|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
In the Purgatory thread on Jeffrey John, Adrian posted the following:
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.
I Do. Not. Get. This.
I simply do not understand why people focus on what gay men (and it's almost always MEN) do in bed. Especially since many heterosexuals enjoy the same types of sex (oral sex, anal sex, etc.) that homosexuals do.
Why do you think about it? What about it makes your stomach turn?
What's it to you, anyway?
And what does it mean that you are "not into queer bashing BUT..." I find the use of that conjunction quite disturbing for some reason.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I've kept quiet up until now, but I have to answer this.
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
In the Purgatory thread on Jeffrey John, Adrian posted the following:
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.
I Do. Not. Get. This.
I simply do not understand why people focus on what gay men (and it's almost always MEN) do in bed. Especially since many heterosexuals enjoy the same types of sex (oral sex, anal sex, etc.) that homosexuals do.
Yes, but they're generally not the ones who say things such as the quote. There are plenty of hetero folk who find anal disgusting between any two people. There are also a lot of men who find the concept of performing oral on another man abhorrent.
Whether we find the act abhorrent doesn't have to affect how we feel about someone who does it. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" isn't just a nice phrase to bandy around, it's a genuine way to behave as well for many people.
quote:
Why do you think about it? What about it makes your stomach turn?
Sadly, it's almost impossible to discuss homosexuality these days without without making it a de facto discussion about sex. That's just the way society is at the moment - it's the same for most discussions about hetero relationships.
And yes, it makes many people's stomachs turn, but not for any reasons I can put words to. Imagine things that make your stomach turn, then try to explain exactly why. It's a very hard thing to do.
quote:
What's it to you, anyway?
Assuming you mean this in a general sense, and not specifically to Adrian, nothing. But this is a public discussion board where everyone has the right to their opinion as long as they don't break the 10Cs. I don't believe Adrian did that.
quote:
And what does it mean that you are "not into queer bashing BUT..." I find the use of that conjunction quite disturbing for some reason.
In a lot of cases I'd agree with you. This style of opening does tend to preface postings which do exactly what they've just said they don't (if you follow..). I don't think this is one of those cases though.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sadly, it's almost impossible to discuss homosexuality these days without without making it a de facto discussion about sex. That's just the way society is at the moment - it's the same for most discussions about hetero relationships.
I have a major problem with this argument. In my view, this is about heterosexual people making sex the focus of discussion.
I don't think the heterosexual people (and I am one, if it matters) never seem to realize how much they flaunt their own sexuality. They cannot see how the simplest things---a wedding ring on their finger, a picture of their children on their desk at work---announce that they are (most likely) having sex with (most likely) a person of the opposite sex.
They cannot "see" this because they have normalized heterosexual sex so that they do not have to think about sex every time they think about marriage or children. (After all, we wouldn't want to have to imagine good old Mum and Dad, or the next-door neighbors, going at it, now would we?! ![[Wink]](wink.gif) )
I see the same issue when (American) white people discuss "race." For most of them, when you mention the word "race," they immediately picture someone with brown skin. They don't see themselves as racialized because they are the majority and whiteness is the norm. Same thing with heterosexuals---they think all the discussions about sex are being done by gays and lesbians because they cannot see themselves as defined by their heterosexuality in the same way they wish to define homosexuals by theirs.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And yes, it makes many people's stomachs turn, but not for any reasons I can put words to. Imagine things that make your stomach turn, then try to explain exactly why. It's a very hard thing to do.
The only thing that turns my stomach is violence, and I think that's pretty easy to explain. So I still don't get it.
And if you cannot put into words what about certain sexual practices disgusts you, then I would suggest you are having an illogical reaction to something and need to examine it further before you just give it over to "It's a very hard thing to do."
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
What's it to you, anyway?
Assuming you mean this in a general sense, and not specifically to Adrian, nothing. But this is a public discussion board where everyone has the right to their opinion as long as they don't break the 10Cs. I don't believe Adrian did that.
I don't think he did either. I'm just trying to understand.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
And what does it mean that you are "not into queer bashing BUT..." I find the use of that conjunction quite disturbing for some reason.
In a lot of cases I'd agree with you. This style of opening does tend to preface postings which do exactly what they've just said they don't (if you follow..). I don't think this is one of those cases though.
As I noted, I found the quote disturbing. Like you, I want to give Adrian the benefit of the doubt. I've PM'd him, and hope he comes here to discuss.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
Same thing with heterosexuals---they think all the discussions about sex are being done by gays and lesbians because they cannot see themselves as defined by their heterosexuality in the same way they wish to define homosexuals by theirs.
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
Same thing with heterosexuals---they think all the discussions about sex are being done by gays and lesbians because they cannot see themselves as defined by their heterosexuality in the same way they wish to define homosexuals by theirs.
I think I disagree with almost every word of this segment of what is otherwise a good post.
Nobody thinks all the discussions about sex are coming from the GLB brigade. How many TV programmes, magazines, newspaper articles are there about straight sex every day? If straight people have a tendency to define GLBs by what they do with their genitals it's because there exists a loud section of the gay community who do just that.
In their worthwile struggle for recognition and equal rights (especially over the age of consent), gay people have unfortunately been forced to define themselves in exactly the way you describe above. There was no other way to do it without staying in the shadows.
I think what I'm trying to say is most straights aren't defined by what they do in bed because to us it's not the defining part of our lives. To many gay people it is, so should they be surprised if other people define them that way as well?
quote:
The only thing that turns my stomach is violence, and I think that's pretty easy to explain. So I still don't get it.
And if you cannot put into words what about certain sexual practices disgusts you, then I would suggest you are having an illogical reaction to something and need to examine it further before you just give it over to "It's a very hard thing to do."
But what about violence disgusts you? Or is it just an illogical reaction to it? Why must Adrian further define what he means when you're content to stick to overall concepts, like violence? Sorry to be so pedantic, but I really must get my point across here. "There's just something about it that turns my stomach" is to me an adequate explaination.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Now that was an ironic cross-post! We quoted exactly the same part, word for word, with completely opposite reactions ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) . How odd.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In their worthwile struggle for recognition and equal rights (especially over the age of consent), gay people have unfortunately been forced to define themselves in exactly the way you describe above. There was no other way to do it without staying in the shadows.
By whom?
And for the record, I dearly wish that I had nothing better to do than sit around and fantasize about what other people do behind closed doors. Talk about having WAY too much time on your hands!
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SWAT (aka the former Mr PInk)
Shipmate
# 2979
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In their worthwile struggle for recognition and equal rights (especially over the age of consent), gay people have unfortunately been forced to define themselves in exactly the way you describe above. There was no other way to do it without staying in the shadows.
By whom?
And for the record, I dearly wish that I had nothing better to do than sit around and fantasize about what other people do behind closed doors. Talk about having WAY too much time on your hands!
--------------------
"That's sooooooooooooo"
Posts: 65 | From: Croydon | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SWAT (aka the former Mr PInk)
Shipmate
# 2979
|
Posted
opps. Erin i've always thouught what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors shoud stay there. Ok I love sex but why should anyone want to know what I do & with whom. Its my business and it should stay in the bed room or wherever & between the people concrned. We waste too much time busing ourselves about what isn't our business. I think this hy I've never been into porn though my imagination might have something to say about that.
--------------------
"That's sooooooooooooo"
Posts: 65 | From: Croydon | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In their worthwile struggle for recognition and equal rights (especially over the age of consent), gay people have unfortunately been forced to define themselves in exactly the way you describe above. There was no other way to do it without staying in the shadows.
By whom?
And for the record, I dearly wish that I had nothing better to do than sit around and fantasize about what other people do behind closed doors. Talk about having WAY too much time on your hands!
In order to succesfully campaign for equality of ages of consent (in the UK at least - I don't know if they were already equal in the US or elsewhere), the gay community naturally had to create a wider awareness of the issue. When ages of consent are being discussed it's inevitable and unavoidable that people will think about sex, and especially in this case gay sex.
That was all I meant.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Um, I should clarify -- I don't think all straight people do that at all. But yes, some do, I believe.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How many TV programmes, magazines, newspaper articles are there about straight sex every day?
Well -- a good way of asking about this is to take a given programme, magazine, newspaper article, or advertisement and ask yourself how it might read with a same-gender pairing. There is a constant stream of material assuming a mixed-gender world. It's not unlike all the material from years past depicting women as housewives, or all families as white. When Cosmopolitan and New Woman and Maxim and FHM all pretty much run sex articles assuming a straight readership, with adverts on the front page of what's inside... when most jokes about sex on movie or television comedies, except on "gay programs" or in a specific gay context, are about straight sex... well, as far as I can tell there are quite a lot of them.
I recommend (and may have before on this thread, not sure) The Commercial Closet for some good analysis of the varying ways gay people are shown in advertisements, at least. How we're depicted in other contexts, I am sure there is a good site out there...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
A Modest Proposal: We’d all be better off if everyone went back into the closet.
I think paigeb is right that heterosexuals "flaunt their own sexuality" in ways they don’t even realize. And yes, I agree with Marvin the Martian that some gay people "have unfortunately been forced to define themselves" in a similar way. I for one – perhaps the only one, I realize – am sick to death of it on both counts.
That's why I’m not a fan of the many perks extended to people who have voluntarily chosen to enter into heterosexual marriage. Touching on some of the issues in Scot’s recent Theology of Marriage thread, to me it’s a covenant involving two people and God. And what goes on between two people and God is simply none of anyone else’s business. It’s especially not the business of the state.
Therefore, my fix wouldn’t be to extend partnership benefits to gay couples. I’d prefer to see an end to any benefits (e.g., pension rights, tax breaks, family leave) extended preferentially on the basis of who’s (ostensibly) doing who in the State-Approved Heterosexual Fashion™. An alternative would be to extend equal benefits without regard to the nature of the relationship (e.g., each employee can cover one additional person on his or her health insurance, regardless of whether it’s a parent, spouse, friend, or neighborhood homeless person).
On another point raised in Marvin’s post, to my knowledge, the age of consent issue seems to be much more controversial and divisive in the UK than in the US. I wonder why. Really.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think what I'm trying to say is most straights aren't defined by what they do in bed because to us it's not the defining part of our lives. To many gay people it is, so should they be surprised if other people define them that way as well?
And this statement demonstrates exactly what I mean. You, as a heterosexual person, do not believe that what you do in your bedroom defines you as a person. Can you not see/acknowledge that it defines you in precisely the same way as it does for a homosexual person?
In a truly fair world, your choice of sex partners/practices wouldn't define you in any way, shape, or form---because all of us are so much more than what (or whom) we do in the bedroom.
The difference in the current world is that, as a heterosexual person, you are in the majority, and that group gets to CHOOSE what defines people. Heterosexual sex (of any stripe) doesn't "define" heterosexuals as people simply because heterosexuals say that it doesn't. They/We could have exactly the same standards for gay and lesbian people, but they/we don't, because we're too busy asserting our power over the minority and deluding ourselves into believeing that we are somehow "protecting" ourselves and our families from the Big Gay Menace.
quote:
But what about violence disgusts you? Or is it just an illogical reaction to it? Why must Adrian further define what he means when you're content to stick to overall concepts, like violence? Sorry to be so pedantic, but I really must get my point across here. "There's just something about it that turns my stomach" is to me an adequate explaination.
I get disgusted by seeing people harm other people or animals. My feelings of disgust are saved for those instances/situations where there is clearly harm to one or more parties. Under that definition---which, of course, you are free to disagree with--gay sex just doesn't cut it as a "disgusting" practice.
My point about gay sex--or any particular sexual act, for that matter--is why should anyone find it disgusting? Why not just say "It's not my cup of tea, thanks!"? Why must we paint someone who chooses a different practice than our own as somehow less than human (see the comments of the Archbishop of Nigeria for an example)?
To me, "There's just something about it that turns my stomach," is NOT an adequate explanation---it is the reaction of a child, not a rational, thinking adult. My 7-year-old son has that irrational reaction to pizza. When we have it for dinner, he builds a wall of cereal boxes around himself so that he doesn't have to look at it. There is nothing intrisincally disgusting about pizza---millions of people eat it every day and don't bat an eyelid. I think he's being silly---and I think people who cannot get past "what homosexuals do in the bedroom" are in the same group with my son. His excuse is that he's 7--what's theirs?
Presleyterian---I think your suggestions are splendid. Now if I could only find a political candidate with the gumption to espouse them. Want to run for office? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
paigeb. I am delighted to respond to your invitation to take up the debate here.
In terms of what's been said recently on this thread I would say that you can't simply define people in terms of what they do in the bedroom or, for that matter, what their natural preferences and inclinations are. It's simply not possible to split people's lives up into categories like that.
However, sex does tend to be a defining point though quite simply because we nowadays live in a sex obsessed society and, for good or ill it's what sells - well it sells tabloids anyway. Not unnaturally the focus tends to be on that aspect of relationships, be they straight or gay.
My own stated view as you know is one of pragmatic tolerance towards consenting adults doing whatever they please in private so long as they are discreet and don't insist on rubbing everyone else's noses in it. There is, however, a big difference between exercising that kind of tolerance and giving certain lifestyles unqualified approval.
Much the same can be said about the countless heterosexual couples who insist on co-habiting nowadays either as a preparation for eventual marriage or as an alternative to it. Whilst I accept the practice and don't raise too strong an objection to it, I would prefer that in every case they were married. Indeed the church should probably concentrate its efforts on supporting and encouraging marriage.
Just a few thoughts for you to mull over.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Paigeb and I are colluding! No, actually, my interest in disgust has a separate origin. I shall follow the debate here and I await with interest to paigeb's last question. However, since disgust is a wider phenomenon with religious connections (cleanliness taboos etc) I have put a new thread in purgatory on the subject.
Disgust at gay sex seems to pass over the fact that when hets do oral or anal sex fellow hets don't seem to blink, (nowadays anyway). So, perhaps we should just concentrate on the male-male / female-female thing and forget the plumbing.
--------------------
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
I'd also say that I've observed reactions (including the expected humourous response on various ads -- see the Commercial Closet for examples) to the whole idea of two men touching, hugging, kissing, or expressing vulnerability -- not just where their willies are involved. It seems to me that this may be a factor -- not just a disgust response to what people do with their genitals, but a response involving what people expect "real men," in general, to be like. I remember watching The Birdcage and realising that someone watching it could wonder precisely what the characters did which would make their relationship morally objectionable...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
My own stated view as you know is one of pragmatic tolerance towards consenting adults doing whatever they please in private so long as they are discreet and don't insist on rubbing everyone else's noses in it. There is, however, a big difference between exercising that kind of tolerance and giving certain lifestyles unqualified approval.
Adrian---thanks for responding!
At the risk of seeming to pick on you personally (which I hope you understand I'm not trying to do), what does it mean to be "discreet" and to refrain from "rubbing everyone else's nose in it"?
Would you apply the same standards to heterosexuals holding hands as they walk down the street? What about chaste kissing (i.e., a wife kisses her husband goodbye as he catches the train for work)? Would you agree that those folks are rubbing their heterosexuality in everyone else's face? How about wedding rings and family photos on people's desks at work?
I take your point about being tolerant versus offering approval---and you can guess where on that spectrum I fall. But if we are talking about open displays of sexuality shouldn't we have the same standards for everyone? Or is it okay to decide that gays and lesbians are "flaunting" just because they want to enjoy something that straight people have considered their sole prerogative?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Katie H. L.
Shipmate
# 1996
|
Posted
Presleyterian -- excellent suggestions. It would be better for all if the state just got out of the approving or disapproving relationships business.
Adrian, I too would like to know what the definition of "rubbing everyone else's noses in it" is. In my experience, "flaunting it" or "rubbing people's noses in it" usually turns out to mean anything that is not being in the closet, i.e. holding hands, discussing what you and your girlfriend/boyfriend did over the weekend, that sort of thing. But perhaps you have a different definition.
As for the whole "stomach-turning" issue, I actually think that sexual practices that don't turn you on often turn your stomach -- I can certainly think of some that have that effect on me. But that doesn't mean that the people who do them are bad, it just means I don't want to do it.
Katie
--------------------
Katie L. just using her middle initial for a while.
Posts: 606 | From: San Francisco, USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
An alternative would be to extend equal benefits without regard to the nature of the relationship
Which, incidentally, is currently being done in the UK.
I agree with ZC's last paragraph above regarding the "stomach-turning" thing. Just because it disgusts me doesn't make it wrong, but just because it isn't wrong doesn't mean I'm not disgusted by it. It's just personal preference at the end of the day.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
paigeb and Zealous Convert. Thanks for responding. I think everyone's sexuality is their own business but, despite being a child of the (early) 1960's, I don't like to see it publicly paraded before the world. For people with a sense of propriety, ostentatious public displays of affection are quite simply distasteful. I don't particularly mind a heterosexual couple having a peck on the cheek in public - or on the doorstep. However, walking through town and holding hands as though they daren't let go of one another provokes one response in me - yuck. Without going into too much detailn it suffices to say that there are other 'public' expressions of affection I would rather not see!
I have to admit that I find the sight of two people of the same sex kissing or holding hands mildly sickening because for me it is not normal. It is a way of life which although alright for some, is certainly not the norm. For this reason I would prefer it if same sex couples kept the expression of their affection private.
Finally, there is a powerful gay lobby within the church, not least of all the Church of England. This I think is why we hear about homosexuality ad nauseum. I've just visited the Church Times forum (where I operate simply as Adrian) and an advert popped up there for the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) whilst I was scrawling down the page.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
There are people working for acceptance of gay people in the Church of England because there needs to be. Recent events display that clearly.
And I don't honestly think that your views on 'normality' should matter at all with regard to what the law says, Adrian. I don't hapopen to find hetereosexual sex appealing to me, but I don't get bound up with questions of 'taste' or 'normality'
--------------------
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
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
I have to admit that I find the sight of two people of the same sex kissing or holding hands mildly sickening because for me it is not normal. It is a way of life which although alright for some, is certainly not the norm. For this reason I would prefer it if same sex couples kept the expression of their affection private.
Adrian, I really appreciate your honesty, but I have to confess that this attitude makes me sad. Basically, you are appropriating to yourself the right to decide what is "normal." Since there are homosexuals in EVERY population, I would say that makes homosexuality a "normal," if limited, condition.
I would suggest that revulsion at the sight of two people simply expressing a love for one another (in an appropriate way, of course) is nothing more than prejudice---and I think part of our Christian duty is not to allow ourselves to hold to our prejudices.
Jesus spoke powerfully to this in his story about the Good Samaritan, and in his interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well. St. Paul did likewise in dealing with prejudices in the early Christian community about what one could/could not eat.
I think its important to acknowledge our prejudices, but I think it is equally important to fight them. Growing up in the American South, I was taught that black people were lazy welfare cheats, that Jews were cheap and avaricious, that gays and lesbians were Satan's minions, and that Catholics were apostates who worshipped the Virgin Mary. It would have been very easy to hold to those views, because most of the people in my family and immediate environment held them.
By the grace of God, however, I was given a chance to examine those views. I found them to be both inaccurate and evil, and I have done my best to eradicate them from my life. Of course, there is always some new prejudice waiting to pop up (Republicans come to mind ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) ), but I keep praying about that and working to keep myself from falling into the trap.
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Finally, there is a powerful gay lobby within the church, not least of all the Church of England. This I think is why we hear about homosexuality ad nauseum. I've just visited the Church Times forum (where I operate simply as Adrian) and an advert popped up there for the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) whilst I was scrawling down the page.
Funny---I see a very powerfuly HETEROSEXUAL "lobby," who forces the issue of homosexuality on to the agenda at every possible opportunity. I wish they would stop doing that and focus on demonstrating the love of Christ in the world.
And I am grateful to live in a time and be part of a faith community that recognizes the existence and the special faith needs of gay and lesbian Christians. I honestly see this recognition as the working of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
I have to admit that I find the sight of two people of the same sex kissing or holding hands mildly sickening because for me it is not normal. It is a way of life which although alright for some, is certainly not the norm. For this reason I would prefer it if same sex couples kept the expression of their affection private.[/QB]
Are you suggesting that everything which isn't "normal" should be kept out of sight of society in case it offends people?
My hair is dyed bright orange, which isn't "normal" either, but nobody so far has told me they find it sickening, or suggested I should wear a hat whenever I am out in public.
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
It would have been very easy to hold to those views, because most of the people in my family and immediate environment held them.
By the grace of God, however, I was given a chance to examine those views. I found them to be both inaccurate and evil, and I have done my best to eradicate them from my life. Of course, there is always some new prejudice waiting to pop up . . . but I keep praying about that and working to keep myself from falling into the trap.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
For this reason I would prefer it if same sex couples kept the expression of their affection private.
This reminds of a great slogan on a T-Shirt I saw at San Francisco Gay Pride 2 weeks ago "I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay in public!!"
People just have to learn that the world is not all heterosexual and maybe open their minds to others in their midst.
Gay people have just as much of a right to express affection in public as we see straights enjoying (and no, this does not mean having sex in public)
[ 09. July 2003, 16:25: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
Report on the BBC monday night
"Former ArchBishop of Canterbury George Carey admitted that he had ordained hetrosexuals to become Bishops. A church spokesman said that it is OK for hetrosexuals to become bishops provided that they pounce about and wear dresses"
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveWal
Shipmate
# 307
|
Posted
Gay people have just as much of a right to express affection in public as we see straights enjoying (and no, this does not mean having sex in public)
Although there are times when a well aimed "Get a room" might be deemed appropriate! I mean, think of the poor singles...
--------------------
If they give you lined paper to write on, write across the lines. (Russian anarchist saying)
Posts: 208 | From: Manchester | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
coffee jim
Shipmate
# 3510
|
Posted
Adrian, assuming your concept of 'normal' involves the views of the majority, I suggest you check out popular culture to see how it is changing:
Leafing through the pages of FHM (ahem... ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) ), what's a tad disturbing is the way that male and female homosexuality is presented. 'Situational bisexuality' among women is viewed as 'normal' and desirable (since a 'threesome' has now become an aspirational sex act); lesbianism is seen as titillating but threatening; and male homosexuality or bisexuality the subject of jokes, but generally not spoken of. Heterosexual anal sex also seems to have been normalized, although female-on-male penetration is still somewhat taboo.
Posts: 367 | From: Belfast | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
Oh dear, I am getting a slating for expressing my sincerely held views honestly! Was I really wise to accept paigeb's invitation to comment on this thread? I wonder.
In my perception of the world, and I'm sure it's not all that bizarre, men and women are meant for one another and to enjoy intimacy together, a not altogether incidental dividend being procreation and the perpetuation of the human race. Indeed biologically, that's how it happens.
Homosexuality on the other hand does happen but it's an experience (dare I say 'choice' without opening a can of worms) of a small proportion of the population. Looking at the hard facts it is hard to conclude though that it is what either nature or the creator intended. Whether between men or between women, homosexual expressions of intimacy cannot and do not result in procreation and the perpetuation of the human race.
With a greater mercy than many working class heterosexual men, I don't shout insults at homosexuals and I would not set out to harm them or their reputations simply on account of the fact that they are 'different.' That does not mean, however, that I feel able in good conscience to extend unqualified approval to their lifestyles and practices or regard them as normal. Homosexuality is NOT normal, because it is a way of life which simply isn't meant to be. Men and women are joined together both physically - and in marriage - for a definite purpose, not simply the pursuit of pleasure or the desire to express affection, legitimate though those goals are.
That said, I am prepared to extend a friendly tolerance towards good people of all sexual orientations and none. However, I prefer it when people exercise restraint and keep the most intimate expressions of affection private.
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Oh dear, I am getting a slating for expressing my sincerely held views honestly! Was I really wise to accept paigeb's invitation to comment on this thread? I wonder.
Well, this seems to be a wish for the crown of martyrdom!
In my perception of the world, and I'm sure it's not all that bizarre, men and women are meant for one another and to enjoy intimacy together, a not altogether incidental dividend being procreation and the perpetuation of the human race. Indeed biologically, that's how it happens.
Yes, this does exist and exists for a majority. This does not invalidate the loving relationships of gay people in any way.
Homosexuality on the other hand does happen but it's an experience (dare I say 'choice' without opening a can of worms) of a small proportion of the population. Looking at the hard facts it is hard to conclude though that it is what either nature or the creator intended. Whether between men or between women, homosexual expressions of intimacy cannot and do not result in procreation and the perpetuation of the human race.
Again, as pointed out by many wiser in science then I, homosexuality does exist in nature and in the experiences of gay people, their feelings of affection exist from a very early age. Yes, it is a minority but such minorities DO exist in nature and in the different ways God has made us all.
Also, I would point out that sexual expression even in heterosexual relationaships do not only exist only for the purposes of procreation but as a sign and proof of love and unity between the couple.
With a greater mercy than many working class heterosexual men, I don't shout insults at homosexuals and I would not set out to harm them or their reputations simply on account of the fact that they are 'different.' That does not mean, however, that I feel able in good conscience to extend unqualified approval to their lifestyles and practices or regard them as normal.
You do not have too. But I would ask you to keep your mind open to the experiences of gay people and the Christian gay people on this forum and learn from their experiences of life. There are many eloquent voices here.
Homosexuality is NOT normal, because it is a way of life which simply isn't meant to be. Men and women are joined together both physically - and in marriage - for a definite purpose, not simply the pursuit of pleasure or the desire to express affection, legitimate though those goals are.
Your first sentence is a complete non sequitar. Sort of like "I Believe this because i believe this" or "Credo quia absurdum"
Please remember that there are gay people joined in equally loving relationships and that are based on mutual sacrifice not on pursuit of pleasure.
That said, I am prepared to extend a friendly tolerance towards good people of all sexual orientations and none. However, I prefer it when people exercise restraint and keep the most intimate expressions of affection private.
This is scant tolerance indeed. Gay people should not be afraid to express those simple marks of affection that straights take for granted in public. Restraint, yes i agree, but restraint across the board!!!!
[Edited to fix mis-placed response]
[ 10. July 2003, 07:48: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
That said, I am prepared to extend a friendly tolerance towards good people of all sexual orientations and none. However, I prefer it when people exercise restraint and keep the most intimate expressions of affection private.
The saddest thing is that you really do believe you're being tolerant.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Homosexuality ... (is) an experience ... of a small proportion of the population.
Well, yes, I suppose, but then the choice to identify oneself as "British" makes one part of a very small group indeed, whilst being white comes a poor fourth or fifth to other colours on this planet. And there are more men women on this planet than men. So, being a white British male means belonging to a far smaller minority than being gay. And if you factor in being Christian, then I'd say that Adrian1 belongs to a group of barely 1/12,000ths of the world population.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Adrian1 - a sincere question. Do you honestly believe/agree with the "final cause" arguement? I.E the arguement that sexual activity that cannot result in procreation is wrong? If so, why?
The final cause arguement has always seemed incredibly weak to me for several reasons. These are.
1) Sexual pleasure/excitement is blatently a legimate part of sexual expression.
2) Final cause positions tend to imply that even consenting hetrosexual sex within marriage is wrong if one or both partners is infertile. This seems slightly bizarre, and implies that couples should undergo verility tests before sexual intercourse which doesn't strike me as terribly realistic.
3) Some propenents of "final cause" come close to arguing that procreation is the normal result of sex - which is clearly horseshit and is pure sophistry in any case. Lots of things are not "normal" but are clearly not immoral such as train spotting for example.
4) the arguement is highly illiberal
5) the arguement states that only marriage or celibacy (including a refrain from masturbation) are permissable, yet celibacy cannot result in procreation. Therefore, a consistent Final Causer should condemn celibacy.
Please say whether you have adopted a final cause position and if so, how you overcome the problems with your position out-lined above.
Thanks you.
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
Interesting responses.
Firstly, I would point out that nothing I have said so far is a denial of the love and affection which can exist between two people of the same sex. I'm quite sure that homosexual and lesbian relationships can be expressions of a great deal of love and affection. That doesn't make them any less of a minority occurence or a departure from what for most people is the accepted norm though.
Secondly, it is perfectly possible for affectionate relationships to exist between two people of the same sex without sex per se entering into the equation. It's not necessary for men to be agressive to one another in order to prove how "manly" they are or for women to be bitchy to one another for equivalent reasons. Close same sex friendships are perfectly possible without them being sexual.
Thirdly, I don't think my pragmatic tolerance is in any way scant and I rather resent the suggestion that it is. On the contrary it is a recognition of the fact that willingly acknowledge the existence of various expressions of sexuality I feel unable, in conscience, to endorse homosexual relationships in the same way that I would endorse appropriate heterosexual ones.
Fourthly, I probably take my cue too readily from Rome (and traditional Anglicanism) but I do believe that the primary function of intercourse is procreative. That's not to say that couples for whom procreation isn't a possibility shouldn't have it. On the contrary. I think we have to keep the primary of purpose of it before us though.
Finally, I am aware that there are many good Christian people on this forum, some of whom are gay or lesbian. Nothing I have said should be regarded as personal slight or rejection of them in any way and I wish to make this clear. Indeed I would like to affirm them as people even though I may not approve of all that they do in private.
I hope this answers some objections.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
But your affirmation appears to stop prior to the point of actually acknowledging their gayness. They can be gay as long as you don't know about it, right? If you don't see them holding hands when walking down the street, or kiss each other good bye when parting, or have pictures of their partners on their desks, and all that.
Forcing people into the closet so that you won't be compelled to fantasize about their sex life (does someone hold a gun to your head or something?) isn't tolerance.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I have come across Adrian on another forum and to give him some slack, I don't actually think he is as homophobic as his language may indicate here
(he has often expressed far more sympathetic views).
But, Adrian, what I think you are doing is falling into the natural law trap of assuming that anyone gay is actually claiming that their normality is the majority, or that it is ever likely to be anything other than a majority. I am fully aware that procreation is required to populate the world ( although we are over populated, and I have often wondered what the population would be if all those who had gay orientation in the developing world were not participating, compulsorily, in heterosexual activity). Procreation has nothing to fear from gay sexuality, because only gay people will have sexual relationships with one another. Thus, for those people. procreation will not be part of the equation. That is also the case for almost a third of heterosexual couples too - whether through infertility or choice.
I am fully aware, and not at all threatened, by the majority staus, of heterosexuality. But being a minority occurrence does not make me unnatural ; natural law needs to get to grips with the reality of diversity (and to be fair, some good pro-gay catholic theology is starting to get to grips with this)
And of course relationships don't have to include sex. Lots of my friends are women, and I don't have sex with them. Nor my male friends. I only have sex with my partner. And thats why our relationship is more than a close friendship. It would still be so if at any time in the future, like many married couples, we stopped having sex. We wouldn't be 'just friends'.
I think, Adrian, to be honest, that you feel a bit queasy about what we do in bed. I do find that a bit odd, because whilst the thought of hetero sex makes me want to ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) , it honestly isn't something I ever think about. It doesn't follow that I disapprove of it just because I don't happen to like the idea very much for myself.
--------------------
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
|
|
Prowler
Apprentice
# 4713
|
Posted
Adrian, if you want to know what your mindset (I am not berating you, I know you are trying to be fair, I just think you do not fully understand) does to homosexuals, just talk to a few about their experiences about coming out of the closet to their parents and close friends, and the fear they have of being rejected by those they care about. The fact that people are "disgusted" by you can play on your mind and terrify you when thinking about coming out of the closet.
Another thing, how would YOU feel if people told you that small romantic gestures in public made them sick.
--------------------
"The first step towards knowledge is to know that we are ignorant." - Richard Cecil
"There is no reality; there is only perception." - Me
Posts: 1 | From: SW PA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byzantia
Shipmate
# 3586
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Thirdly, I don't think my pragmatic tolerance is in any way scant and I rather resent the suggestion that it is. On the contrary it is a recognition of the fact that willingly acknowledge the existence of various expressions of sexuality I feel unable, in conscience, to endorse homosexual relationships in the same way that I would endorse appropriate heterosexual ones.
Fourthly, I probably take my cue too readily from Rome (and traditional Anglicanism) but I do believe that the primary function of intercourse is procreative. That's not to say that couples for whom procreation isn't a possibility shouldn't have it. On the contrary. I think we have to keep the primary of purpose of it before us though.
Dear Adrian1
Huh?
#3 quote:
willingly acknowledge the existence of various expressions of sexuality
#4 quote:
I do believe that the primary function of intercourse is procreative
<snip>
I think we have to keep the primary of purpose of it before us though.
I can see it now.
"Honey, make love to me."
"Well, OK. But remember, we're not procreating."
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[edited to tidy up as requested]
[ 11. July 2003, 08:31: Message edited by: TonyK ]
Posts: 309 | From: On an island, near another island | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SWAT (aka the former Mr PInk)
Shipmate
# 2979
|
Posted
I'm with Mersey Mikeon Homosexuality is normal but not the norm.
Over the last 4 (or 5 if you count when I was outed & started to come to terms with my homosexuality)I've been surprised at how people have treated me. Ok they're were people who knew me at work and socially who didn't rise an eyebrow (or did because I'm just your average guy) who carried on going to the pub, liking the same things he did before & loved being a father to his two kids. I'm out but not balantlly so if people suss fine if they're none the wiser thats fine too. I've never really been interested in what people do behind closed doors & with whom. I sexual but it's my business. I have big problems with certain gay behavior (cottagging/cruising ect) but I've done it espically at the start of my journey but just as my journey as parent has changed my opions r/e how to bring up my darling offspring so has my attitude to so called gay culture.
Im no killjoy & if people want to act in certain way fine but please whatever happened to being yourself.
Posts: 65 | From: Croydon | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
I think part of the 'problem' in terms of my approach to homosexuality is that it's not part of my experience and therefore I don't understand in the same way as someone who is gay. It's just something that's alien to me and the experience of, I suspect, relatively few people. However, I do try to be tolerant and I don't ill treat people on account of their homosexuality which I hope counts for something in a society such tolerance can't be taken for granted.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Adrian1
Well said ... but probably not as few as you think. I know that it's stupid playing the numbers game but if 5% is a conservative estimate for those whose dominant (but not necessarily absolutely exclusive) sexual orientation is gay / lesbian .. that's 3 million people in Britain, 15,000 in my home town of Stockport.
I think all I can say is that tolerance (at least) and empathy leading to support and friendship is possible for all if the personal issues can be worked through. Sadly, increasingky, our culture is not known for its willingness to work things through. Just react! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 11. July 2003, 18:05: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
I take your point, Fr Gregory. However, we can all play the numbers game. If, as you've suggested, roughly 5% of the population is gay, that means that roughly 95% isn't. A thought worth bearing in mind?
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyra
Shipmate
# 267
|
Posted
If we're going to play numbers, perhaps it's also worth bearing in mind that Jesus was interested in each person, individually. So whether you're one of the 95%, or one of the 5%, your orientation, feelings, and emotions are valid, real, and important.
--------------------
Around and about
Posts: 546 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
As I said the numbers game is a mug's game. If there was only one gay person that person would be of infinite worth. I only raised the 5% issue to underscore the fact that we are talking about a substantial number of folks whose voices deserve to be heard and not stifled or repressed.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyra
Shipmate
# 267
|
Posted
Yes, I thought that was what you meant. It was the comment about 95% I was having a problem with!
--------------------
Around and about
Posts: 546 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
On those figures, there are more gays than regular churchgoers of ALL denominations!
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
