Posted                       

quote:

---

If you can't express yourself clearly, it does you no favours to come back with statements like "Don't be daft!" when I'm trying to figure out what the fuck you're talking about.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...I'm old-fashioned enough to seriously dislike the manipulation by which the beautiful word 'gay' has been reduced from dozens of delightful meanings to have only the one meaning of 'homosexual'. Unfortunately we're unlikely to ever get the proper meaning of the word back - but why shouldn't I protest a little?

And further, I am rather challenging the current usage and its implications; that seems to me to justify the questioning punctuation. In the comment about 'gay' and 'straight' not being Christian categories the inverted commas were partly about that but mostly just the normal picking out of the words I was commenting on.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo

quote:

---

Equating gays with paedophiles etc. is an old trick and is highly insulting and dismissive.

---

So why are YOU using an argument which implicitly makes that comparison?? Think about it....

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by teufelchen;

quote:

---

There's a world of difference between "this is a Christian view, one of several possible ones" and "all views are equally possible for Christians, and equally valid".

Your habit of writing 'gay' in quote marks every time is very annoying. People's identities are not conditional on your theology validating them.

---

On the first, point taken; I still don't like the kind of discussion-stifling response that tries to treat everything as a matter of opinion rather than engaging with the actual issues of where it is right or wrong/true or false. I'd rather get on with the substantive arguments than be distracted by the "that's just your opinion" game.

On the second, I'm old-fashioned enough to seriously dislike the manipulation by which the beautiful word 'gay' has been reduced from dozens of delightful meanings to have only the one meaning of 'homosexual'. Unfortunately we're unlikely to ever get the proper meaning of the word back - but why shouldn't I protest a little?

And further, I am rather challenging the current usage and its implications; that seems to me to justify the questioning punctuation. In the comment about 'gay' and 'straight' not being Christian categories the inverted commas were partly about that but mostly just the normal picking out of the words I was commenting on.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

And why are you protesting the change in meaning of the word 'gay' and not, say 'nice'? Words do not have specially defined 'proper meanings'; no committee, no king, no angel hands down their definitions. They are defined by how we use them. Language changes. Your discomfort with that is neither the fault nor the problem of gay people.

---

quote:

---

Why can't gay meaning homosexual be a beautiful word?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I don't understand

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I am saying that when that transition is made from 'being' to 'doing' the issue has changed.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

And I, and others, have told you repeatedly that "gay" is a reference to 'being', not 'doing'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by teufelchen;

quote:

---

And why are you protesting the change in meaning of the word 'gay' and not, say 'nice'? Words do not have specially defined 'proper meanings'; no committee, no king, no angel hands down their definitions. They are defined by how we use them. Language changes. Your discomfort with that is neither the fault nor the problem of gay people.

---

Actually in this case the change does appear to be a change deliberately manipulated by and on behalf of 'gay' people, rather than a natural change, and therefore does seem top be the 'fault' of gay people. Go look at a thesaurus to find all the things 'gay' used to mean and for which, for all practical purposes, it can no longer be used now that it has become so associated with homosexuality. Instead for many people it has actually become a word to use to mean something is pretty yukky (as in 'Euggh - that's gay!')- though I wouldn't use it that way myself.

by Pomona;

quote:

---

Why can't gay meaning homosexual be a beautiful word?

---

I'd assume that was the intention - that is, to hijack a word with joyous associations to replace all the negative words like 'bent/queer/etc'. I don't feel it's worked quite as intended, and has caused a great deal of confusion on the way. Ideally 'gay' should mean all the things it used to without being limited to one particular usage in an attempt to imply that all those previous meanings apply to the one usage. I don't object when a word changes naturally - I'm not happy when there is rather clear manipulation.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'd assume that was the intention - that is, to hijack a word with joyous associations to replace all the negative words like 'bent/queer/etc'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Probably because there were other things you said in that thread that I completely disagreed with.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Occasional uses notwithstanding, well into my lifetime 'homosexual' was not the primary meaning of 'gay' and it could be and was regularly used in the wider senses without the titters and innuendo which such usage later attracted. A 'gay bachelor' would primarily, as you say, mean a womaniser rather than a homosexual.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo;

quote:

---

I don't understand

---

OK, come at it from a different end - paedophiles also often say that God 'made them' as they are. Do you agree with them?

And why would I assume God 'made' anyone to 'be' what God himself has declared to be sinful?

(And BTW, I've not said much here of my own opinions - don't be too ready to assume what those are)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Paedophilia abuses and harms people.

Consenting homosexuals do not.

So there is no comparison.

And I don't believe that God declared homosexuality as sinful. Scripture does not envisage or mention two people in love. The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Occasional uses notwithstanding, well into my lifetime 'homosexual' was not the primary meaning of 'gay' and it could be and was regularly used in the wider senses without the titters and innuendo which such usage later attracted.

---

quote:

---

I don't pretend to understand or be aware of all the details of how things changed; but it does seem that the change started from the gay covgmmunity and I recall - though wasn't making notes at the time - occasions when homosexuals were quite pushy in seeking the use of the word 'gay' as a description.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I am 54 years old, and I can clearly recall that in the 70s in my culture (the American South), the primary meaning of "gay" was "homosexual."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Occasional uses notwithstanding, well into my lifetime 'homosexual' was not the primary meaning of 'gay' and it could be and was regularly used in the wider senses without the titters and innuendo which such usage later attracted. A 'gay bachelor' would primarily, as you say, mean a womaniser rather than a homosexual. I don't pretend to understand or be aware of all the details of how things changed; but it does seem that the change started from the gay community and I recall - though wasn't making notes at the time - occasions when homosexuals were quite pushy in seeking the use of the word 'gay' as a description.

I don't regard this as 'sinister' - but nor do I feel it was realistically the 'normal progression of language'. And like it or not, it has had the effect of driving out pretty much all the previous usage. Which is all I intend to say about this tangent.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[Since we're on the tangential topic of vocab, can anyone tell me if the term 'gay' was being used to mean 'homosexual' in the South of England in the 70s?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The fact that various people found homosexuality so odious that they stopped using other unrelated meanings of the word gay when it was widely used to mean homosexual just accelerated a language transition. But as a musician said when his German girlfriend complained that there were no good bagels to be had in Berlin, "Whose fault is that?" The withering of other uses was caused by intolerance of homosexuals.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That's all interesting and helpful. I suppose one could then ask when and how the word moved out of its subculture entered the mainstream vernacular. Pop songs would be a part of that.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It is still necessary to do the work of showing that the interpretation is solidly founded.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo

quote:

---

The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.

---

And I wonder if your list of 6 includes the text - words of Jesus himself - that I would regard as pretty definitive....

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo

quote:

---

The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.

---

And I wonder if your list of 6 includes the text - words of Jesus himself - that I would regard as pretty definitive....

---

Which words of Jesus would those be? Because He never (in anything recorded in the Gospels) makes any reference to homosexuality at all.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo

quote:

---

The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.

---

And I wonder if your list of 6 includes the text - words of Jesus himself - that I would regard as pretty definitive....I repeat; 'interpretations' have to be properly justified - simply to make glib comments about 'open to interpretation' does not in itself prove the validity of the interpretations.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Paedophilia abuses and harms people.

Consenting homosexuals do not.

So there is no comparison.

And I don't believe that God declared homosexuality as sinful. Scripture does not envisage or mention two people in love. The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.

---

Just so we know how the land lies:

Sins. Are sins 'sins' because they harm people? Or are things 'not sins' because they no not harm people? Or is there simply an incidental correlation between "sinful things" and "things which harm people"?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I suspect Steve has in mind the bit where Jesus talked about a man leaving his father and mother and joining his wife... and then thumped the table and yelled AND ONLY HIS WIFE! for emphasis.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

My feeling is that you are most unlikely to accept any of the pro-SSM exegetes' interpretations because - like most of us - you will have made a priori assumptions about the limits of acceptability.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo

quote:

---

I suspect Steve has in mind the bit where Jesus talked about a man leaving his father and mother and joining his wife... and then thumped the table and yelled AND ONLY HIS WIFE! for emphasis.

---

Almost right; but go back to what hequoted about why that happens - and don't go adding unnecessary bits; table-thumping totally redundant, just pay serious attention to the actual words he did say.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Because He never (in anything recorded in the Gospels) makes any reference to homosexuality at all.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo;

quote:

---

Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality.

---

Given what else he said, he didn't need to. Clearly your list of clobber texts doesn't include Jesus' words - or the bit of the OT he very emphatically quoted.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

That's because he (Jesus) didn't quote any of them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo;

quote:

---

Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality.

---

Given what else he said, he didn't need to. Clearly your list of clobber texts doesn't include Jesus' words - or the bit of the OT he very emphatically quoted.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I suppose this is the 'argument from silence', and everyone is supposed to say "...and since Jesus doesn't refer to it we can assume he's totally happy about anything we come up with...."

Reality check; even if true (and I'm not sure it is really true) all that this would actually prove would be that Jesus doesn't mention it.

---

quote:

---

And in that case we simply wouldn't know whether he doesn't mention it because he would agree with our modern views, or whether he doesn't mention it because he totally agrees with the traditional view.

---

quote:

---

Of course if he did agree with the traditional view, he wouldn't need to mention it. On t'other hand, if he was disagreeing with the traditional view, surely he would very positively need to mention that fact - it would be quite important...!!

---

quote:

---

However, there is also the weight of what he did say. ... we should not forget that his last word to the woman caught in adultery was "...and sin no more". He was not saying such conduct was actually right or God indifferent to it. Indeed what he does say implies a high reverence for marriage as God's ideal and no compromise about the wrongness of other sexual expression.

---

quote:

---

So there he is being asked a question about marriage and divorce, and where does he go for an answer? He goes to a text that says "God 'made them male and female'" and expounds it in terms of that complementary partnership being the meaning of marriage.

---

quote:

---

It is more than a small stretch to go from that to the idea that 'same-sex marriage' is even contemplated by Jesus, let alone approved!

---

quote:

---

As a thought experiment, suppose that there was a Pharisee like Saul/Paul there, a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews' but from a diaspora setting such as Tarsus, and he were to ask about the pagan custom of SSM - is it really credible that Jesus says "Oh yes, that's fine!"? Surely it is massively more likely that he goes back to the same OT text again and repeats "God made them male and female"?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Or, He doesn't mention it because it was not an issue at the time. Jesus doesn't tell us anything about whether we should use genetic modification to improve crop yields, nuclear power to generate the electricity our modern life style demands or whether women should be allowed to vote. There was no way such things would have come up in conversation in Roman Palestine, and if He did talk about such things His disciples would have been even more confused than they were already.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually one of the things that makes Aspies like me good 'absent-minded professors' is that we generally don't make a priori assumptions as much as others do, and we tend to be unusually aware of when arguments are being messed about by that kind of thing.

As a 60s student I'm if anything pre-disposed to accept 'liberal' ideas (and for what it's worth, I have as much trouble with fellow Christians who are shocked at my 'liberalism' as those who find me 'fundamentalist'). Aspies come with a concern for 'is it true?'

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would hope and expect that, faced with the fact of same-sex relationships so clearly filled with the fruits of the spirit, neither Jesus nor Paul would have any more problem with them than with opposite-sex ones (recalling, of course, that Paul was none too keen on people marrying at all).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
However, there is also the weight of what he did say. It is true that he was willing to eat with prostitutes and other sinners, as the Pharisees wouldn't, and he clearly rated Pharisaic self-righteousness a greater problem than sexual pecadillos. But we should not forget that his last word to the woman caught in adultery was "...and sin no more". He was not saying such conduct was actually right or God indifferent to it. Indeed what he does say implies a high reverence for marriage as God's ideal and no compromise about the wrongness of other sexual expression.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
However, there is also the weight of what he did say. It is true that he was willing to eat with prostitutes and other sinners, as the Pharisees wouldn't, and he clearly rated Pharisaic self-righteousness a greater problem than sexual pecadillos. But we should not forget that his last word to the woman caught in adultery was "...and sin no more". He was not saying such conduct was actually right or God indifferent to it. Indeed what he does say implies a high reverence for marriage as God's ideal and no compromise about the wrongness of other sexual expression.

---

The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the less convincing pieces of evidence about Jesus as the more ancient Bible manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11. It was almost certainly not originally a part of St John's Gospel. Where the story comes from is a source of much speculation. It is the sort of story that should be a report of something Jesus did and a scribe somewhere added it in to their version but who knows if it was really Jesus, someone else or what.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The issue of the proper relationships between men was hardly an 'unknown' in an age when homosexuality was relatively common among Gentiles up to and including Emperors. Agreed it wouldn't be discussed much in a society/culture (Judaism) which of course recognised the Levitical prohibition on gay sex. But these two situations are anything but comparable. SLOPPY THINKING, ALAN.

---