quote:

---

Louise, I kind of know what you are getting at here, but you state it like it's an intrinsically bad thing.

I believe that 1+1=2. I think that is right, I think it is the only right view. I an not very open to the views of others on this issue. So if you think 1+1=3, I am very sorry, but I do not accord your view any weight.

Clearly, drake believes (possibly incorrectly) that this issue is an issue of this type. Given that he thinks that, it is not suprising he responds in this way. It doesn't neccessarily mean he is wishing to be opinionated and judgemental. He just happens to see this issue in a black and white way. Critisising the manner in which this makes him respond is a pointless exersise.

You should address the assumptions he is making which lead him to stop considering the issue in the same light you or I would consider "1+1=2".

---

Matt, I don't see
"Criticising the manner in which this makes him respond" as "a pointless exercise. "

I see it as an important one. There are issues on which I hold extremely strong views but if I simply declare 'I'm right and you're all wrong' that is not discussing the matter constructively or helpfully.

In my opinion stating 'God says' rather than 'I think' or 'my view of scripture is' or 'my argument is' is simply another way of stating 'I am right and you are all wrong' and that doesn't seem (to me) to be leaving room for constructive debate.

To go back to the analogy thing, if i decided to walk on my hands for the whole of my life, that would be odd, but I doubt if anyone would consider it to be deeply sinful.

I didn't spell it out but my point was not the physical effects thereof, but that walking on our hands is not something most of us would consider to be earth-shatteringly sinful.

To pick up your point that it's not something we'd do for life.

Right now, as a lifestyle, I am spending hours in front of a computer monitor, an exercise (or should I say lack of it!) which is not exactly good for my body, but which has many other benefits.

It's not using my body for what it was originally designed for, as I'm not a hunter-gatherer in Africa, but I wouldn't say that the only possible life-style for humans is hunter-gathering and that anything else, outside of hunter-gathering, is to be abhorred.

You made some very interesting points earlier about the nature of sinfulness, but I'm too tired to give them the exploration they deserve. Just want to say I'm not lumping you in with DD either.

cheers

I am sorry for being irritating.

Matt, I truly am not a real funda MENTAL ist. LOL. Unless you mean I think alot. Heh.

Anyhow, I agree with your point about the extreme sinfulness of us all. I know I am.

I would counter with my opinion, as I understand the Bible, that a sin such as homosexuality or fornication or adultery is usually (not always) perpetually lived in as a lifestyle, continued on a daily basis.

The Bible, to me, expresses that we should turn from our old lifestyles and aim to live a more holy life. That doesn't mean we'll always tell the truth, abstain from sex, or always love our neighbor. But it means overall, that is what we do and we avoid sin in its forms as much as possible. I simply don't see where daily living in a homosexual lifestyle is compatible with that.

And very funny about the "aids" BTW. I can't be TOO tight, I did like the joke.

Why do some gay blokes camp it up so much?

Please see my previous question for the my tiny little toughts on this.

Why do some gay men act differently from het men? Well, um, because they're not hets? Why should they be expected to act the same? To save the feelings of tight hets? Welcome back to 23!

quote:

---

In reference to lubricants..... <snip>

With reference to your 2nd point - I'm not sure I understand, but I'm assuming you mean anal sex is not the prevalent form of sexual activity between gay men?

---

Point one- saliva or quail grease would do.

Point two- quite correct. 3rd on the range of the activities but first in everybody's minds. As to whether this would make Leviticus irrelevant, I don't know. I mean, if we follow Drake's arguments (more below) it would be impossible for man to lie with man as with woman, as at least one of them is missing the requisite bit of anatomy. In fact, this appears to be prohibiting the impossible, which is fine by me. Or is Leviticus suggesting that man and woman have non-vaginal sex? Perish the thought!

DrakeDetective...

quote:

---

St--Please, read some biology and then try to tell me that the human body was designed to be sexually interchangeable..far from even the morality of it, homosexual acts are obviously not "in the flow" of natural actions.

---

As has been said subsequently, this argument is reallly rather PRATT. I don't need to read biology, I'm trained in medicine, thanks all the same.

I can, however, suggest you read some zoology and / or anthropology to see homosexuality occurring, perfectly 'naturally' 'in the wild' so to speak. I suggest you read some history and see that homosexuality has been there in every society in every age.

However, while some animals will engage in homosexual activity in unusual circumstances, exclusive homosexuality in animals is virtually unheard of, and even preferential homosexual activity rarely takes place in animals except in those with specific neurological functions impaired, or in lower species, where they are confused by masked phermones.

So IF you were assuming humans were animals then I believe your natural law argument would be highly valid.

The debate is that we are not animals...are not entirely anyway. So do the same rules apply? This is a difficult question because in different cases different trends apply.

For example, as a basic rule, Christianity usually tells us to suppress our animal instincts...or at least have them under control and use them in appropriate time and place. Complete obedience to our instincts would make us animals. The ability to surpass merely instinctive behaviour is one of the defining points of Human nature.

On the other hand, what you so rightly say is that homosexuality does not appear to be an animal instinct in the strict sense as it does not occur in other animals. It seems rather unique to humanity.

This raises a diffcult question, because humanity is a double edge sword. some aspects of it are good, some are bad.

Is homosexuality simply part of the joys of the additional choice, freedom and expression available to us that is not available to animals?

Or is it the fact that our humanity gives us the opportunity to be far more bad than a lower organisim?

A worm can be neither very good or very bad, a dog can be much better or much worse, a man can be better or worse still, a genius man can be a monster or a hero. This continues all the way up the hirachy of existing beings right up to satan himself...a super-human being.

i was hoping not to have to do this again, and maybe i won't but...

matt, if i tell you that the last time we had this debate on this site i pulled out quite a few links to prove that same-sex sexual activity occurs with great frequency in animals in natual settings, will you take my word for it? or will i have to search them out again?

quote:

---

Point one- saliva or quail grease would do.

---

This whole "medical hygine" argument relating to anal sex seems to me to be spurious.

If this was the reasoning the bible would simply say "do not have anal sex". However, there is no mention specifically of anal sex (correct me if I'm wrong people) so presumably it is ok for heterosexuals. (although my guess is you are not gonna hear that preached from the average pulpit!!!)

And don't kid yourselves that the innocent little people back then didn't know boys and girls could do that kind of thing together. Classic literature is full of it.

quote:

---

I mean, if we follow Drake's arguments (more below) it would be impossible for man to lie with man as with woman, as at least one of them is missing the requisite bit of anatomy. In fact, this appears to be prohibiting the impossible, which is fine by me. Or is Leviticus suggesting that man and woman have non-vaginal sex? Perish the thought!

---

I'm saying the following simply exploring the original meaning and purpose of the Leviticus law...not whether we are bound to that law today:

To your comment about non-vaginal sex, It's quite possible I should think, it was a fairly common practice in the ancient world.

However, what is more relevant is that the wording in leviticus is as you say, vague: "lie with a man as a woman" seems to be referring to broad sexual activity than specific act.

I think this is intentional. This is a book of law, and in any legal document, wording is important. I don't think it is mere shyness because the subject happens to be sex which causes the vague wording. As proof of this, check out laws on checking whether or not a girl is a virgin, laws about women grabbing mens balls etc...leviticus is quite direct and clinical about human anatomy and physiology in these cases.

It seems to be vague because it is an inclusive law.

For whatever reason, at that time, in that place, the jewish people believed God did not want them to have sexual relations with men and it was not specifically about anal sex hygine.

quote:

---

I can, however, suggest you read some zoology and / or anthropology to see homosexuality occurring, perfectly 'naturally' 'in the wild' so to speak.

---

quote:

---

matt, if i tell you that the last time we had this debate on this site i pulled out quite a few links to prove that same-sex sexual activity occurs with great frequency in animals in natual settings, will you take my word for it? or will i have to search them out again?

---

You had better, because you are making assumptions way beyong the evidence.

What the zoological evidence tells us is that homosexual activity occurs in animals. agreed. HOWEVER:

1. These animals are usually, to put it bluntly, randy species which are highly promiscuous in their normal heterosexual behaviour. These animals are not the best examples. male dogs will mount other dogs when they get randy...agreed. However, they will also mount peoples legs, tree stumps..soft toys etc. It prooves nothing.

2. very rarely occurring in preference to heterosexual activity. Give two male dogs a bitch to play with and the only "mounting" they will do of each other is having a fight over who can get to mate with her first!

3. To my knowledge never occurring as the exclusive sexual preference of any other animal. That is to say, there is not any animal anywhere in the world which turns it's nose up at heterosexual sex if given the opportunity without the opportunity of homosexual activity.

The only exception to that is some research done into specific nuro-transmitters and their genetic controls in mice which enabled them to produce exclusively gay mice in the lab.

Take for example "smoking". Nobody gets upset if the church talking about smoking says "Hate the Sin Love the Sinner".
There are no proposals put forward in synod that smokers should not be allowed to be priests.
On first becoming a christian (except in a few fundie churches) a smoker is not expected to give up smoking immediately.
Smokers don't get all offended and say that it is to do with their identity.

Sorry, I may have offended some people with this, but I wanted to give examples of how both sides react (rightly or wrongly).

gay sheep

book review

Salon article

another article

zoo exhibit

hope these all work ok.

[URLs fixed, subsequent posts correcting them deleted]

Seems like threads on sex always lead to everyone vougeing and looking over shoulders. I think it has something to do with the intenseness of the human body and the gift of sex from God.

Has anyone heard of the Theology of the Body (TOB). Indirectly it has something to do with this thread. The TOB suprised me and made some things like Sex, the Trinity, the Body and our ultimate destiny in heaven stick together. Talking about strange bed-fellows. Caramba!

Here are 6 one page articles by Christopher West who gives conferences on the significance of the Theology of the Body (TOB).

Basically these articles try to show that our religions should not be going around saying "Spirit good. Body Bad!". The body is very good because it symbolizes the essence of the Trinity. The TOB is much more complex than that and I am sure I am butchering the ideas and making your skin rumple. So just check out the articles.

Here are the articles:
1. Naked Without Shame: Behind the Fig Leaves
2. Naked Without Shame: The Scandal of the Body
3. Naked Without Shame: The Great Divorce
4. Naked Without Shame: Epiphany of the Body
5. Naked Without Shame: Karol Wojtyla's Cure for Cancer
6. Naked Without Shame: God, Sex, and the Meaning of Life

This is what I get out of the articles: the male and female body when loving fully are physical symbols of God's life giving esssence. This idea is not a club to beat over anyone's head. This is a proposal of what love and sex originally were meant in God's original plan before original sin.

[UBB fixed]

Re: homosexuality in other animals - I'm not sure that's either here or there. A human understanding of sex is more than the understanding of other animals - there are the emotional and spiritual elements as well. Biology only becomes important if you take it as pre-eminent, in which case you need a concept of all sex being purely procreative, so as I said you need to be anti-contraception (including rhythm method) and ignore the emotional and spiritual aspects of sex. If you won't go there then you can't use biology as an argument against homosexuality because it won't hold together.

However, don't despair Drake - there is a 'natural' argument out there that you can use. Basically, the only 'natural' argument that's ever got anywhere is number 3). As far as I've seen it is along the lines that a natural (in the sense of in line with God's purposes) necessity in sexual relations is the 'complementarity' of male and female (this is not simply in terms of biology - it's more sophisticated than a 'what fits where' argument). Homosexual sexual relations are defined thus as unnatural because they do not incorporate the required complementarity.

IMNSVHO this falls down (primarily on the fact that I have not yet seen an argument for the uniqueness of this type of complementarity), but it's an argument I at least respect enough to engage with, rather than the 'what fits where' argument which one just has to stand back and watch trip over its own feet as soon as it's out of the starting blocks

I'm afraid I don't have any references for this natural law argument - if I find any within the natural (ho ho) lifetime of this thread then I'll post 'em.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon 2:
Why do some gay blokes camp it up so much?

---

Joan the Dwarf:

quote:

---

" babies ... and ... love ...
With het sex we can kid ourselves that the latter isn't there - "it's just for making babies, that's all"

---

Please show me the robotic wanker in the 21st century who kids herself/himself into believing that sex does not feel good to herself and/or his/her partner?

The point that good sex deepens the bond between the two - even if the bond is non-existant before the act is known like the palm of my hand. Not knowing what sex was - was the problem before the sexual revolution. Right? People were so Victorian and uptight that they needed to be coerced into thinking about sex as fun and potentially full of love.

The Sexual Revolution (thank God) changed all that. June Cleaver is long gone. Ward Cleaver went before June. And Beaver Cleaver and Eddie Haskel are getting them some while Wally waits his turn in the hall.

Gay love is good for many things and is a beautiful human thing but I wouldn't say that it is by definition a higher spiritual love than het love. Because it cannot create a baby makes it more spiritual?

Sniffy: "by definition a higher spiritual love than het love. Because it cannot create a baby makes it more spiritual?"

No, no no and no! Honestly, someone ought to invent telepathy then we wouldn't have these misunderstandings. Here's the hopefully unambigous version of what I was saying:

I place het and gay sex on an exact level emotionally and spiritually.

Het sex can also produce babies.

Some people can get hung up on a biological justification for sex (ie all sex must be about procreation).

Less extremely, some people can say that the primary function of het sex is to have babies, anything else is just a nice side-effect.

Both of these are ways in which people can chose to denigrate the emotional and spiritual aspects of sex.

Neither of these are available cop-outs when considering gay sex.

Gay sex is a plainer example of what all sex is. IMHO it shows that the emotional and spiritual parts of sex are valid ends in themselves, quite apart from the biological (but NOT apart from the physical). That is why I find it beautiful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:

I think the phenomenon of homosexual sexual love at its best gives us a clear example of the spirtual and the physical inseparably linked. Basically, sexual love is an act of creation, in some cases of babies and in all cases of real love of creation of the bond between two people and a spiritual entity that is more than the individuals concerned. With het sex we can kid ourselves that the latter isn't there - "it's just for making babies, that's all" - but with gay sex we can see the latter creation uncluttered, and IMHO a part of God's creation and intention, for both gay and straight.

---

Gay relationships (I am thinking of stable couples in their social context, not anonymous trips to Soho to find rent boys) are also a powerful statement about the magnificent arbitrariness and unnecessariness of love and desire – gay and straight. It shows us that the sexual love is not just an evolutionary imperative to ensure the survival of the species, or a mindless succumbing to your family’s expectations, or acquiring a status symbol or suitable parent for your children, a path to social acceptability or (getting all feminist now, are we?) an exercise of patriarchal power, but a gift from God.

If you’re gay, you can’t really demand that your partner stay chained to the kitchen sink where she belongs and give up her career to cook your dinners. You don’t find yourself making out with a same sex peer at a teenage disco because all your friends are doing it. You don’t move in with your gay lover because your parents are moaning at you to settle down. (Though it would certainly shut them up if you did.)

But the fact that gay people pursue relationships against all social expectation and sometimes in the face of extreme prejudice, is in itself a statement of the strength of a bond of sexual love, even when uncalled for and unsought for and unsupported by a social stamp of approval.

Of course, I’m not saying all straight relationships are full of gender stereotyping and nasty power games and that gay ones are always full of sweetness and sharing.

Only that it is generally an example of a type of relationship which can have no purpose or compensation except in the enjoyment of itself. Perhaps it is this which can embarrass people - a relationship with that degree of nakedness.

I'm not impressed. The books by Bruce Bagemihl and such are not research papers. You can write anything you like in a book. It makes some valid points, but at the end of the day it is not a scientific study.

In general, all the studies seem to be reiterating something we already knew; in some species (usually those which are promiscuous anyway) have sexual activity with the same sex. All these documents you listed make this point very well because it's well attested to, it's old news. What they then do is slide in the supposition this is exclusive based on far less compelling evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elaine from the bar:

But the fact that gay people pursue relationships against all social expectation and sometimes in the face of extreme prejudice, is in itself a statement of the strength of a bond of sexual love, even when uncalled for and unsought for and unsupported by a social stamp of approval.

(I was wrong earlier – it looks as though this thread is about sex after all. Ulp.)

---

Hey Elaine- well said. Very 'cue swelling quasi-romantic God-Bless-America' type music.

Of course the thread is about sex. When heterosexuals start discussing gay people sex is, depressingly, always top of the agenda (OK, there's an occasional 'who's the mand, who's the woman').

Mad Medic

We agree on something at least, that you can't argue to humans from ethology (sorry Desmond Morris), even if I may have brought this into the discussion.

Still not sure where I stand in Joan's list, but I know I care more about my friend as a person than what he does in the bedroom. The rest is up for debate (as we have well seen) and really is up to God to figure it out. It just ain't my place to decide what is a sin and what is not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Rumwald:
Point one- saliva or quail grease would do

---

OK, I take your point(s) and withdraw my earlier comments about hygiene, which were made in all innocence. I am finding all this very educational, and you will all be pleased to know that you have made me blush! !

Whatever we all think about this, I hope we are agreed that we'd like homosexual people to be welcome in the church. How they live out their Christian life can only, in the final analysis, be their choice. I believe that fs our moral choices are only made because they are forced upon us from outside, they become meaningless. All I can say, is that I am really glad that I have brothers ans sisters in Christ who are gay, and I'm pretty sure God's glad to have you with Him as well! I am also sure that you can all educate me a whole lot, but please only do it on the boards where you can't se me blushing!

All the best,

Oh, and note: SHIP OF FOOLS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF EXTERNAL SITES!!!!!!

quote:

---

matt, did you actually read the gay sheep article

---

As I said before (and I'll say again). It makes not one iota of difference to the debate where humans are concerned.

Yes. I did. I wasn't impressed. It appeared on the personal homepage of some guy. It was based on a "study" done by some postgrad student.

Come on! Post-grad students do "research studys" on some of the most bizzare things for their PHds. It prooves nothing whatsoever.

The student made several subjective comments, but the only statistic mentioned was "8% of sheep are gay" or something like that. To which I reply "92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot".

I wanna see the hard figures. Standard Deviations. P-values etc.

HOWEVER....to reiterate AGAIN. As people on both sides of the argument have said, I really couldn't care less if the whole of the rest of the mammalian Kingdom were subscribers to "We Hate Fags Monthly" or if they were buggering each other sideways.

It wouldn't make a jot of difference to us humans, because as all Christians know, Humans are not just animals right?

The question was genuine, and your answer was pretty much the same as what I thought might be the case. It may seem very silly but I would not want to pressume any form of behaviour is driven by whatever motive if I don't do that. Just along the lines of nobody knows the heart of a person except that person themselves and God.

So it is essentially for the same reason that het blokes might act laddish and loutish. To fit in and belong. This might be another whole thread so sorry if it is, but with het blokes who 'lad it up' all I can see is really personal insecurity, some lack of real deep self worth and identity, and so a group is needed for personal identity. And so one might say the same for gay blokes I geuss. But then a personal insecurity is more understandable from a gay bloke who has had swim against the tide one way or another.

thanks again joan

I think that's right as far as the 'over the top' camping is concerned. Boys being camp (or girls being butch) at all is a different matter, and one I still haven't fully worked out. The stereotype of all gay boys wanting to be girls and all gay girls wanting to be boys is rubbish, but less extrememly and by no means pertaining to everyone, gay boys tend to be less laddish and gay girls less girlie. Being repelled by insensitive laddishness could, I guess, lead people to being attracted to a more feminine modus operandi. I don't know.

One thing I find interesting is a description of a camp man in 'The Well of Loneliness' (v. famous lesbian book). This was written early last century, before being camp was widely seen as a defining feature of gay men, before even there was a language to talk about this - it's quite amusing to read descriptions of small hand movements and high-pitched voices etc and then suddenly think 'oh yes, that character's being camp'. So it seems to be a part of a lot of mens' experience of being gay.

I don't know. I'm kind of groping in the dark as far as blokes are concerned. From the other direction, I know I'm less feminine than most straight women... I was a regular tomboy as a child, until I was developed enough that I couldn't be mistaken for a boy. Even then I just couldn't get into this girlie thing, despite trying for so many years because I was told by all and sundry and society that I ought to and I was warped because I wasn't happy with my femininity.

I see the laddish aggression and competitiveness and really quite bad.

Definitely another thread I know, But I really dont get on with competitiveness, and I hear so many christians proclaiming it as a virtue. I mean where in the bible does it say, beat everyone whenever you can. The race is personal, marked out for each indicidual. This is something I would love to explore further if anybody else wants to too.

I find this discussion on the right or wrongness of it all challenges my paradigm on sexuality. And that hurts me a bit. But almost all I believe is up for grabs. I don't want to join in right or wrongness as I know nothing (manuel style).

Sorry everyone, I will try to read what I write, well I do, but never spot the mistakes till later.

quote:

---

Gay sex is a plainer example of what all sex is. IMHO it shows that the emotional and spiritual parts of sex are valid ends in themselves, quite apart from the biological (but NOT apart from the physical). That is why I find it beautiful.

Gay sex is as spiritual or as unspiritual as making-baby sex. Gay sex helps us see this side to All sex, gay and straight.

---

Nice. I agree that gay sex is a plainer example of what sex is because it shows sex to be firmly rooted in the physical and emotional world. It also shows that humans alone, when all is said and done, are in charge of their sexual realities and experiences. It shows that there does not have to be the possibility of a biological reason for sex.

I also would like to enhance that thought with the fact that contraception makes het love very close if not the same as gay love. It's our attempt to remove biological justification from het sex. So, het and gay sex both point out this beautiful clarity of sex for sex's sake.

At the same time this sex for sex's sake has been there for eons, regardless of gay or contraception sex. There have always been people who could not conceive. Gay sex and contraception sex do not alone make the point that sex is good just for sex's sake. There are many couples that cannot conceive and these people were born that way.

Is het-contraception sex, gay sex and cannot-conceive sex the same thing? Are they better or worse than plain ol' naked het sex?

Where does the Trinity fit in this? By the Trinity, I mean that The Father (representing the Creator) and the Son (representing the Incarnation) generated the Holy Spirit. That is the Father "knowing" (in the full biblical meaning of that word:rolleyes the Son generated the Holy Spirit (or Third Person of the Trinity). The fact that we are created in God's image and that God creates through intimate "knowledge" has me on the fence on this issue.

Is our love supposed to be open to life because it seems to be God's very essence to be a creator based on love? And I don't simply mean to create "love" but a person with a soul who is capable of union with God. And are gay couples, contracepting-het couples and cannot-conceive couples not fully imaging God's essence by their incomplete acts?

I really can't say anything more than repeat yet again:

quote:

---

Gay sex is as spiritual or as unspiritual as making-baby sex. Gay sex helps us see this side to ALL sex, gay and straight.

---

I would add: gay couples are a public statement of this side of sex - you don't have to know the details (ie whether they use contraception or are infertile) to know they aren't going to procreate biologically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:

I don't know. I'm kind of groping in the dark as far as blokes are concerned.

---

As a former funda-definitelymental-ist, I've had to deal with the issues of sexuality as part of my own journey towards wholeness.

I came out as a lesbian ten years ago now, and had to leave the Church in order to do so. It felt like it was either the deepest instincual part of me, or my faith. And I couldn't believe in a God who would tell me that everything I was feeling (and I'd been a Christian for nine years or more) was wrong.

I've known God do an awful lot of healing in my life. I can point to ways in which I have been changed through prayer, some sudden, some more slowly.

And yet, despite many frantic, desparate, heart-felt pleas, God did not change my sexual orientation.

It took Metropolitan Community Church, and a lot of God-incidences to help me realise that I can integrate my faith and my sexuality - that they can even inspire and help eachother, as Joan has been saying.

I have a partner, also a Christian. We have a committed, monogomous relationship. And we have seen God working through us, ministering as a couple, to people around us. Our prayer has always been to have God at the centre of our relationship. And that we were - and are- willing to give up anything in our relationship that was displeasing to God.

All we have seen are blessings. And those around us who know us will add their support and testimony to this.

We try and live by the "meat before idols" principle - we are discreet when in church and do not "flaunt" our sexuality or our relationship. Because we don't want to cause offense to anyone who does believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful. And while there are times that we have cried, and longed for a "marriage-of-sorts" type ceremony to affirm our love and committment in the heart of the congregation where we worship, I think that realistically, this is a long way off.

I'm rambling a bit now, and congrats to anyone who's read this far...

Peace,

Won't be joining in this debate been here several times before on these boards.

.. the gay men=camp thing... my personal theory on that, and on the very "aggressive butch" attitude you see from some lesbians.. the whole "loud and proud, in yer face" attitude...

... I think comes from a deep sense of hurt at being left out of society, a feeling of rejection at some level.

And then it's all too easy for that hurt and rejection to swing into "Well, I'm going to be NOTHING like them! I'm going to be different! And I'm going to show just how different I can be!" - and thus you get the sort of behaviours mentioned above.

And sadly, the gay subculture seems to embody a lot of the worst of these. And, if you're feeling isolated and insecure, the subculture offers instant acceptance - and its own, easy to follow, rules of behaviour, dress, conduct, reading material, festivals ...

(and yes, someday I'm going to write an essay on the parallels between that and the evangelical Christian sub-culture)

Peace,

quote:

---

(and yes, someday I'm going to write an essay on the parallels between that and the evangelical Christian sub-culture)

---

Please do, as an evangelical christian who cannot stand the evangelical sub-culture I hope that it will be a best seller

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lizzabee:
It just ain't my place to decide what is a sin and what is not.

---

Lizzabee,

If you're a thinking human being then that's exactly what you have to decide. You're responsible for your own conduct. If you have children, you're going to have to teach them right from wrong to the best of your ability.

What it isn't our place to do is to impose our individual ideas of what's sinful or not sinful on other people (over and above that minimum consensus of values that is necessary for community life).

Both those who seek to use the Bible to impose their conservative views, and those who seek to use their victimhood to impose their right to do whatever feels good, are equally IMHO on the wrong path.

I'm very impressed with Inanna's post combining humility, self-acceptance, and concern for the feelings of others. Whatever inner resources or community situation make this sort of maturity possible, I pray that they may grow to be available to all.

Russ

I've written more about my coming out journey hereif anyone wants to read.

And Joan - actually, converting to Catholicism has helped me grow more secure in my sexual identity as a part of my whole personhood. The Catholic teaching of "conscience" as your guide, and what you will be judged on when you stand before God is incredibly freeing, and a wonderful invitation to develop a mature adult faith. Yes, we have to inform our consciences by knowing what the Bible says, what the Church teaches, but also what psychology and science tells us, and, most importantly, what the voice of God-living-in-me, and my gut instincts tell me.

I'd disagree with the "we are inherantly sinful" theology. I much prefer Russ's brokenness. But, when I was baptized, I became a "new creation". God didn't just throw a white sheet over my old, sinful nature. Instead, I am now living from God's Spirit within me.

Anyway, before I get into rambling again.. thank you for the warm welcome. I spent most of today feeling incredibly vulnerable wondering if there were going to be any replies and if so, how people would react. I can breathe slightly easier now.

Peace,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inanna:

.. the gay men=camp thing... my personal theory on that, and on the very "aggressive butch" attitude you see from some lesbians.. the whole "loud and proud, in yer face" attitude...

... I think comes from a deep sense of hurt at being left out of society, a feeling of rejection at some level.

And then it's all too easy for that hurt and rejection to swing into "Well, I'm going to be NOTHING like them! I'm going to be different! And I'm going to show just how different I can be!" - and thus you get the sort of behaviours mentioned above.

And sadly, the gay subculture seems to embody a lot of the worst of these. And, if you're feeling isolated and insecure, the subculture offers instant acceptance - and its own, easy to follow, rules of behaviour, dress, conduct, reading material, festivals ...

---

...which then leads to even more and stronger reactions from those who believe that homosexuality is not acceptable.

If the idea of peanut butter and banana sandwiches disgusts me, and that is OK, why is it not OK for the idea of homosexuality to disgust me? Others may like peanut butter and banana sandwiches - I'd just prefer if they did not put them on my plate or eat them in front of me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inanna:
thank you for the warm welcome. I spent most of today feeling incredibly vulnerable wondering if there were going to be any replies and if so, how people would react. I can breathe slightly easier now.

---

Hi Inanna. As a fellow newbie I completely understand your anxiety - I have been feeling just the same over my computer-less weekend, having posted on this thread last week for my first venture into Purg (perhaps, for my own peace of mind, I should have worked up from a less controversial topic!) even though I'd not said anything as personal as you have.

I appreciated your posts and am glad you felt that you could share your experience here.

From what I've seen of Purgatory, most people do realise that it takes a lot of courage to share their personal experiences and they will respect that in their responses.

Dodgy arguments, on the other hand, may get ripped apart - but even then people don't tend to jump down your throat unless you're being insufferably arrogant.

I like to think that the Ship is a safe space for vulnerability and uncertainty.