|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[qb]I still don't quite get why people keep bringing up fisting...
For me, it's because of the contradiction this paints. You often state that you don't believe in sex outside of heterosexual marriage - and yet, for many people, fisting and the like is an activity which would be construed as, at the very least, sexUAL.
Hence I was interested in how you reconcile "I'm celibate" with "I think that fisting's OK and am undecided about mutual masturbation". (Is that last statement true? I can't quite recall exactly what your..er.. position is on this one.) This has nothing to do with your views on the leather scene btw, at least not as I'm understanding it, though I can imagine that for you it's hard to separate the two sometimes.
I find it interesting because Terry and I are currently exploring what counts as "celibate" as we move in together and wait until we are married. I think we've drawn the line at anything beyond holding hands and cuddling - so I wouldn't feel comfortable describing an activity so genitally-focused and intimate as fisting, or the like, as compatible with being celibate.
--------------------
All shall be well
And all shall be well
And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[qb]I still don't quite get why people keep bringing up fisting...
For me, it's because of the contradiction this paints. You often state that you don't believe in sex outside of heterosexual marriage - and yet, for many people, fisting and the like is an activity which would be construed as, at the very least, sexUAL.
Which is why I'm trying to use phrases like "certain sexual practices." As I say, I've met people who even define hugging and kissing as "sex." And others who don't define oral sex as "sex." Which is why I went through that whole tedious thing with references to {it} before. I would define "sex" that way but since this really does lead to lots of confusion (I'm not even thinking of the Ship but of people I meet in the gay community) I'm trying to be more specific.
quote:
Hence I was interested in how you reconcile "I'm celibate" with "I think that fisting's OK and am undecided about mutual masturbation". (Is that last statement true? I can't quite recall exactly what your..er.. position is on this one.) This has nothing to do with your views on the leather scene btw, at least not as I'm understanding it, though I can imagine that for you it's hard to separate the two sometimes.
Oh! All that, I think, can be found on the two leather threads referenced above. And I should note that saying I think fisting is morally permissible is not the same as saying I think fisting is on exactly the same level as a peck on the cheek. It could be on the outer edge of what's allowed, depending on the situation, I suppose.
Oh, and the masturbation thread ... let me look... crap, I think it's gone now. Looked through Limbo and Dead Horses, though I know it started in T & T... anyway, I don't think I technically have an intrinsic problem with it, either solo or otherwise. (I should add that I do tend to think that certain actions in a male-female context may go against propriety if not chastity, however, in my extraordinarily gendered worldview, and that I don't see same-sex exploration of such matters in the same way. Yes, that's right, I have less problem -- as I understand matters at the present time -- with two men or two women exploring their genitals than I do with a man and a woman. But it was all on the other thread, which now no longer exists.)
I should also mention that technically having no intrinsic moral problem with people doing X or Y or Z is not the same as saying "right, everyone in the whole world should go have an orgy now as long as Tab A never enters Slots B, C or D." There are all sorts of things I don't technically have an intrinsic problem with as far as my Christian faith is concerned which I don't therefore think I, or everyone, or even anyone, should go do. (Smoking tobacco or taking recreational drugs, for example.) And of course attitude is REALLY important. If I were doing various things with the wrong attitude -- or even with inappropriate fantasies -- then as far as I am concerned, in that instance, I am sinning, so I must be careful with that as well, even if I think a given practice is technically OK.
quote:
I find it interesting because Terry and I are currently exploring what counts as "celibate" as we move in together and wait until we are married. I think we've drawn the line at anything beyond holding hands and cuddling - so I wouldn't feel comfortable describing an activity so genitally-focused and intimate as fisting, or the like, as compatible with being celibate.
And I understand and respect your choice even if I don't view things the same way you do.
![[Love]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I think I really ought to add something. Whatever people think of me regarding the whole sexual/erotic/sensual/etc. thing, I use exactly the same principles for everything else, or at least I try to. It's just that no one ever jumps on me about them (not that I want them to). I make references to things all the time on the Ship which people either don't pick up on, don't care about, or back away slowly, nodding and smiling at the crazy person -- I'm not sure which in any given case. But my worldview does not fit easily with any modern paradigm on all sorts of other levels as well. However, I have no deep desire to derail this thread into that sort of thing. I'll just say that I suspect if people here knew or cared that this particular issue is the tip of a huge iceberg of "weirdness" then they'd probably either... well, I don't know how they'd react. Sometimes I think I get on better with the Pagans I know but maybe that's OK.
I don't believe I am insane nor inconsistent, basically; for me it all fits together with my understanding of How The World Works, including Jesus and the rest of it. And to me, what I understand to be orthodox Christian belief is a part of it, and none of it contradicts another part of it. It may be a precarious balance sometimes but I still believe it holds together and is as close as I have yet gotten to an accurate understanding of reality.
Sorry to go on for so long. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Let me preface by saying that simply because I am a feminist , there are probably many, many issues upon which Chastmastr and I dissagree (lovingly, of course)Whatever.
This is how I look at it: Samson (a man of God)was a Nazarite, and had certain beliefs, rituals, practices, and duties that I don't.He also had talents and opportunities that were probably enhanced by his remaining true to these beliefs, etc.To expect me to be like Samson, to eschew drink, never cut my hair, etc. etc. etc. would be unfair--that is not how God has called me. Likewise to expect Samson to gainsay the directions he has been given is unfair--he couldn't do so honestly or morally, and indeed shouldn't because it would compromise his walk with God.
In short:
1.If there is any one person on this board who consistantly practices what he preaches while respecting the preaching of others, David would have to be that person.
2. I believe that David is on the path that God has chosen for him, and that he is dilligently seeking God's guidance in following it.
3. I believe that I am on the path that God has chosen for me, and that I am dilligently seeking God's guidance in following it.
4. I believe that the differences in our outlooks and behaviour are largely due to the fact that I am Kelly, and David is David, and that is how God wants it.
I think David had tried to explain where he's coming from and where he is at presently--what is the point of grilling him?
(this took me a long time to compose--please forgive any redundancies, etc that may arise from crossposting)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Kelly, I respect what CM believes, but as a lesbian it is incredibly difficult to listen to another gay person suggesting that genital sex outside heterosexuality is wrong. We get more than enough of that from homophobic heterosexuals. And CM's is a very, very minority position among lesbian and gay people - I can't say I've ever heard it before.
I suspect Inanna and I are coming from a similar position of liking CM but being quite mystified by his position. And if Inanna has had anything like the experiences I've had in the church for the last 20 years, we'll be scratching our respective heads and wondering, even after CM's explanations, where the hell he's coming from. The church pretends to define homosexuality by sexual acts, but in actual fact the mere fact of being queer is enough to put you out into the cold - the logical end of CM's position is no touching whatsoever of someone you love if they happen to be of the same sex, as far as I can see.
I like CM - I think he's warm, funny and generous (and I even like his doggerel). But pastorally, I'd worry about him if he was part of my congregation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
What Arabella said. Ditto lotses. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
All shall be well
And all shall be well
And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I would only worry about somebody in my congregation if they started laying down rules for everyone else. (It's none of their business for starters). Chastmastr has not done that anyway. He is entitled to argue for his position without judging others ... even though his position is incomprehensible to many. Time was when Christian heterosexuals regarded anything other than the missionary position as out of order AND TAUGHT OTHERS THE SAME.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
He is entitled to argue for his position without judging others ... even though his position is incomprehensible to many. Time was when Christian heterosexuals regarded anything other than the missionary position as out of order AND TAUGHT OTHERS THE SAME.
Good Grief, Gregory. Have you been taking Correctness Pills or something? You keep saying these things I agree with.
It's just wrong. So very wrong.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Since when does the civil liberties (including gay) community insist on acceptance of some sort of standardized position? You could take some of the statements posted here, change the nouns and verbs, and come up with something reminiscent of the blanket moral pronouncements everyone hates to hear from "the church". The irony is overwhelming.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Since when does the civil liberties (including gay) community insist on acceptance of some sort of standardized position?
Presumably not the missionary position?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think the recent discussions have largley been 'in-house', Scot, but I think that the civil liberties/ gay rights advocates are talking from a position of arguing for equal citizenship and abolition of legal discrimination. I think that is a moral position.
The debates on this thread have been , recently, largely looking at how gay sexual activity is realised by different gay Christians and how it fits into their theology. I certainly think these are relevant and important issues, I for one certainly don't believe in anything goes, and I think thats what the discussion has been about - where our boudaries lie.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
<snip a little> Time was when Christian heterosexuals regarded anything other than the missionary position as out of order AND TAUGHT OTHERS THE SAME.
And not even that, if you weren't taking the hex off it by diligently trying to procreate.
(Side thought: I wonder about that term, that "missionary position", for ten-toes-up-ten-toes-down. Considering what missionaries have so often done to cultures they gut, I would think "missionary postion" would be a good euphemism for "rape".)
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Merseymike, my objection is to the assertion, evident on this page, that everyone should see things the same way just because they are <insert characteristic here>.
You know, statements like,
quote:
All Christians should believe that genital sex outside heterosexuality is wrong.
or this
quote:
All homosexuals should believe that genital sex outside heterosexuality is not wrong.
There are lots of things about Chastmastr that I don't understand, but I really admire his insistence on an integrated life. I can't see any value in a libertarianism which applies in the civil realm, but is ignored (or actively reversed) in matters of theology and morality.
I'm not trying to weigh in on where the boundaries lie. I don't really have a horse in that race. I'm just surprised at the moving standards for acceptance of one another's positions.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I wouldn't really describe my position as libertarian, though I suppose I do think that there are things I wouldn't do because I am a Christian, which I wouldn't make illegal - like be unfaithful to my partner.
I think that gay Christians do have to work these things out though - given that there are questions as to what can be defined as 'sex', and that we don't have marriage available to us. I think thats what you have been witnessing.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Load of rubbish, Scot. I was talking about a specific argument, namely CM's. It is such a minority position I've never heard it before. I've heard varieties of it from homophobic heterosexuals and the no-touching-at-all version from homophobic hets and homos.
I have friends who have one night stands (het and gay), I have friends who are in long-term committed relationships (het and gay), I have friends who are still working through their own homophobia (het and gay) and I lived for four years with someone who kept her own single bed in the (vain) hope that no one would know that we were lovers. They're all good people, and so, as far as I can tell, is CM (like I said in my last post).
I've been queer and in the church since 1980, I've read a lot of pro and anti queer theology, and the variety of views is truly mind-boggling.
--------------------
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
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) @Arabella
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I don't think anybody has claimed that Chastmastr position is mainstream, including Chastmastr. Please explain to me how the relative size of the minority which holds a position makes any difference to the legitimacy of that personal position? As long as the minority is not attempting to force their views on anyone, I cannot understand why those views should be difficult to hear or problematic for anyone's congregation.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Scot, CM is perfectly entitled to his personal opinion, and to his life. I don't believe I've ever questioned that. I am just trying to understand an argument which doesn't have legs, to my way of thinking.
As I am currently holding a very minority position in the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa (that lesbians would make fine ministers, and that actually, the church needs them) I am not likely to be casting rotten eggs at other lesbian and gay Christians.
However, from his arguments, I do think that CM might cast those very eggs if I was turned up at his church seeking an ordained ministry position, were I a gay man in a committed relationship that involved genital sex. And that is homophobia of the kind I face every day. He's already said that he doesn't associate with other gay and lesbian Christians particularly, because of his views.
Maybe I malign him, but that's what I hear, so don't be giving me the evils for asking questions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Which is it? Are you trying to understand his argument or are you concerned that he might be opposed to a sexually active gay minister in his church?
If you are simply trying to understand where he is coming from, then I applaud you. I must have been thrown off by the comments about his opinions being hard for you to hear.
It seems to me that each member of a church is entitled to take part in the selection process to whatever extent that the membership is involved. Further, I would hope that they would do so in a manner consistent with their own convictions.
Finally, I think it is both inaccurate and overdramatic to mischaracterize Chastmastr's beliefs as homophobic. Everyone who disagrees with you (and I don't care who you are) is not necessarily afraid of you. Claiming that they are only serves to weaken your own credibility.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Scot ; the term homophobic may have initially come from psychology and meant 'fear of gays', but it really isn't used tomean that most of the time - it simply means 'anti-gay' or 'opposed to gay equality'. Personally, I tend to prefer those terms.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I hear the argument perfectly OK, I don't understand it, and I've said I have no problem with CM living it. My experience is long and broad on the subject of people's justifications for what they do being OK - everybody does it, even those who stick to the missionary position and are heterosexual.
--------------------
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
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
Maybe a better term would be "Heterophobic"- a fear of "difference" which is anti-gay?
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
He's already said that he doesn't associate with other gay and lesbian Christians particularly, because of his views.
I have? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) If I sent a confusing message, my apologies... actually, other than on the Ship, at ShipMeets, and attending church, I hardly hang out with other (self-proclaiming) Christians at all, gay or otherwise. But that has more to do with attitudes in general, particularly tolerance, as well as -- erm -- intellectual stimulation. (Indeed, when I was temporarily going to another church than the one I have returned to, part of the attraction was that it was more overtly "gay-friendly" -- but the few gay people I met weren't any more "hey, let's go out for pizza!" than the straight people at the other church. It would appear -- alas! -- that "meeting new friends at church to hang out with" (whether gay, straight or what-have-you) was something which only happened in my life when I was at the university at the religious student centers, and that recapturing that is simply not in the cards...) For some time now the Ship has been (almost) the only context I've had to meet new friends with whom I can have interesting discussions. I wish you all lived nearby... ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
I have met interesting and friendly people at the Radical Faerie potluck suppers, though. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) So I suppose it is no longer merely the Ship. And my wonderful cub David is very cool and intelligent.
I think in some ways I get on better with Pagans (real ones) than with many modern Christians, I will say that. (Again, gay or otherwise.) It is sad and frustrating for me that I don't have as much common ground with the "average" Christian I meet as I'd like.
If it is any consolation, from as far back as I can remember, long before becoming a Christian or part of the gay/leather/bear communities, I have never really had a lot of common ground with anyone. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose... Wish I did, but alas, I don't.
David
used to "orbit" the priest at coffee hour back in college, because he could chat about theology and C.S. Lewis with him when the other congregants were not as interested in such matters...
[ 25. June 2003, 15:12: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Common ground can be very comforting. It establishes and confirms identity through congruence, a shared perspective. I hang out with Orthodox Christians because, sharing their perspective, I can find understanding and a common approach to life which is supportive and enhancing. However, there are limits to "common ground" and those limits have to do with exclusion ... a seeking for conformity ... even an enforcement of the same or a marginalisation of those who don't fit our group. Jesus did some pretty amazing things for and with "outsiders." One of the more attractive aspects of English culture is a fellow feeling for and with the "underdog." No one is on the outside when it comes to God. We mustn't let our comfort constrict our vision. Get out of that comfort zone!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
No one is on the outside when it comes to God. We mustn't let our comfort constrict our vision. Get out of that comfort zone!
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
No one is on the outside when it comes to God. We mustn't let our comfort constrict our vision. Get out of that comfort zone!
Hey, I agree! My partner once wrote a letter to a more fundamentalist magazine after they published an article on how practising homosexuals could be cured. She said that she was quite happy with her life, heavily involved with her church and trying her best to do God's work in the world.
The month after her letter was published three letters to the editor proclaimed that:
- she had put herself outside the love of God
- she was going to be struck down by lightening
- she wasn't meant to be happy, but holy
We didn't bother responding.
And quite honestly, I feel incredibly privileged within church circles because at least people can see that I'm being treated badly. My severely speech disabled friend, a prophetic woman if ever there was, is treated like an imbecile most of the time, notwithstanding her Masters degree in Social Policy.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
I don't use the term 'homophobic' either. In my experience the opposition and villification I have had to endure at times have had nothing to do with irrational fear - they have been deliberate and premeditated!
Interesting question though - I'd agree with the deliberate and premeditated bit, but what underlies it? I think its the "yuk" factor, which is homophobia pure and simple, whatever logic is dreamed up to rationalise it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I can understand that Degs; ... as an aside "homophobia" represents that condescending and awfully superior attitude that "you hate me because you're frightened. There, there now, (pats head); don't be frightened." We all know that fear can lead to hatred but not all hatred is inspired by fear.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
coffee jim
Shipmate
# 3510
|
Posted
'Homophobic' has become part of my working vocabulary, but it's still an unfortunate term for the reasons others have described. I've also come across the attitude from reactionary columnists (can I say 'Peter Hitchens types' even if I can't actually quote him on this?) that 'I'm not afraid of homosexuality - I just don't think it should be seen as morally equivalent'.
A far better word would be 'heterosexist'.
Posts: 367 | From: Belfast | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Well, while it's not the OED, Merriam-Webster defines homophobia as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals," but it doesn't have a definition for "heterosexism."
Dictionary.com defines the former as "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men" or "Behavior based on such a feeling." It defines heterosexism as "Discrimination or prejudice against lesbians or gay men by heterosexual people." But this may beg the question as to what constitutes discrimination or prejudice. Would a genuine intellectual disagreement with "gay" activities intrinsically count as such?
Aha! Oxford does have a site! Though again it's not the comprehensive OED (yes, I am an OED snob, but it's the best dictionary on Earth as far as I can tell). It defines homophobia as "hatred or fear of homosexuals" but does not have heterosexism.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Yes, but in reality, homophobia is used to mean 'anti-gay' or 'discriminatory or prejudiced against gays'. I try not to use the word much.
Heterosexism is more about an assumption that the world is completely heterosexual. So, homophobia imples something definitely and 'positively' anti-gay, heterosexism is more not taking gay presence and perspective into account and discriminating passively, or covertly - often without intention. Institutionalised, rather than the result of actual and directed prejudice.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I agree; I would say that there is a difference between someone's doctrinal disagreement with what many of us do, or with what I do for that matter, and approaches to things which don't take day-to-day realities into account. I tend to be very annoyed at advertisements which suggest that (for example) all men are obviously going to be getting together with women for Valentine's Day -- or for that matter, not only re gay issues, with the Father's Day ad I saw in which the father was holding his child and his wedding ring looked not only prominent but oddly prominent, and I realised that it must have been photo-enhanced -- the thing practically glowed -- and I thought, "gee, if I were a single father with children, I'd feel kind of left out." The same thing goes for Mother's Day ads. It's not only heterosexism but -- I don't know, "the only family structures we're even going to acknowledge as existing are ones with two parents of opposite sexes and their biological children"-ism.
There's an excellent site on how gay people are treated in advertising called The Commercial Closet which I heartily recommend.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
In my own case, my ostensibly close friends knew about my "struggles with the weird kinky stuff" in some detail for years before it became a Good Thing (in my view) in my life, before I joined the gay community, and before I met my Master/Foster Dad. I had very few social skills, was in poor health, and was basically a mess. Then once things changed and my social skills, health, etc. improved many of them dropped out of my life. My politics also shifted to the left, which may have played a part. Before things changed for me -- and whatever anyone may think of The Weird Things I Do, there were many MANY changes for the better in health, attitude, hygeine, clothing sense which I think no one can deny were incredible improvements -- oh, and my stress levels decreased a lot -- but the fact is that these people knew all about my struggles with the scary weird stuff I didn't know how to deal with, and had known for years before... so I'm pretty sure it wasn't fear per se which was the deciding factor in my case either. In some cases I'm pretty sure it was because I had become self-identified with "them."
I find it kind of strange and sad that when I blathered on and on like some kind of tedious verbal tank about all manner of things (my bad childhood, the history of the pre- and post-Crisis DC Comics universe (yes, really, for hours), theology (for hours), etc.) with people who were not too interested, they were happy to have me in their lives -- when people told me to my face that they could only handle me in "small doses" -- and so on -- but then later when I didn't act like that anymore, and people commented on how much calmer and more relaxed I was -- they started slipping out of my life.
How much of this was "the gay thing," "the leather thing" and "the liberal thing," I honestly don't know. I guess they probably think I've turned to "the dark side" or something. Yet none of them tried to talk me out of it, or sent a letter saying "I think you've made a terrible mistake" or anything like that.
Mind you, I also started around this time to stop keeping old friendships on artifical life support by always having been the one to call. When I started letting them make the next move -- well, who knows, maybe had I done that without any of the other changes, they'd have just dropped out my life the same way. But for a long time I was the one to call them, and while they were happy to chat, they never called me.
There are still a few of these people I'm pretty sure dropped out for the other reasons, though.
My parents and I seem to have mended fences over the last year, though they don't ask me or make comments or references to my being gay in any way. At some point I am sure they'll call to leave a message on voice-mail and the cub will answer. (He's been staying with me for a month now.) They don't want to know anything about that part of my life, or at least they said so a year ago... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Sorry to ramble...
It does hurt sometimes to look back at people and wonder what their motives were in letting go. Maybe they were never really hanging on all those years and I was the only one still clinging...
David
life is better now, though, and my cub awaits me as I head out of the office now...
[ 26. June 2003, 21:00: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Degs
quote:
The hatred I have experienced is not inspired by fear, and I do not dismiss it with condescension, but oppose it with determination.
So should we all!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReVoltaire
Shipmate
# 4351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Degs
quote:
The hatred I have experienced is not inspired by fear, and I do not dismiss it with condescension, but oppose it with determination.
So should we all!
I've been lurking around this thread for weeks, and was beginning to feel like a Peeping Thomasina, so I'm going to use my appreciation of this beautiful line to let y'all know I'm here.
Degs It applies to so many who've experienced hatred. I'm inspired ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posts: 300 | From: Texan in Exile | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Right, let's get qualitative and absolute and back to fisting.
This is the situation: Chastmastr is saying the sky is red, when the sky is blue. Inanna at the top of the page tried to point out the Emperor's New Clothes as I have (for about 18 months). His argument is that fisting is morally permissible because it is not sexual. He doesn't consider it a sexual act. Well ya know, there are a few inescapable objective realities in life: for instance, you can insist that the earth is flat all you like, you can believe it with all your heart. But it will not change the fact that the earth is not flat.
Fisting is sexual. It stimulates nerves responsible for erotic sensation. It is a conscious act. The arousal resulting from fisting is not the same as incidental arousal as from a body function. That's the argument that Chastmastr has used in the past, and it is pure sophistry.
Goddamnit Chast I like you, but your insistence that you are chaste and celibate drives me wild. Do you see that the way you define chastity and celibacy protects you from the painful reality that faces gay people? That is, by your standards (and those of many other christians) of what is allowed 'genitally' sexually a gay person must either forego sexual intimacy or commit sin. But you never have to face this, because you are getting sexual gratification (you don't call it that) with moral impunity.
You are effectively holding others to a standard that you don't meet (In your eyes you do, but I have not spoken to one single gay or bi bloke that doesn't consider fisting a sexual act - that from inside the community. From hets, the same). Now, you will say that you have technically no moral problem of other people having 'genital sex', casuistry again! You're words are contradictory to your beliefs! If you state publically: 'I don't believe genital sex is biblically permissible except between men and women in marriage', the corollary of this is that anyone who is having 'genital sex', who is not a man and woman in marriage is doing something that is not biblically permissible! It's a logically inescapable conclusion!
Let's explore the implications of you saying you don't have a moral problem with other people having 'genital sex': either a) you believe there is no moral problem with anyone having 'genital sex' - but this can't be the case, because if it were, why would you forbid it to yourself on moral grounds? or b) there is a moral problem for you having 'genital sex' but not for other people. I don't buy it, it means your circumstances have so little overlap with other people that such a universal thing as sexual contact has unique moral implications for you, but not others.
There's a swag of contradictions going on here and something's gotta give.
These are the ramifications of your publically held views and observed behaviour:
1) You add your voice implicitly to those who oppose fullness of life in gay christian relationships.
2) People think it is a) a great joke or b) hypocrisy. ('Preach the gospel, use words if necessary')
3) It is a huge piss off to people who are genuinely struggling with chastity. You're getting your rocks off while earnestly affirming that you are chaste and celibate. That's pretty galling.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Coot ; that is exactly what I think too. I know it won't be popular in some quarters, but thats why I referred to 'sophistry' earlier, and its also why, despite what CM says, I don't regard him as part of the affirming lesbian and gay Christian community.
I've got a feeling that the other side of the fence wouldn't be too impressed either.
Come on CM. Stop kidding yourself. You do have sex - gay sex - as I do, we just like different types ( and whilst I see no need to publicise the details of my sex life, it is with one partner only and I don't happen to like anal sex....)
[ 27. June 2003, 14:01: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Which is why I'm trying to use phrases like "certain sexual practices." As I say, I've met people who even define hugging and kissing as "sex." And others who don't define oral sex as "sex." Which is why I went through that whole tedious thing with references to {it} before. I would define "sex" that way but since this really does lead to lots of confusion (I'm not even thinking of the Ship but of people I meet in the gay community) I'm trying to be more specific.
... I should note that saying I think fisting is morally permissible is not the same as saying I think fisting is on exactly the same level as a peck on the cheek. It could be on the outer edge of what's allowed, depending on the situation, I suppose.
...
I should also mention that technically having no intrinsic moral problem with people doing X or Y or Z is not the same as saying "right, everyone in the whole world should go have an orgy now as long as Tab A never enters Slots B, C or D." There are all sorts of things I don't technically have an intrinsic problem with as far as my Christian faith is concerned which I don't therefore think I, or everyone, or even anyone, should go do. (Smoking tobacco or taking recreational drugs, for example.) And of course attitude is REALLY important. If I were doing various things with the wrong attitude -- or even with inappropriate fantasies -- then as far as I am concerned, in that instance, I am sinning, so I must be careful with that as well, even if I think a given practice is technically OK.
...
And I understand and respect your choice even if I don't view things the same way you do.
David
David
experiencing deja vu
[ 27. June 2003, 15:07: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533
|
Posted
quote:
I think I really ought to add something. Whatever people think of me regarding the whole sexual/erotic/sensual/etc. thing, I use exactly the same principles for everything else, or at least I try to. It's just that no one ever jumps on me about them (not that I want them to). I make references to things all the time on the Ship which people either don't pick up on, don't care about, or back away slowly, nodding and smiling at the crazy person -- I'm not sure which in any given case. But my worldview does not fit easily with any modern paradigm on all sorts of other levels as well. However, I have no deep desire to derail this thread into that sort of thing. I'll just say that I suspect if people here knew or cared that this particular issue is the tip of a huge iceberg of "weirdness" then they'd probably either... well, I don't know how they'd react. Sometimes I think I get on better with the Pagans I know but maybe that's OK.
I don't believe I am insane nor inconsistent, basically; for me it all fits together with my understanding of How The World Works, including Jesus and the rest of it. And to me, what I understand to be orthodox Christian belief is a part of it, and none of it contradicts another part of it. It may be a precarious balance sometimes but I still believe it holds together and is as close as I have yet gotten to an accurate understanding of reality.
Sorry to go on for so long.
Chast I understand what it is to be different. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
experiencing deja vu
David, that isn't good enough in a serious debate space.
From the Purgatory guidelines: "All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged."
Basically, I'm asking you to put up or shut up.
You've had a charmed life on these boards, anyone else making known their view on what is and what isn't sexually allowed to gay people so frequently and flamboyantly as you would have been slapped down a long time ago. (I'm thinking of people like Matt the Mad Medic, Mark the Punk, Martin PCNot). Why should you be treated any differently?
Unfortunately, the Purgatorial safety valve whereby weirdarse points of view are challenged, packed up and went home because you are a generous loving guy (I believe that too, but it's not gunna stop me from kicking the shit outa ya).
This is Dead Horses, it's the place for deja vu. So let's go!
And if you're going to resort to 'this is what I think/feel, how I view things, you may view them differently' well that's fine, but don't damn well share your thoughts, feelings, and views in a public debate forum under the pretence that they have some sort of intellectual currency.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Asdara: please don't imagine I am tackling Chastmastr because he is 'different'. I am calling him to task as I would anyone who puts forward a blatantly false proposition (ie. arseplay is not sexual). Now if this was purely a forum for sharing and affirming I might hold back, but it's a debate space.
Chastmastr is trying to have it all ways, but in the cold hard light of day it does not compute. I would even go so far as to say his position is offensive to queer Christians. (I think Arabella was implying this re: the point Scot took up).
- It's inconsistent to say you fully affirm gay Christians and at the same time say that the only permissible sexual relationships are those between men and women in marriage.
- It's inconsistent to say you are chaste and celibate and then to indulge in arseplay and leatherplay.
I've seen a lot of people reinforcing Chastmastr over the last 18 months, mostly people trying to understand or empathise, but the queer Christian shipmates on board have tended to stay strangely quiet.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Not me, Coot.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
experiencing deja vu
David, that isn't good enough in a serious debate space.
Sorry, but I posted the above because I believe it answers your points, though I am aware that you disagree with those answers. You say, "His argument is that fisting is morally permissible because it is not sexual." And I had posted on this page above, "Which is why I'm trying to use phrases like 'certain sexual practices.' As I say, I've met people who even define hugging and kissing as "sex." And others who don't define oral sex as "sex." Which is why I went through that whole tedious thing with references to {it} before. I would define "sex" that way but since this really does lead to lots of confusion (I'm not even thinking of the Ship but of people I meet in the gay community) I'm trying to be more specific." Yes, I used to phrase it that way some time back, but since this led to nothing but confusion, not in doctrinal debate but with other people I met in person, I found that clarifying what I mean helped quite a lot.
I don't appreciate the term "sophistry," and while I very strongly disagree with positions I know both you and MM hold, I don't believe it is appropriate to use that term in reference to either of you. I have tried to be polite in my disagreement with you both, here and elsewhere, and if I have not done so, I am heartily sorry and I do apologise.
quote:
your insistence that you are chaste and celibate drives me wild.
Well, I am sorry that it affects you that way. But I can't change my position based on that, because I believe it is true.
quote:
Do you see that the way you define chastity and celibacy protects you from the painful reality that faces gay people?
Actually no. Just defining myself as gay -- and openly so, at my job, church and everywhere else -- and I generally don't go into details with my co-workers about what I do and don't do for the most part, though church people may be different -- tends to bring on the same sort of thing, because people assume I'm sexuallly active in the same way. And the bits about leather and kink are, if anything, considered even weirder, frankly, by a lot of people. People know someone is staying with me right now, for the most part (my cub to whom I have referred), and they probably assume all manner of things. Whether they would be more comfortable or far, far less if they knew we don't have genital penetration, but do "other things" is a good question, but I honestly think they'd be happier with the 'vanilla' sex.
And I can -- as we see on this board -- get it with both barrels, from the "straight" community and from many people in the gay community. Just being into the leather scene, and as a way of life, without the whole monogamy thing, even without genital penetration, is weird enough for many gay people. Being into it without g.p., and up till November 2002 without wanting orgasm at all, comes across to many of them as outright bizarre. No offence to anyone, but oh shock horror. I'm used to being considered weird. What matters to me is what I understand to be true and real. I know I'd get a hell of a lot more dates, even within my own leather community, if I'd do the more conventional sexual things. But whether we call it "sex" or "genital penetration" or "mxyzptlk" -- I do not believe I can do so.
It's about what I believe to be true. Not about what makes anyone else like me or think I am a good person, or for that matter what makes them think I am sane.
quote:
That is, by your standards (and those of many other christians) of what is allowed 'genitally' sexually a gay person must either forego sexual intimacy or commit sin.
Oh, right, they're all thrilled with bondage and S & M too? With (though I wish to emphasise yet again that I have only done this twice in my life, didn't particularly enjoy it though I feel almost *obligated* to try it again in case I meet someone who wants or needs such exploration, as a top I found it dull and as a bottom I found it exhausting) fisting as well? If so this is news to me.
... I'm sorry, I don't like being sarcastic. But seriously, I don't hold the same standards as most other Christians do either. Surely you know this? I had to face this when my political views changed -- most of the Christians I knew and knew of were politically "conservative" in the capitalist sense, but I concluded 'liberal' politics -- many though not all positions -- were more right. This, alone, at least among the people I knew then, put me at odds with most Christians I knew. That's changed a bit, especially now that I know people on the Ship. But my point is I don't think I fit with "those kinds of Christians" either.
quote:
I have not spoken to one single gay or bi bloke that doesn't consider fisting a sexual act
Okay. See above re the terms I am trying to use.
quote:
Now, you will say that you have technically no moral problem of other people having 'genital sex', casuistry again!
When did I say this?? I don't believe in putting legal obstacles in the path of consenting adults' behaviour but this is not the same thing. But I don't also believe in being pushy about what I believe with them either -- which is not the same thing as holding a belief. I posted recently on the "conversion of people of other religions" thread about needing to be truthful, yet careful and courteous, re disagreement with people because of what Christians have done in the past; so here. I make it plain (esp to possible dates - don't want to lead people on) what I believe I, as a Christian, am allowed to do, but I also don't go round evangelising for non-genital-penetration either.
quote:
If you state publically: 'I don't believe genital sex is biblically permissible except between men and women in marriage', the corollary of this is that anyone who is having 'genital sex', who is not a man and woman in marriage is doing something that is not biblically permissible! It's a logically inescapable conclusion!
That's correct, yes. Though I don't use the term "biblically" partly because I am not sola scriptura. I also don't think one should expect people who don't believe in certain doctrines to act as if they should; as Lewis puts it, I would be quite annoyed if people in a teetotal religion tried to stop everyone else from drinking wine.
quote:
Let's explore the implications of you saying you don't have a moral problem with other people having 'genital sex'
I'm still not sure where this comes from, I'm sorry. Yes, I think they are mistaken. I even believe that it is, for Christians, a sin. But I don't believe it is appropriate for me to be pushy or rude to them because of it, or love them any less. The human being who has mattered more to me than anyone else on the face of the earth -- whom I could almost be considered to commit idolatry with regard to my atttitude toward, so I must be careful -- had lots and lots and lots of this kind of sex. I also consider the man -- the non-Christian man, for that matter -- to be closer to a living saint than anyone I'd ever met. My cub, whom I love dearly, will be having sex with other men because I don't believe in forbidding him that just because my own religious views forbid *me* to do it. And he is a Christian himself, but as his beliefs are not the same as mine, and he has not asked me to make it a rule for him, I think it would be inappropriate for me to do so. This principle doesn't apply to everything -- in the past he has used some drugs (this is no secret), and he doesn't have an intrinsic moral problem with it -- but those I do forbid for reasons which are not strictly limited to morality, and he accepts that.
The lesbian issue (i.e., how can they engage in genital penetration, and does this mean they are freer in a way than men are?) is an odd one which I have pondered off and on. In my understanding they may very well be freer than men. Is it "fair"? I am not sure that enters into it. People of any sex or orientation can sin sins of thought, of course, whether having intercourse or not.
By the way, I think I should point out that I don't think I've said or suggested that I'm in any way more virtuous than anyone because of my beliefs or attempted limits on behaviour. Far from it. But it's what I believe and I am stuck with that.
quote:
There's a swag of contradictions going on here
Obviously I don't think so or I wouldn't hold them. I think there may be paradoxes but not contradictions. Or even I'm just bloody weird but you know, I am okay with that.
quote:
You add your voice implicitly to those who oppose fullness of life in gay christian relationships.
I don't think so, but I think we define "fullness of life" differently. And actually I vote for candidates and such who are freeing up the laws, working for legal recognition of people's relationships, and the like. As for the church I am not sure what to say. Do you really think that the "conservative" side approves of my position? I'm one of the ones that would get held up as an example -- "see, here is what those people are like, sick perverts into leather!" -- whether I do genital penetration or not.
quote:
People think it is a) a great joke or b) hypocrisy.
Well, I'm terribly sorry people think that way. But I am stuck with what I believe is true. And I cannot change it because some people, or even the vast majority of them, think that way.
quote:
It is a huge piss off to people who are genuinely struggling with chastity. You're getting your rocks off while earnestly affirming that you are chaste and celibate. That's pretty galling.
And I am sorry we disagree on this. Not sure what else to say.
MM said: quote:
despite what CM says, I don't regard him as part of the affirming lesbian and gay Christian community.
And I'm sorry you feel that way too. Or think that way. Not sure what that is defined as, admittedly. I think I've posted elsewhere on this thread that I wish I could join some of the groups you would likely include in that definition but I don't know that I would agree enough with their mission statements to do so.
quote:
I've got a feeling that the other side of the fence wouldn't be too impressed either.
Well, if you mean the genuinely nasty people who actively work against gay rights under the law, I don't want them to consider me on their side, and I don't think I'm in much danger of that. But regardless I must follow what I think is TRUE. I don't expect anyone else to believe it. If others do, that's cool.
quote:
Come on CM. Stop kidding yourself.
I don't think I am. But I've been saying that, and will have to continue to do so unless my beliefs change. Thus far nothing I have seen here inspires that shift.
quote:
You do have sex - gay sex
See above re terms.
quote:
From the Purgatory guidelines: "All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged."
Basically, I'm asking you to put up or shut up.
Well, I have. Over and over and over. I don't know what else to say; from my point of view, I've answered these questions on at least three separate multi-page thread almost ad nauseam. Our views may simply be so different that we can't see eye to eye to even see the roots of our disagreements or agree on the same reasons to believe A or B or C or D, much less X, Y, Z, and pi.
I'm sorry we don't agree. I'm sorrier that you aren't willing -- if I read you right -- to extend the same courtesy I am trying to extend to you regarding polite disagreement. If I am not reading you right, I apologise.
quote:
You've had a charmed life on these boards, anyone else making known their view on what is and what isn't sexually allowed to gay people so frequently and flamboyantly as you would have been slapped down a long time ago. (I'm thinking of people like Matt the Mad Medic, Mark the Punk, Martin PCNot). Why should you be treated any differently?
But I have been reprimanded by hosts and admins in the past. And when I have, I have tried to accept that and do what they say. I have tried to modify my behaviour accordingly when this has happened before. Sometimes I do get out of line with the silly jokes in particular. But especially in Purgatory I try to remain within the rules. And I try not to be too salacious, even in Hell.
quote:
Unfortunately, the Purgatorial safety valve whereby weirdarse points of view are challenged, packed up and went home
But people also do challenge me there and elsewhere. I state my position as politely as I can, and as clearly as I can. I'm even aware of this being a weirdarse point of view. This may be fairly helpful, in fact, because I don't really expect people to suddenly agree with me, or think that it's just so obviously right that anyone will leap right on over to my postion and adopt it. I don't even know -- I've often wondered -- how I would have felt about it, say, ten or fifteen years ago, if my future self went back in time and explained it all. I'd like to think I would not think my future self a blasphemous heretic or something. I'd like to think that I'd understand and agree. But I don't know that.
And I try to apply these principles of argument, such as they are, when it's less exotic stuff as well -- say, sacramental theology or whatnot. I don't expect a Baptist to agree with me there either. Or in politics. Meeting courteous debaters, or nice people, on the "conservative" side here on the Ship has really kept me from thinking bad things about all political conservatives, because I can always say that Shipmate X (or Y or Z) isn't like that, whatever else I may think about the "rest of them."
quote:
it's not gunna stop me from kicking the shit outa ya
Well -- sorry we disagree -- but I can't really just change my views because of things like that.
quote:
This is Dead Horses, it's the place for deja vu. So let's go!
But when the deja vu is from less than a page back, on the same page, isn't that a bit too much deja vu? I felt like people hadn't even read my post.
quote:
And if you're going to resort to 'this is what I think/feel, how I view things, you may view them differently' well that's fine, but don't damn well share your thoughts, feelings, and views in a public debate forum under the pretence that they have some sort of intellectual currency.
Well, I'm sorry, but I think I have tried to give my reasons for them -- I do think they have intellectual currency -- and I intend to continue stating what I believe when it seems appropriate.
quote:
a blatantly false proposition (ie. arseplay is not sexual)
Please see above re terms.
quote:
Chastmastr is trying to have it all ways
No, I'm not. There are all sorts of things I believe I can't do and as I say, it would make life MUCH easier if I could.
quote:
in the cold hard light of day it does not compute.
Obviously I think it does. Whatever happened to "I statements"?
quote:
I would even go so far as to say his position is offensive to queer Christians.
Probably depends on the queer Christian. But even if the majority of them think badly of me I think my position is true.
quote:
It's inconsistent to say you fully affirm gay Christians and at the same time say that the only permissible sexual relationships are those between men and women in marriage.
When did I say "fully affirm gay Christians"? If I am misremembering my posts, please show me where and I will apologise for using unclear language, but in this context I am not even sure what the phrase means.
Re: "sexual relationships," see above re terms.
quote:
It's inconsistent to say you are chaste and celibate and then to indulge in arseplay and leatherplay.
I am -- again -- sorry we don't agree.
I do engage in more than leather play, I should emphasise. For me it's a way of life. See the two other threads linked above.
quote:
I've seen a lot of people reinforcing Chastmastr over the last 18 months, mostly people trying to understand or empathise, but the queer Christian shipmates on board have tended to stay strangely quiet.
Well, if any of them would like to say more, please do.
I'm not sure, for my part, what I can say in this present debate which will not be repeating myself. It seems to me that you will only be satisfied if I say your position is correct. And I cannot do that because I don't believe it is so. I am stuck. I believe my position is correct or else I would not hold it. No offence is meant toward anyone by this, not you or MM or anyone else. But it is what I believe.
You know I hold a host of other beliefs shown elsewhere which surely you know are not held by many other people on either "side" of the sexuality debate, Christian or otherwise. I'm not trying to be an anomaly for its own sake. Honest and true. But it really seems to me that not only in this matter but in a host of others, I don't easily fit into the standard, acceptable categories most people hold in this time and place. And I am stuck with that as well. Some things have changed -- not only regarding masturbation (which still remains more in the "I technically accept this as correct" sense rather than emotionally comfortable sense; working on all that but thus far my position remains the same as of November 2002) but also the ordination of women to the priesthood (which changed to acceptance of its validity in December), both due to discussions on the Ship. Neither was easy and both took painstaking care to work out, but my positions on both did change, albeit with glacial slowness, and because I thought the new positions were correct.
I am sorry for the length of this post, but I hope I have clarified my position better.
Love to all
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
David ; I understand your position, but I think you are kidding yourself.
Its all too convenient.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
I read your post Chastmastr. It's long and sincere. I don't doubt for a minute that you believe that your position is true, and that as you've said, you hold the beliefs you hold independent of the beliefs and opinions of anyone else.
But there is a single glaring false premise in the translation of your theology into practice. And around that you've built an edifice with the beauty and complexity of the Agia Sophia.
quote:
Chastmastr:
Re fisting specifically: In my view, if a doctor can do it without its being [that thing, often called "sex," which I believe is only for the marriage context] then so can someone else without its being [that]. If a doctor can reach in wearing a glove for a prostate exam, or using a device, and that is not [that], then -- in my view -- so can another.
The above seems to imply that anal stimulation by fingers or toys is also acceptable from your point of view. Is that correct?
Previously, you used the body function analogy to determine whether something was or was not sexual in nature. Now you're using the medical analogy. Am I missing any other explanations?
You know, I approve of working things out from First Principles. But there are some things which don't require Isaac Newton-style thought experiments for their determination.
Please confirm if the above is your basis for determining whether anal contact is sexual or not and we can continue.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
I've been reading this thread for a bit and have to say that I think Mike and Ic, etc. are right. Bondage and fisting are sex. Leaving out intercourse does not make these acts any the less sex. Sex isn't just penetration. However, David your choice not to engage in penetrative sex, is cool but the idea that sexual intercourse is forbidden except between married couples doesn't sqaure with me. David, I wonder, do you link intercourse soley ti procreation? And is that why you think that while it's okay to fist intercourse is wrong/forbidden/perverted between guys or unmarried heterosexual couples?
As a liberal protestant my view is that sex (and sexual intercourse) between commited couples (gay or otherwise) is no big deal, apart form the fact that in this context it's an expression of love and therefore totally healthy and normal. (I use the word 'normal' in the sense of a safe commited relationship for exploring and fulfilling each other's needs and desires.)
David I think people come down on you because you justify your own sexuality whilst describing what many people engage in e.g intercourse between homosexual and unmarried hetro couples as wrong (e.g forbidden).
I do indeed support the institution of marriage but I lived with my partner for just over 11 years - since was 16 in fact - before we tied the knot. We're still together after 28 years and I don't think the sex we had before we were married was somehow less sancfified than the sex, penetrative or otherwise, that we've had since.
So the bible says...but we aren't all evangelicals. The notion of the bible as rule book is too restrictive...rather I see it as a guide.
J
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Aplogies for typos; guess when I get passionate about a theme my typing skills fly out of the window . My commitment to some sort of sanity on Christian sexuality does not.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
J
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
The "final cause" arguement which states, in part, that homosexual intercourse is morally wrong since it cannot result in procreation is deeply flawed.
If an act which cannot result in procreation is sinful, then celibacy must therefore logically be sinful. Consenting, adult, hetrosexual intercourse would also be sinful if one or both of the partners was infertile. The arguement is arrant nonsense and is often a mere rationalisation for hetrosexist bigotry.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
