|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality - living as an ethical conservative
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, I'm sure it will be just as easy as getting rid of racism, sexism, or religious bigotry. Any day now . . .
When did I say it was easy?
The reality with gender equality (at least here in the UK) is that nowadays there are far fewer women actively fighting for women's rights than there used to be. Is that because no-one gives a shit about equal rights anymore? No. It's because massive changes have happened for the better. Of course there are still battles to be fought (not least on equality of pay), and there are plenty of countries where it is still an issue. But change has happened, and that's a good thing! Most men don't consider women 'inferior' any more, like they used to, and accept them as equals (although as usual the Church has lagged behind). Don't you think it's possible that we can make similar progress on gay rights too?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
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?
You want a symmetrical pair of pair of respectful positions?
Christian Conservatives:
Insist that christian conseratives should be as celibate as you argue homosexuals should be.
Homosexxuals:
Insist that christian conservatives should be as celibate as you argue homosexuals should be.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
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.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Thank you!
And thanks also to Eliab for raising the issue in the OP.
[ 09. February 2012, 09:00: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
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.
I could subscribe to your list.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
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.
If Paul's list in I Cor 6 is to be taken as soteriological, then as someone who likes more than a few drinks, that's me stuffed.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
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.
If Paul's list in I Cor 6 is to be taken as soteriological, then as someone who likes more than a few drinks, that's me stuffed.
Talking of 'stuffed' my dining has been more than necessary on occasion.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
What kind of sterile Pharasaical 'I'm all right jack' Christianity treats the Bible as a series of tick-lists anyway? (I think I've answered my own question, haven't I?)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
It's a huge irony IMO that those who seem to be most against a works-based soteriology in theory are most likely to bang on about such tick lists.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
But isn't there a perceived difference between good works, which won't save you, because you cannot save yourself, and bad works, which indicate that you are responsible for them because you haven't opened yourself to grace? 'Scuse lack of appropriate theological language, I'm sure there's a technical way of saying what I intend.
Penny
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Hmm. It seems like that means creating categories of accidental sin and deliberate sin, or something.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
At the risk of throwing a hand grenade into this burgeoning outbreak of harmony, I think the prime stated* objection by at least fundamentalists if not conservative Christians is theological rather than behavioural eg: I have oft-heard it said on conservative-fundie discussion boards that 'the Gay Rights Christian lobby' (is there such a thing?) "call evil [same-sex practice] good and good [condemnation of the same] evil [bigoted etc]", or words to that effect.
Now, this seems to me to be a doctrinal difference rather than as issue of 'tolerating sin and sinners in our midst'. For me personally, such a difference would be far from a top-league issue such as denial of the Trinity but the trouble is that there is a tendency in conservative evangelical/ fundamentalist circles to make every doctrinal difference of a top league nature (the old joke about the two dispensationalists on the bridge springs to mind). So I think the problem has far more to do with the nature of fundie ecclesiology rather than the specific issue but, then again, who would a gay Christian want to be part of such a church set-up?
Sorry, bit of a ramble/ brain-dump.
*[ETA Assuming of course that the real reason isn't that they find the whole thing a bit icky.]
[ 10. February 2012, 09:22: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Laying aside whether 1 Corinthians 6.9 is soteriological, there are the translation issues (viz., What do malakoi and arsenokoitai actually mean?) and the fact that in ancient Greek society, it was common for married men would mentor pubescent boys into manhood in exchange for sex.
Homosexual relationships between two equal adults would have been regarded as unacceptable in such a hierarchical machismo culture as the "passive" man would have been seen to have given up his "superior" male role to take on the role of an "inferior" woman. Adult men having coitus with boys was acceptable as boys were also regarded as inferior in stature.
So the question is what was Paul referring to?
--------------------
"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
This is the main problem I have with the attempts of Gagnon and co. whose project is more or less to demonstrate that Paul really means what he appears to them to say (without actually addressing any of the overarching concerns about the rather alarming moral and theological implications of the prohibition they seek to defend). For a certain sort of exegete, if we can just show that Paul had some concept of orientation, the "revisionists" are done. Paul was no dummy, and was clearly a cosmopolitan sort of chap, but no matter how "up" he was on the mores of the Mediterranean of the day he could hardly be psychic (unless we begin to insist on a a theology of inspiration mainline Christians don't otherwise require*) to the point of anticipating a Victorian development in psychiatry. "Homosexuality" may have been known in various forms to the ancients, but an egalitarian partnership between husbands or wives would have been laughable - if not indeed a perversion of their own sense of natural law. Certainly by definition a same-gender partnership taking as its moral template the mutual self-offering of Christian marriage could not exist before Christianity itself anymore than heterosexual Christian marriage could (hence the whole brouhaha over Boswell surely?).
And of course, Paul is the same author who takes gender off the table as a moral arbiter, so the "What You See Is What You Get" reading is a double-edged sword (quite apart from the fact that most modern-day queers would not see themselves as "soft ones" or
(*This seems to me a feature of a lot of aspects of the "conservative" case. For instance, most "complementarians" only become so when the issue is gays, and outside particularly repressive sects don't actually have a problem with wives who wear trousers, work outside the home, or other "un-submissive" traits - it's only when the wife acquires a penis that the slippery slope to "unisex" marriage becomes an issue. So despite their claim to orthodoxy, contras are actually prepared to be quite eclectic theologically so long as it keeps out of bed those whom they wish to keep out of bed).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
At the risk of throwing a hand grenade into this burgeoning outbreak of harmony, I think the prime stated* objection by at least fundamentalists if not conservative Christians is theological rather than behavioural eg: I have oft-heard it said on conservative-fundie discussion boards that 'the Gay Rights Christian lobby' (is there such a thing?) "call evil [same-sex practice] good and good [condemnation of the same] evil [bigoted etc]", or words to that effect.
Now, this seems to me to be a doctrinal difference rather than as issue of 'tolerating sin and sinners in our midst'. For me personally, such a difference would be far from a top-league issue such as denial of the Trinity but the trouble is that there is a tendency in conservative evangelical/ fundamentalist circles to make every doctrinal difference of a top league nature (the old joke about the two dispensationalists on the bridge springs to mind). So I think the problem has far more to do with the nature of fundie ecclesiology rather than the specific issue but, then again, who would a gay Christian want to be part of such a church set-up?
Sorry, bit of a ramble/ brain-dump.
*[ETA Assuming of course that the real reason isn't that they find the whole thing a bit icky.]
I understand what you're saying here. The problem I have is that the conservatives have a tendency to divorce theology completely from behaviour in a different sense. They don't actually look at what the theology is doing.
Which is very much how I ended up reexamining the theology myself. Having tried fixing various other things (such as trying to get 'cured' of my orientation), and still being so profoundly miserable, I finally got around to looking at some of the passages again and realised how they were open to quite different interpretations. Coherent, convincing interpretations, not just ones that made me 'feel good' - I am not the sort of person who will just gloss over a glaring problem in an interpretation just because it suits me.
Now, faced with more than one competing interpretation that might legitimately open, which should I choose? The one that causes people to lead lives of utter hopelessness where they are condemned to never have the love and partnership they inevitably crave, or the one that acknowledges their innate desires and allows them to express them within the same framework that others can?
To me that's a no-brainer. If someone wants to convince me to follow the interpretation that puts homosexuals through emotional and psychological hell, and that this is what God wanted, they have to convince me that's the ONLY possible meaning, and I moved on from that view several years ago.
I'll take the interpretation that enables me to feel like I have some kind of life and future so long as it's fairly open. Because THAT'S what I would reasonably tend to think God wanted. The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
[ 11. February 2012, 00:11: 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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'll take the interpretation that enables me to feel like I have some kind of life and future so long as it's fairly open. Because THAT'S what I would reasonably tend to think God wanted. The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Go for it, brother. That decision exactly describes what some evangelicals call making' the leap of faith.' It's leaping in the opposite direction to the one they'd expect but is an act of trust and assurance. trust and assurance to stake one's eternal destiny on the belief that God is unconditional love rather than the vindictive bastard portrayed by some 'Christians'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'll take the interpretation that enables me to feel like I have some kind of life and future so long as it's fairly open. Because THAT'S what I would reasonably tend to think God wanted. The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Go for it, brother. That decision exactly describes what some evangelicals call making' the leap of faith.' It's leaping in the opposite direction to the one they'd expect but is an act of trust and assurance. trust and assurance to stake one's eternal destiny on the belief that God is unconditional love rather than the vindictive bastard portrayed by some 'Christians'.
This. I struggled for years, not with being homosexual, but trying to rationalise being friends with homosexuals whilst believing that same-sex sex was always wrong.
In the end, I had to acknowledge that what I believed and had been taught was simply wrong, and recanted of my former views.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE] The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Do you reject evolution then? Just because God created Adam does not mean that we have not continued to evolve does it? I must admit I find it difficult to see how homosexuality could be a product even of evolution. At the very least I guess evolutionary theory explains why homosexuality is not prevalent.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
Hmm, I was taught (by my very strict RC Philosophy Tutor) that the evolutionary advantage was mainly:
that you have a pool of Uncles/Aunts to help raise offspring while not being, themselves, a drain on society (taking resources for nurturing kids) - a net contribution.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I must admit I find it difficult to see how homosexuality could be a product even of evolution.
Possible explanations off the top of my head...
1) People whose sexuality is exclusively homosexual don't have children of their own but do tend to look after the children of their sisters and brothers. If so, their sisters and brothers (who may carry homosexuality as a recessive gene) will have more children than average which will more than make up for the children not had by those who into same-sex relationships. (Edited after cross-post: What Jahlove says.)
2) The mechanisms for establishing sexual attraction are just really complex and there's no easy way for evolution to develop one that is so consistent it doesn't sometimes end up developing attraction to the same sex.
3) Bisexuality is actually an advantage in having children since it develops emotional bonds between parents of different children strengthening beneficial co-operation between different parents. Developing bisexuality results in a lot of heterosexuality and a bit of homosexuality alongside it.
Those are all Just-So Stories, but they're all plausible. I suspect 2 is the most correct, as I believe exclusively homosexual pair-bonding is found in species such as eagles and swans that don't cooperate at all in raising children.
[ 11. February 2012, 22:59: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE] The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Do you reject evolution then? Just because God created Adam does not mean that we have not continued to evolve does it? I must admit I find it difficult to see how homosexuality could be a product even of evolution. At the very least I guess evolutionary theory explains why homosexuality is not prevalent.
I've heard some suggestion (it's the kind of thing people have researched, but soundbites of research are always risky) that the incidence of homosexuality rises proportionally in times of overpopulation, as a check-and-balance.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
And of course, throughout history, most of those we would now call homosexual married and had children regardless of what their erotic preferences might have been.
I don't know whether any study has been done of the sexual orientation of the descendents of known homosexuals to see whether or not there was an increased incidence. One would have to take into account the other ancestors, of course, whose orientation might not be known. And one would also have to make some assessment of the relative importance of bi-sexuality, since we have no way of judging, for example, whether someone believed to be gay but who put up with marriage to a woman might not have been equally attracted to men and women.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE] The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Do you reject evolution then? Just because God created Adam does not mean that we have not continued to evolve does it? I must admit I find it difficult to see how homosexuality could be a product even of evolution. At the very least I guess evolutionary theory explains why homosexuality is not prevalent.
Do you think the observed homosexuality in almost every mammal species ( and birds) is not a product of evolution?
In social animals, not every member has to procreate for the species to flourish. Consider the percentage of ants who are celibate.
In primitive societies, there is a need for children to work the farm. It turns out to be pretty easy for homosexually oriented men to figure out how to do this given a supply of women who need to be married due to social custom. Meanwhile back at the stoa....
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE] The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
Do you reject evolution then? Just because God created Adam does not mean that we have not continued to evolve does it? I must admit I find it difficult to see how homosexuality could be a product even of evolution. At the very least I guess evolutionary theory explains why homosexuality is not prevalent.
Just because homosexuality might reduce the odds of direct descendants doesn't mean that it lacks other advantages.
I'd quite like someone to explain - whether it's via evolutionary theory or via theological ones - what giraffes are still doing on the planet, because apparently about 90% of the time male giraffes get it on with other male giraffes. This doesn't appear to have prevented giraffes from surviving.
--------------------
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
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
I find it very difficult to see how nature would favour a preference towards a sexual practice which is incapable of resulting in reproduction. Indeed our bodies appear to have evolved to favour heterosexual practices. As far as I am aware gay men do not become 'moist' prior to intercourse and are often said to need artificial lubricant. If homosexuality is a result of evolution then surely nature would have provided the lubricant? How has nature caused homosexual desire to evolve without also making homosexual practice easier and more productive along the way?
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I find it very difficult to see how nature would favour a preference towards a sexual practice which is incapable of resulting in reproduction. Indeed our bodies appear to have evolved to favour heterosexual practices. As far as I am aware gay men do not become 'moist' prior to intercourse and are often said to need artificial lubricant. If homosexuality is a result of evolution then surely nature would have provided the lubricant? How has nature caused homosexual desire to evolve without also making homosexual practice easier and more productive along the way?
Hell, haven't you heard of spit?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Further to the point about aunts and uncles enabling better survival of their nephews/nieces while not adding to the population (a bit like wolves, meercats, and naked mole rats, where it is the community which evolves, not the individual lineage), there are other advantages.
Human society needs not only bodies, but also knowledge, some of which would be specific to female activities. Women who do not bear children would be likely to live longer (this is related to the arguments about women living on past the menopause, and the benefits of grandmothers), and thus be able to pass on the group fund of knowledge better. Women able to form loving relationships would be happier doing this.
I can't quite form a similar argument about gay men here - they seem historically to have been just as likely to engage in war and risky behaviours as heterosexual men.
If there is anything in that suggestion that more homosexuals are born at times of population overgrowth, it might be related to studies suggesting that in families with a sequence of boy babies, the younger are more likely to be homosexual than boys in the general population.
Penny
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Never mind spit, haven't you heard of... or is that about to become to vulgar for Dead Horses? Let's just say at least one part of a man's anatomy certainly does get moist.
However difficult anyone might find it to see, the fact is that nature clearly allows homosexuality to be around - to different degrees in different species. Various theories exist as to why, including the whole helpful aunt/uncle business already alluded to. Reproduction of the species is not the same thing as reproduction of the individual - again, we've already had ants mentioned, and there are plenty of other examples of species where individuals work quite busily without actually doing any reproduction on their own behalf.
The enormous irony of proposing that homosexuality ought to die out is that the vast majority of the time it's heterosexuals that are having homosexual children. It's not homosexuals perpetuating homosexuality, it's heterosexuals doing it.
And it's been shown that the likelihood of a woman having a homosexual son increases with each son she's had - so once she's got the breeding stock sorted, it's time to have a boy who will be fabulously intelligent and creative and a damn good uncle.
Oh heck, just read the link for starters.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Wait a minute... why am I even buying into what appears to be an implicit assumption that 'homosexuality' equates with 'a desire for anal sex'??
I'm sure we've been through this one multiple times on the Ship. Not only do many homosexual men not have anal sex, but the vast majority of anal sex taking place in the world is between heterosexuals. So perhaps we should be asking why a woman's rear end doesn't become 'moist' before intercourse. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wait a minute... why am I even buying into what appears to be an implicit assumption that 'homosexuality' equates with 'a desire for anal sex'??
In fact, I'm notoriously ambivalent about the practice, and would rather see a prohibition against it (if that's what the problem is*) consistently applied to all married couples than a definition of marriage based on speculative second-guessing about who is likely to "commit" which activities in the bedroom.
*One woman in an online exchange, asked what she meant by "a homosexual act" (per Jeffrey John, does fighting about who goes to Tesco's count?) by sniffing that I knew very well what we were talking about, which only served to convince me that she didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Hell, haven't you heard of spit?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) Yowch - don't try this at home, kids!
[ 12. February 2012, 13:44: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I find it very difficult to see how nature would favour a preference towards a sexual practice which is incapable of resulting in reproduction. Indeed our bodies appear to have evolved to favour heterosexual practices. As far as I am aware gay men do not become 'moist' prior to intercourse and are often said to need artificial lubricant. If homosexuality is a result of evolution then surely nature would have provided the lubricant? How has nature caused homosexual desire to evolve without also making homosexual practice easier and more productive along the way?
If we're going to be somewhat coarse, then I'd ask why the male G spot is inside the anus.
[ 12. February 2012, 14:57: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And of course, throughout history, most of those we would now call homosexual married and had children regardless of what their erotic preferences might have been.
I don't know whether any study has been done of the sexual orientation of the descendents of known homosexuals to see whether or not there was an increased incidence. One would have to take into account the other ancestors, of course, whose orientation might not be known. And one would also have to make some assessment of the relative importance of bi-sexuality, since we have no way of judging, for example, whether someone believed to be gay but who put up with marriage to a woman might not have been equally attracted to men and women.
John
My SIL's Dad was gay - he had six children, three of whom are gay and three are straight. They came out as gay long, long before he did. One of his sons, who is gay, is just like him.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If we're going to be somewhat coarse, then I'd ask why the male G spot is inside the anus.
Is it always? It never did much for me. I don't know how to sigh about that: wistfully (all the fun missed) or with relief? (I'm still here, whereas some of my more G-spotted age-mates contracted AIDS before they even realized that there was such a scourge.)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'll take the interpretation that enables me to feel like I have some kind of life and future so long as it's fairly open. Because THAT'S what I would reasonably tend to think God wanted. The other things I know about the nature of God tend to suggest to me that, hopefully, he's not in the business of creating gay humans just to watch them writhe and suffer.
This approach is an established tradition in Judaism, which is where all these laws are rooted, obviously.
The 613 Mitzvah were given by God to help people live in dignity and harmony. When they become oppressive, the Rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud traditionally employed the concept of "Kavod HaBriyot". This meant that the law must be interpreted in such a way as not to rob people of the fullness of life or of their dignity.
So while working on the Sabbath is the most serious sin in the Old Testament: it's the only sin other than idolatry in Scripture where God personally intervenes to order an execution on a lawbreaker, even the most Orthodox rabbis will allow exceptions under the principle of Kavod HaBriyot. Doing work on the Sabbath is permitted so that one can fix a wheelchair in order to get around; or clean up after an elderly person has lost control of their bowels; or put a battery in a hearing aid; or fix a furnace so that one doesn't suffer in the cold. These acts are all clearly work, a death penalty offence under Mosaic law, but the necessity of maintaining human dignity trumps the law in each case.
Conservative Judaism (unlike Reform or Reconstructionalist Judaism) affirms that the 613 Mitzvah are still binding, but lifted the prohibition on most homosexual acts under the principle of Kavod HaBriyot. They affirmed that while Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 are God's law and binding on those who are Frum, the understanding of erotic attraction has changed and the testimony of gay men and lesbians has shown that sexual orientation is not fleeting, but unchangeable. To ban all homosexual behaviour robs lesbian and gay people of their dignity, just like refusing to clean up after your grandmother has lost control of her bowls, because it is work on the Sabbath, robs the grandmother of her dignity. So one of the decisions of the Rabbinical committee tasked to interpret Scripture was to interpret these Levitical commandments in such a way as to not do that. They chose to interpret the prohibition literally by banning male-to-male anal sex but welcoming lesbian and gay people in relationships in the community and opening the door so that they may become full members and even rabbis.
(Another paper by this committee advocated affirming the commands as God's law but setting them aside entirely based on Kavod HaBriyot, as even the ban was seen to stigmatize lesbians and gay people. And a 3rd paper by a "Consevadox" group advocated keeping the prohibition on any homosexual acts in place and referring LGBT people to ex-gay counselling - the point being that none advocated lifetime celibacy for those who aren't called to it.)
Christians tend to look at these laws - Old and New Testament - as inflexible. While Jesus said that the Sabbath (again, under Mosaic law deemed to be the most significant commandment) was made for humanity, not the other way around, his followers to this day, have generally put the law before people, sadly and we see the pain it causes all around us.
But your approach has a long history behind it, even if Scripture clearly banned all expressions and acts of gay sexuality, which is quite debatable.
[ 15. February 2012, 00:20: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Excellent.
And frankly, I'm now going to have to resist an urge to convert to Judaism on the grounds that they have a more sane understanding of God than some Christians.
I'll just have to keep reminding myself that Christianity still provides a better solution when I actually DO break a law.
--------------------
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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
They chose to interpret the prohibition literally by banning male-to-male anal sex but welcoming lesbian and gay people in relationships
WOuld that more Christian biblical literalists would practice such literalism.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No, I'm good.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm now going to have to resist an urge to convert to Judaism
You might need a surgical procedure - that puts most people off.
Already been done!!!
--------------------
"Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."
Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
In that case all you need is a little prick! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But seriously, there does have to be a drop of blood extracted, in the case of a previously medically circumcised convert.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
But seriously, there does have to be a drop of blood extracted, in the case of a previously medically circumcised convert.
Seriously?! A kind of 'you didn't get circumcised for OUR reason, so we're going to have to do SOMETHING to you because we've been denied the opportunity to cut your foreskin off'?
Nice.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
It seems strange to me. I know a lot of couples who have wonderful, committed and loving relationships, both same-sex and opposite sex. I have never actually imagined what they do in bed.
In my heretical view of blessing relationships, I believe that the Church should bless any relationship that is Christ-like, that is characterized by mutual respect, devotion, commitment and joy. What people do in bed is their own business.
When it comes to homosexuality, some people have the idea that couplings are driven solely by lust and self-gratification. I don't deny that some same-sex relationships do fit that bill. But there are also many opposite-sex relationships that also have these characteristics. We certainly don't restrict the blessing of heterosexual relationships based on a few straight relationships that do not have fidelity or commitment.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Just a quick thank you to you guys. Had to do a small slot on local radio. Read this thread felt very prepared. Best line; "So Pyx_e should the church have gay members?" Me; "The more the merrier."
AtB Pyx_e.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Thank you! The power of blunt, in action.
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Just a quick thank you to you guys. Had to do a small slot on local radio. Read this thread felt very prepared. Best line; "So Pyx_e should the church have gay members?" Me; "The more the merrier."
Does the underscore come across well on Radio?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
