth Road

Shipmate
# 10509

 - Posted      Profile for Autenrieth Road   Email Autenrieth Road   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:

8. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay marriage.

Hmmm. This is where I stumble slightly. People should be able to legally make whatever personal arrangements they like. I'm not sure "marriage" should be redefined. So perhaps my problem is actually with the state being in control of the definition of marriage. Like I say, I'm not sure. I certainly do not think campaigning against gay marriage as a big ticket issue is good for any group of Christians or individuals.

Can I add, that the ECC should respect and do their best to celebrate the decisions of others who aren't Christians. So the ECC should find a way of celebrating a friend's civil partnership for example.

For the sake of context, I've left in the whole of your considered reply, which I appreciate. The one statement I wanted to call out is this:
quote:
So perhaps my problem is actually with the state being in control of the definition of marriage.
Given that the state provides a whole raft of legal benefits, and legal obligations, to those who are married, I think the state darn well should be able to define (civil) marriage. Or, if that's too radical for the ethical conservative Christian, I would hope the ethical conservative Christian would be campaigning for civil partnerships to carry the same legal rights (and obligations) as marriages.

[ 17. October 2011, 16:33: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

--------------------
Truth

Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
8. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay marriage.
Hmmm. This is where I stumble slightly. People should be able to legally make whatever personal arrangements they like. I'm not sure "marriage" should be redefined. So perhaps my problem is actually with the state being in control of the definition of marriage. Like I say, I'm not sure. I certainly do not think campaigning against gay marriage as a big ticket issue is good for any group of Christians or individuals.
Of course, the state has been in control of the definition of marriage for quite some time now. Despite this, various religious conservatives haven't spent a lot of time and effort trying to create new legal categories for opposite-sex marriages that fall outside their faith's approval. (e.g. Catholics lobbying for re-marriages after divorce to be called "adulterous unions", Orthodox Jews trying to get inter-faith marriages involving Jews renamed "Goyish unions", etc.) It seems as if objections to the state's power to re-define marriage are only raised when it might include homosexuals.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Autenrieth Road

Shipmate
# 10509

 - Posted      Profile for Autenrieth Road   Email Autenrieth Road   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Crœsos, brilliant.

--------------------
Truth

Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Or, if that's too radical for the ethical conservative Christian, I would hope the ethical conservative Christian would be campaigning for civil partnerships to carry the same legal rights (and obligations) as marriages.

Yes, fair enough. I do agree with this about civil partnerships; they should be legally the same as marriages IMHO. For better or worse, I can't stop viewing the word marriage through my religious spectacles.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Or, if that's too radical for the ethical conservative Christian, I would hope the ethical conservative Christian would be campaigning for civil partnerships to carry the same legal rights (and obligations) as marriages.

Yes, fair enough. I do agree with this about civil partnerships; they should be legally the same as marriages IMHO. For better or worse, I can't stop viewing the word marriage through my religious spectacles.
Of course, the history of maintaining true legal equality under a legal system that insists on separate categories with theoretically indentical rights is full of all kinds of cautionary tales.

You know what's also "legally the same as marriages"? Marriages. Having a parallel legal code for an unpopular minority is just inviting trouble.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[tangent] I've not been able to get back to the boards all day, but I would like to thank Louise for her courteous and illuminating reply to my earier remarks. Cheers! [/tangent]

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
8. The ethical conservative Christian will support gay marriage.
Hmmm. This is where I stumble slightly. People should be able to legally make whatever personal arrangements they like. I'm not sure "marriage" should be redefined. So perhaps my problem is actually with the state being in control of the definition of marriage. Like I say, I'm not sure. I certainly do not think campaigning against gay marriage as a big ticket issue is good for any group of Christians or individuals.
Of course, the state has been in control of the definition of marriage for quite some time now.
I agree with Lep's response to Eliab's list.

However, I also agree that Crœsos is right to pick him up on his reference to the state.

Of course the state has the right to define marriage how it pleases. However, in a democracy, Christians have just as much right as anyone else to argue what they think that definition should be.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370

 - Posted      Profile for tomsk   Email tomsk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eliab, I don't think I tick the right boxes to be a conservative, but think the difficulty with 5 comes where the conservative Christian considers that Corinthians 6 makes homosexual practice a matter of salvation. What people believe tends to affect their behaviour, and the conservative may think he's doing, say, a Christian in a gay relationship a favour by warning him or her of the 'danger'. Otherwise it's much more possible to accept without affirming.

It puts me in mind of the 'pearls before swine' (not that gay people are pigs, just that the full-on conservative position is gobbledegook to those who don't share it). Perhaps added to your list is a preparedness to trust God to sort things out and hand people's salvation over to him.

Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
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.

I actually don't think the "It's the way I was made" argument washes. It's like saying "Well, naturally I lose my temper a lot; to try to curb it would be denying who I am. Being an angry person is my identity".

Just because any of us are born a certain way, does not mean that gives us carte-blanche (translation: white card [Biased] ) to use it as an excuse for any old behaviour.

Most people deny their own sexuality for very moral reasons, for example marital fidelity, and abstinence in ministry. By choosing to stay faithful to my wife, I'm denying my 'natural urge' to have sex with other women I might find attractive (assuming that desire is reciprocated!).

I think Orfeo's "Stop the moral panic" thread is another good illustration. If you accept that paedophiles are made that way - they can't do anything about their natural desires, then the only thing you can hope from them, if they're to be moral people, is that they choose to deny their own sexuality, and abstain from acting on their natural desires. This is the expectation that society has of them, and I think it's a reasonable one. So the idea that we can expect someone to deny their natural desires for moral reasons is not a wrong one, IMO (and as I said, most of us do so anyhow).

(to add, I'm not comparing paedophilia to homosexuality in a moral sense, and personally I'm coming from a liberal perspective on homosexuality anyhow. I'm just recognising that an argument often used by people on 'my side', IMO, is a weak one).

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In terms of the OP, I am proud to count as friends some conservative christians, who think that homosexual acts are sin, but are wonderfully accepting and loving people nonetheless. They have gay and bi-sexual friends, and treat them with respect and hospitality.

For me, the reason they can do this is because they actually get that the gospel is about loving and accepting people, and that overrules the concept of deciding whether or not what someone else does is a sin. They know their own flaws, and they take seriously Jesus' oft-repeated command not to judge people. People often quote Romans 1, but miss the context it's put in by Romans 2. It's up to God to judge; we shouldn't.

So, my opinion is that whether you're an ethical conservative or not, the issue is whether you live out the gospel; something far more important than conservatism, liberalism or whatever. As for what one's obligations are? Well, love your neighbour, don't judge, forgive, be patient... All the tough shit that being a Christian's really about...

In short:
quote:
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?
Yes, and I've seen it.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Just because any of us are born a certain way, does not mean that gives us carte-blanche (translation: white card [Biased] ) to use it as an excuse for any old behaviour.

No one wants to use it as an excuse for any old behavior, but for loving and faithful behavior, behavior that harms no one, that enables the participants to appreciate the love of Christ for His Church, and that meets a need acknowledged by God as in "It is not good for the man to be alone."

I doubt that you have any idea what you are demanding when you place an obligation on another person of sexual abstinence lifelong, at least unless you are walking the walk yourself. This is not a scriptural demand.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
No one wants to use it as an excuse for any old behavior, but for loving and faithful behavior, behavior that harms no one, that enables the participants to appreciate the love of Christ for His Church, and that meets a need acknowledged by God as in "It is not good for the man to be alone."

I think you think that I'd disagree with that, but I don't - I agree with it all. I think you missed my point, that being made a certain way is not reason enough, there needs to be more. And those reasons you give are very good ones that I agree with.

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I doubt that you have any idea what you are demanding when you place an obligation on another person of sexual abstinence lifelong, at least unless you are walking the walk yourself. This is not a scriptural demand.

Again, I'm not placing that demand on anyone, so I think you've missed my point and are arguing against something I didn't say. The only obligation of sexual abstinence I'd demand is that pedophiles stay away from kids. I happen to think that faithfulness when you're in a relationship is a good idea too. And I think for personal reasons of conscience people choose celibacy, and that's great too. I think that you think that I was saying that people with a homosexual orientation should stay celibate, but I wasn't, and I don't think that at all.

But I was making the point that some criticisms of the conservative position are not valid, because they don't take into account the fact that in other situations we take the same stance as they do, just with different criteria.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I doubt that you have any idea what you are demanding when you place an obligation on another person of sexual abstinence lifelong, at least unless you are walking the walk yourself. This is not a scriptural demand.

One other thing, I think that this is a slight misrepresentation of the conservative view anyhow. They don't place an obligation of sexual abstinence lifelong on anyone, just homosexual abstinence. I'm sure they'd be very happy for opposite-sex jigginess going on (within the confines of marriage of course!).

But in the same way, you and I would expect someone who is attracted to children to curb that desire, but if they wanted to get it on with a consenting adult, then great.

So this is my point. For me, it's not about "I was made that way - it's just the way I am.". That's not good enough on its own, and sees sexuality as a totally individually defined thing, rather than in the context of a relationship. And that's where the weakness in the conservative position is too, because it doesn't allow that freedom within a mutual relationship either.

The danger of one's sexuality being individually defined is that it can only block that process of 'not being alone' that you mentioned. It's sad when someone represses their homosexuality and misses out on being with someone and having that God-blessed relationship. But it's just as sad for someone who has always defined their sexuality as homosexual to miss out on a same-sex relationship in the same way. Sex requires two people (or more!), and IMO sexuality is defined by relationship, not individuals. That's the difference between paedophilia and homosexuality that conservatives consistently fail to grasp. Of course we all have orientations (and I think they're on a scale, not binary), but sexuality itself is much bigger than those orientations.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I doubt that you have any idea what you are demanding when you place an obligation on another person of sexual abstinence lifelong, at least unless you are walking the walk yourself. This is not a scriptural demand.

I'm going to charitably assume that most of the men in the Vatican are living lifelong sexual abstinence. I don't think that makes them much superior to conservative Protestant preachers.
The important thing isn't really what walk I'm walking, but whether I'm really paying attention and listening to how yours is going.

--------------------
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
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What do gay people ask of Christian conservatives?

What ought Christian conservatives to ask of gays?

1. Please, do us a favor and ignore us. Your attention is literally killing us.

2. Like that's going to happen.

This summarizes the "conversation" succinctly.

Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm going to charitably assume that most of the men in the Vatican are living lifelong sexual abstinence.

So will I. But they volunteered for it. Big difference.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
They don't place an obligation of sexual abstinence lifelong on anyone, just homosexual abstinence. I'm sure they'd be very happy for opposite-sex jigginess going on (within the confines of marriage of course!).

Yes, I am aware that some may venture that little gotcha, but it only underscores their hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy. As if any responsible parent of a sweet young woman would counsel her to go ahead and marry a man they suspect of being queer. I certainly would not, either, unless her eyes are wide open and she knows exactly what she might be getting into. Binding another person, innocent and unsuspecting, into a life of frustration-- and for what possible reason other than to put on a false front for society and satisfy religious regulations? Is any hallmark lacking here of the goings-on against which Jesus railed time and again?

To pretend to be straight in order to marry someone of the opposite sex, to whom by definition one is not attracted, is IMHO the most immoral thing that a homosexual as such can possibly do. [Mad] Anyone who doesn't see this ought to pay a visit to the Straight Spouse Network or similar sites.

There's no problem given that both people know themselves and their prospective partners thoroughly and honestly and then decide to proceed. But fag hags (or whatever the male equivalent is called) don't grow on every tree. Furthermore, society and the church, by wrapping themselves in a cradle-to-grave program of heterosexism, have actually colluded against such self-understanding. By doing so they share much of the the blame for the resulting misery. It's a relief that those days are ending in the West.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Totally agree, Alogon.

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
To pretend to be straight in order to marry someone of the opposite sex, to whom by definition one is not attracted.

I guess that their viewpoint might depend on whether they actually accept the fact that homosexuality exists as an orientation, or whether they think that it's an 'illness' that needs to be 'cured'. If it's the latter, then at least they're being consistent (if consistently wrong), but if it's the former, then it's opens that whole can of worms...

I'm interested in this idea of orientation being a set-in-stone idea - what you say about someone 'by definition' not being attracted to someone though. I don't know if it's worth its own thread in purgatory...

I think orientation is a very complex thing, and to boil it down to gay/straight/bi is overly simplistic. For example, I'm straight, but I'd still say I'm probably more complex than that - say maybe 99% straight but 1% gay - I'm aware of that part of me that exists. I think everyone is somewhere along that continuum when it comes to gender-orientation.

And there's loads of other aspects of orientation. Physically I might prefer blondes or brunettes, tall women, short women, older women, younger women, brown eyes, green eyes, short hair, long hair, etc. etc. Then there's character traits that we look for too. And in terms of sex, I might prefer some acts over others. I met a gay dude who didn't like anal sex - doesn't mean he's not gay (for all I know, there may be plenty like him out there - I'm not privy to most people's bedroom habits).

The point is, I have a whole host of 'default' orientations, and the reality is that no-one on this earth is going to match them all.

So, in terms of relationships, both parties bring all those orientations to that relationship, and then both adjust their sexuality around the other person - it's a fluid thing, not something that's set in stone.

For someone that's single, if they think of themselves only as 'straight' or 'gay' and use that as the defining characteristic of their sexuality, then it's possible that this is at the expense of all those other varied parts of their sexuality, and they might miss out on a brilliant relationship as a result of that.

And this is what I mean about, in reality, sexuality being defined by a relationship, not an individual. Individuals have orientations, but sexuality is more than orientation.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's an example of what I mean:

Idiot abroad 2

(skip to around 3:30)

It's surprising to hear such wisdom from Karl Pilkington...

He makes the point (in his own special way), that if he discovered his partner was actually a man, it now wouldn't make any difference. All those other aspects of her character make her what she is, and the person whom he loves. For gender orientation to overrule all of that, it would be a sad thing.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Here's an example of what I mean:
He makes the point (in his own special way), that if he discovered his partner was actually a man, it now wouldn't make any difference.

This is an irrelevant example. To discover that your spouse is gay is not the same as discovering that the person whom you love and who loves you is really a different gender. It is to discover that the spouse who you thought loved you in the way that nowadays one expects a spouse to do (although a disappointing coolness in bed might have raised doubts) had just been faking it all along, wishing for someone else, and there is absolutely nothing you can ever do about it.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
this is a slight misrepresentation of the conservative view anyhow. They don't place an obligation of sexual abstinence lifelong on anyone, just homosexual abstinence. I'm sure they'd be very happy for opposite-sex jigginess going on (within the confines of marriage of course!).

As I should have mentioned before, the reply to this suggestion is that same-sex marriage confers no "special right", because it enables heterosexuals as well as homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex.

To the extent that this suggestion strikes a straight person as so meaningless, or even absurd, in practical terms that it probably never occurred to one, one should be able to understand a lack of enthusiasm for the analogous situation.

--------------------
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      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I met a gay dude who didn't like anal sex - doesn't mean he's not gay (for all I know, there may be plenty like him out there - I'm not privy to most people's bedroom habits).

Without straying into too much information, I've seen a survey in a gay magazine that indicated one third of gay dudes are just like the gay dude you met.

--------------------
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
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I met a gay dude who didn't like anal sex - doesn't mean he's not gay (for all I know, there may be plenty like him out there - I'm not privy to most people's bedroom habits).

Without straying into too much information, I've seen a survey in a gay magazine that indicated one third of gay dudes are just like the gay dude you met.
It should be noted that, according to surveys and demographics, the majority of anal sex takes place between heterosexuals, yet it's not considered unusual for any particular straight to dislike it.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I met a gay dude who didn't like anal sex - doesn't mean he's not gay (for all I know, there may be plenty like him out there - I'm not privy to most people's bedroom habits).

Without straying into too much information, I've seen a survey in a gay magazine that indicated one third of gay dudes are just like the gay dude you met.
It should be noted that, according to surveys and demographics, the majority of anal sex takes place between heterosexuals, yet it's not considered unusual for any particular straight to dislike it.
Probably two interrelated reasons (and maybe this WILL stray into too much information? [Hot and Hormonal] )

1. For a heterosexual, anal sex is seen as an option. For male homosexuals it tends to be seen as what sex IS. Sex = penetration, basically. I imagine a heterosexual who doesn't like pentrative sex would be considered unusual.

2. The male 'G-spot' is accessible via anal sex. I won't claim to be an expert on female anatomy, but my vague understanding is either that anal sex doesn't reach the female G-spot or that it's no better than, um, the alternative route.

--------------------
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
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm interested in this idea of orientation being a set-in-stone idea - what you say about someone 'by definition' not being attracted to someone though. I don't know if it's worth its own thread in purgatory...
[stuff cut out]
For someone that's single, if they think of themselves only as 'straight' or 'gay' and use that as the defining characteristic of their sexuality, then it's possible that this is at the expense of all those other varied parts of their sexuality, and they might miss out on a brilliant relationship as a result of that.

I don't think any of the lesbians and gay men (or straight people) I know think of orientation as set in stone. In fact I'm kind of scratching my head over that one: in my old homogroup (like a home group, only more fabulous) all the women except me had previously been in relationships with men. Two of our previously exclusively lesbian friends had started relationships with men.

Where I have run into the idea of "set in stone" has been amongst virulently homophobic types who appear not to be able to recognise more fluid modes of being. Presbyterian Assemblies are my prime experience of this, where you heard supposedly moral chaps wittering on about their attractions to prostitutes and how they resisted temptation. Not sure what this argument was supposed to achieve, but they seemed to think it made them super-duper-heterosexual.

In regard to the second excerpt I invite you to consider the case of APW, knowingly lesbian since the age of 17, although pitifully short of sexual experience until the age of 30, at which point she got together with her partner, with whom she still happily lives 18 or so years later. Sort of like GoPerryRevs, she would describe herself as 99% homosexual, 1% heterosexual.

Apart from my partner and a workmate, my friends are almost all men, straight and gay. I have had ample opportunity to form lovely relationships with men, none of which I have ever wanted to become sexual - it just hasn't felt right. They're still all my friends and I know they would do anything for me and vice versa. So what am I denying myself, tell me again?

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen a survey in a gay magazine that indicated one third of gay dudes are just like the gay dude you met.

Thanks Orfeo, now I know! Makes me wonder how apt the scene in Brokeback Mountain is, where he flips his wife over so he can, erm, enter the other way. It seems to be enforcing a bad stereotype. Although, if Croesos is right, at least it's statistically accurate.

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
This is an irrelevant example. To discover that your spouse is gay is not the same as discovering that the person whom you love and who loves you is really a different gender.

I wasn't saying they are. I was illustrating the wider point I was exploring that orientation is bigger than gender-orientation, but I appreciate that this is getting off topic, which is why I said maybe it's deserving of its own thread.

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I don't think any of the lesbians and gay men (or straight people) I know think of orientation as set in stone.

Where I have run into the idea of "set in stone" has been amongst virulently homophobic types who appear not to be able to recognise more fluid modes of being.

Yeah, I'm sure your experience is the same as most people. It seems much more likely that a 'straight' person would miss out on a relationship with someone of their own sex than a 'gay' person would with someone of the opposite sex. But the point remains: if we think too rigidly about our gender-orientation (whatever it is), then that possibility is there (as explored in the film Chasing Amy), and more likely for gay people as homosexuality gains wider acceptance.

The way that society is at the moment, it is a really positive thing for people to proclaim their orientation: "I'm gay", "I'm bi" "I'm whatever" - to combat prejudice and challenge attitudes. That's great.

But ultimately, in a truly progressive and equal society, I'd hope that there wouldn't be a need for these things. No-one forms societies for people with green eyes, goes around telling people that they have green eyes, or fights for rights for people with green eyes, because a) no-one gives a shit what colour eyes people have and b) no-one is challenging the rights that people with green eyes have.

I'm aware that people seem to be frequently mis-understanding what I've been saying on this thread, and if that's down to my own poor communication, I apologise. But please don't argue against what I'm not saying. I'm not saying gay-rights, raising awareness, or any of those things are bad. I'm saying that our hope is that they should be temporary. That ultimately we won't need to fight for gay rights anymore, because there will be the same rights for everyone. That we won't need to shout our gender orientation from the rooftops, because it will be as incidental as our eye colour or hair colour.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm not saying gay-rights, raising awareness, or any of those things are bad. I'm saying that our hope is that they should be temporary. That ultimately we won't need to fight for gay rights anymore, because there will be the same rights for everyone. That we won't need to shout our gender orientation from the rooftops, because it will be as incidental as our eye colour or hair colour.

Yes, I'm sure it will be just as easy as getting rid of racism, sexism, or religious bigotry. Any day now . . .

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools