Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by sharkshooter:
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.
I think that the main difference with this is that there are all sorts of other things to eat other than peanut butter and banana sandwiches (can I also add an 'ew' at the idea?). And even their most devoted advocate would not suggest a diet solely of such substance. But, for those of us who are lesbian and gay, there really is no other alternative when it comes to relationships. We don't have the choice to "eat something else" (OK, I know there's an innuendo there, but I'll keep this PG for now ) So it's a case of trying to compare apples and oranges - the analogy doesn't really hold up.... And as for your other point about the cycle continuing - absolutely. I think it's such a real shame that the image most heterosexual Christians have of gays and lesbians is: a) entirely focused on our sex lives and b) based on the worst stereotypes from gay pride parades and the 'angry vocal' minority. And likewise, I'm sure there are way too many gays and lesbians who sterotype Christians as narrow-minded and homophobic. [I]Peace,[I] Kirsti, who thinks that discussions like this are a great place to break past those stereotypes.
-------------------- All shall be well And all shall be well And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
Inanna, I was really impressed by your posts, you write in a considered, thoughtful, non-militant way that wins respect.I'm interested to know how you went from fundamentalisim to Catholicsim though? I guess you found catholic attitudes to homosexuality more in line with your own, but there must have been an awful lot of other issue's to weigh up on the other side of the scales? Some of you may remember Ann Widdicombe becoming catholic over the issue of women priests?? (I think I am remembering that correctly?) It struck me that whatever I felt about women priests a single issue wouldn't get me changing denominations like that.
-------------------- 3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
Matt...Thanks for the kind words. And actually, the official position/teaching of the Catholic church is about the same as evangelicals - they don't believe that the orientation is sin, but is "objectively disordered" (I think that's the phrase). Most of this is based on Aquinas's natural law argument, which ends up saying that masturbation is a greater evil than rape or incest (*boggles quietly to herself*) and hence one I feel free to respectfully replace with a more up to date theology. As far as my reasons for converting.. I'm not quite sure they belong in this thread, but are mainly to do with the sacramental view of life and faith as a Catholic. I no longer have to "work really hard" to try and believe or feel God's presence, or hope for an ecstatic worship experience ... the Eucharist promises that God will be present, whether I believe or not, whether the priest believes it, or not ... it's about God, not about me. Which I really really like. Peace, Kirsti
-------------------- All shall be well And all shall be well And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
My goodness, another original resurfacing. Welcome back, Kirsti.
-------------------- Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Papa D
Shipmate
# 1696
|
Posted
This has been interesting and helpful and I kinda wish there were even more safe spaces to discuss this issue and how one pursues the journey either personally or just as important as an accompanist to a friend working through this issue.I was talking with a good friend of mine last night who is doing his personal journey with his sexuality. One of the things that was poigniant in our conversation was that he hoped that we could go beyond the support stuff and start of really talk about the issue and to work through this part of our relationship. My friend said that this journey is dangerous particularly in the church world and some have already felt that the friendship is too much to take on emotionally and so do not make the necessary time for various reasons The challenge for me as a friend is issues around accompaniment. For me - it is my friend who has the integrity to be working through the truth of his sexuality in his life and my integrity is working through what it means to be a friend in spaces that are hostile to my friends situation. For some who I worship and work with this can either a) question me and my judgement or b) alienate me for stuff that I wish to do because of association issues c) Respect the fact that this person is first and foremost a friend prior to disclosure. I wish it were c) all the time but it is not a perfect world!! I am not sure whether we have engaged with the accompanying part of this issue especially for friends who might be people who have a higher profile. Be interesting to hear some more views on accompaniment in church life.
-------------------- Different Flava; Different Style, Unique Saviour.
Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf
Ship's curiosity
# 1283
|
Posted
Corpus - I would gladly use another word if one were provided. But not 'straight', for fairly obvious reasons (because the opposite is 'crooked'!!). And I'd get RSI if I had to write 'heterosexual' every time!
-------------------- "There is a divine discontent which has always helped to better things."
Posts: 1123 | From: Floating in the blue | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf
Ship's curiosity
# 1283
|
Posted
I know I've posted aggressively on quite a lot of this thread. All I can do is apologise again; I am trying, this is very difficult for me. I wish I could post like Inanna, I'm sorry. If anyone can have the patience to put up with me, thankyou. This is still very new and raw for me - I've only been out for a couple of months. I am trying to improve the way I post, you don't have to bludgeon me over the head with my failings. I'm sorry. This whole conversation is very painful and not easy at all. And I never intended 'het' to be pejorative at all, even when I was being aggressive. But after remembering the 'Welch' situation, 'straight's fine by me.
-------------------- "There is a divine discontent which has always helped to better things."
Posts: 1123 | From: Floating in the blue | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
For those of us who are only able to see the world from a purely heterosexual viewpoint, the contributions made by Joan the Dwarf are very useful and enlightening. Keep posting! We may find such views hard to handle but that is probably our problem, not hers.
-------------------- Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tina
Shipmate
# 63
|
Posted
Thanks, Chorister, just what I wanted to say! And thanks Joan for your many gracious posts.
-------------------- Kindness is mandatory. Anger is necessary. Despair is a terrible idea. Despair is how they win. They won't win forever.
Posts: 503 | From: South London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
Please! The board and the world would be incredibly boring if everyone posted like me.I've appreciated and enjoyed reading Joan's comments, and - IMHO - if she's sounded agressive, that's probably because she's felt like she has to defend her corner in the face of attacks. When you're just coming out, and just dealing with all this, and the attitudes of the established church, and your own feelings of "I've always thought this must be wrong, but help, it's me, and it doesn't feel wrong at all.." it's very easy to see rejection and shock everywhere. And get defensive as a result of that. Me, I've lived with this for a while, I have an incredibly supportive Christian partner, we have a great church (they hired my partner as assistant music minister knowing she was lesbian, and the priest there gave the two of us a private 'engagement blessing' service..) and I've done an awful lot of reading, of thinking, and of praying to get to a point where I'm reasonably secure in my faith and my sexuality. Joan - you're doing great. Keep listening to God, listening to your instincts, and email me if you want to talk off-board. Peace Kirsti
-------------------- All shall be well And all shall be well And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Quinine
Shipmate
# 1668
|
Posted
Oooh! Bagsy me to be called a 'Swiggletree'. I hereby claim it to describe my unique sexuality, so no-one will be able to pigeon-hole me. I don't like the word 'het', which I'd not come across before reading this thread - Joan's defence of it is rational, I see that, but there's no denying the ugliness of the word. And, although I have used the word in my previous posts as the lesser of the two evils, I don't particularly like being referred to as 'straight', either - it suggests I don't get to crack any gags, which is a shame. Language, hey. Insoluble problems. We'll just have to make do. On another note, I don't find the tone of Joan's posts aggressive. They come across to me as confident and intelligent. I hope I'm not just saying that because I pretty much agree with them... I don't think so. I must admit I had doubts whether a thread on this topic could avoid becoming a storm thread, but, apart from a couple of hairy moments, I have been impressed by posters' restraint and courtesy. And Inanna - I see I shouldn't have referred to you as a newbie!
Posts: 252 | From: In a fen | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf
Ship's curiosity
# 1283
|
Posted
Thankyou everyone. I was wondering about taking back my comments that the Ship was a safe place after Alaric's comments, which I found pretty brutal and upsetting. But I think I'll stick by them - thanks. I've learnt an awful lot over the course of this thread about controlling my instinct to defend by attacking, and about actually engaging with people who think differently, rather than just assuming they're ignorant/bigotted. And learning not to think less of people because they disagree with me on this subject (it was actually Steve on the Falwell thread who made me see how that was possible). Bear with me, I'll get there in the end
-------------------- "There is a divine discontent which has always helped to better things."
Posts: 1123 | From: Floating in the blue | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
quote: Nightlamp wrote: One of my irritations after the claiming of the word gay by the homosexual community. Is the word 'partner' to mean some one we are having sexual relations with. Partner used to mean some one I did sketchs with the person i worked with.
That's a tough one. Because what else can I use to describe the woman I love, who has been a part of my life for seven years, and who I hope will be with me until the end of it. Our relationship, our love, consists of an awful lot more than just "sexual relations" Nightlamp - just as any husband would say of his wife that their marriage is more than just what goes on in the bedroom. I don't like to use "girlfriend" - we're both in our 30s, and it seems somewhat teenager-ish. I don't really want to use "lover" because, as I said above, our relationship is about an awful lot more than sex. And "lover" seems to be heading for the "rubbing-it-in-people's-faces" which really isn't appropriate in my book. And I can't use "wife" because we have no official marriage ceremony. (Though I have called her my fiancee on occasions.) "Life-partner" is way too cumbersome and unwieldy, as is "significant other" (and that also implies that everyone else in my life is non-significant, which certainly isn't the case). "Companion" sounds like I'm an old lady being taken care of, which is also nowhere near the truth. So any other suggestions as to a word which encompasses the depth of a loving committed relationship, while not offending anyone, or taking more than a few syllables to spell out would be very welcome. Peace, Kirsti
-------------------- All shall be well And all shall be well And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf
Ship's curiosity
# 1283
|
Posted
Erin, I was not crying foul play, I was giving my reaction to Alaric's comments. A safe environment includes being safe from personal attacks, which was how his comments came across. Come to think of it, isn't that a 10cc?
-------------------- "There is a divine discontent which has always helped to better things."
Posts: 1123 | From: Floating in the blue | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
It's fine, Joan -- I wasn't trying to tell you off for being upset. If that's how it came across, my apologies. I just wanted to clear up the safe thing and to remind everyone that you do take a risk in sharing (I speak from bitter experience).
-------------------- Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place? Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
I just read all of this all in one sitting and don't know where to start making replies. I'll just content myself with a big hug to Joan for her endurance, especially since I had no idea that she was newly "out" -- I had always taken you, Joan, as someone who was arguing with the aplomb of years of experience (on other topics, too, not just this one). Unlike others, I did not hear anger or undue agressiveness.I have to admit that I read this topic because I find it so mind-boggling that homosexuality is such a big issue for so many heterosexual people. I guess somehow I lucked out and didn't pick up any early indoctrination about it, so as I grew up and became sexually aware of people, I just gradually discovered that there were different sexual attractions and added it to the long list of attributes that people have in our minds which causes our brain to sort them into interesting/sexual, interesting/nonsexual, boring. The much more challenging question to me is how to deal with the sexual urges of the adolescent and young adult (without pushing them into early marriage and children) while also creating a civil and religious system that creates and supports stable 'families' which DO provide the proper environment for raising children? And I put the emphasis on *stable*, which is why the 'families' is in quotes. I realize that for good bible-based Christians, this is just blather, so don't bother arguing with me. But I had to say it.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Elijah on Horeb
Apprentice
# 1614
|
Posted
It seems I was at least partly responsible for starting off this thread by some remarks I made on the Sex Before Marriage thread - it seemsagesago! I sure opened a can of worms, didn't I? I thought I knew how much fear and angst the very mention of the word "homosexual" could create, but you people have introduced me to new depths!And for a lot of what was written, I would have to say it was just that - depths of fear and angst which clouded rational thinking and gave rise to the same kind of adolescent "humour" with which so many of us try to hide our deep-seated uneasiness at anything remotely related to sex, especially its physical manifestations. I'm afraid I was less than impressed with a lot of the semi-flippant interchange, especially when it deviated into a kind of delighted recognition and greeting of old friends like that which you see at school reunions. On the other hand I did appreciate the serious discussions by those who either attempted to exegete the biblical passages involved, or by talking openly of their own experiences gave me a fresh insight into what it's like to be homosexual in a heterosexually oriented Church. Thank you - there are too many of you to mention by name. I should perhaps confess that I have never had any doubt that I am veryheterosexual, and that I have in fact had very little to do personally with homosexuals (or if I have I still don't know it!) But because the whole question has been very much a hot potato in our Uniting Church here in Australia I have had, like many others, to think deeply about issues which previously had never occurred to me as issues, and to try and arrive at some position which takes account of both God's purity and His love. Let me now try to wind up this thread, certainly my own contribution to it, by spelling out some conclusions which I have reached so far - "conclusions" not being the best word, since I don't pretend for one moment to have all the answers, and that the whole subject is too complex for there to be one final answer anyway:- First, we should ask, "What is a homosexual?"(and for the purposes of this dissertation I take the word "homosexual" to embrace "lesbian"!): Is a homosexual one who through no fault of their own finds themselves with the feelings for one or more of the same sex that one would usually expect to feel toward the opposite sex? OR Is a homosexual one who actually engages with another of the same sex in physical activities normally associated with physical "love-making" between a man and a woman? All the biblical passages refer to the latter - overt physical sexual acts. Biblical writers were not in the habit of dissecting psychological motive and subconscious intention, as our society is. So let us be clear that the Bible speaks against physical acts within same-sex relationships - it has nothing to say against deep and abiding relationship between man and man(eg., David and Jonathan) which may well transcend even the relationship of husband and wife. On the other hand, we cannot avoid the fact that the Bible makes it equally plain, especially in the example and teaching of Jesus, that while certain behaviours may well be labelled "sin against God", there can be no ostracism or rejection of those who perpetrate those behaviours. The story of John8:1-12: the woman taken in adultery, could I believe have equally well been told of two emn caught sodomising each other: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone at them . . . Men, has no one condemned you? . . . Then neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more!" Surely it is possible for Christians, and the Church, to both declare that homosexuality has no place in God's purpose for humanity, and to demonstrate by word and deed God's self-giving love for all people, regardless of who they are or what they do. I really cannot see that this should be such a problem for so many. It is probably because of society's obsession with physical sex that the whole issue has got out of proportion - someone onthis thread rightly reminded us that sex involves awhole lot more than just this one thing. Sure, this raises many questions over which there will always be differences of opinion, maybe even radically different answers for different situations. Questions like, What is our attitude to homosexal "marriages"? Should homosexuals be ordained or commissioned to spiritual ministry within the Church? What about the adoption of children by homosexual couples? I could go on, but I think I've said more than enough already! Surprising how these trains of thought go onfrom point to point before one realizes it! Over and out!!
Posts: 20 | From: Brisbane Queensland Australia | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quinine
Shipmate
# 1668
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Elijah on Horeb:
And for a lot of what was written, I would have to say it was just that - depths of fear and angst which clouded rational thinking and gave rise to the same kind of adolescent "humour" with which so many of us try to hide our deep-seated uneasiness at anything remotely related to sex, especially its physical manifestations. I'm afraid I was less than impressed with a lot of the semi-flippant interchange, especially when it deviated into a kind of delighted recognition and greeting of old friends like that which you see at school reunions.
Hmm. I think that's a bit sweeping, and a bit harsh. As I've said before, I've been pretty impressed with the level of debate on this thread, and the use of humour hasn't, to my mind, detracted from it, as it so easily could have. This is in contrast to the 'What is sex' thread which I understand has spiralled inexorably hell-wards because of its graphic content. I also think the humour has served a useful, if not essential, purpose in diffusing tension when feelings have been running high. If cracking jokes had been a way of ducking the issues or taking the mick out of certain groups of people, yes, it would have been irritating, but on the whole I don't think it was. I can do no better than echo good ol' Mr Lewis on this one, and point out that, 'We must not be totally serious about Venus. Indeed we can't be totally serious without doing violence to our humanity'. As to why heterosexuals should get so het(!) up about the issue, I've already said my piece, as have others, and I won't get into it again. Suffice it to say that it's not always a prurient preoccupation with other people's personal lives. (Of course, I have that too, but I do try to keep it off this thread...) Peace, folks, and well done, I say.
Posts: 252 | From: In a fen | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf
Ship's curiosity
# 1283
|
Posted
Nope, I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to take sexuality as a grim matter of life-and-death that one cannot be playful and bantering about at all. If people find exchanges such as in the first bit of this thread difficult to deal with, all I can say is - lighten up. And deal with whatever makes you find homosexuals joking together uncomfortable, rather than blaming them. Sexuality is a gift from God. Humour is a gift from God. Chill, guys.
-------------------- "There is a divine discontent which has always helped to better things."
Posts: 1123 | From: Floating in the blue | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
If 'life-partner' is too long-winded, and 'other half' offends you, then what is wrong with the plain and simple 'partner'. As this is regularly used by long-term live-togethers it is a well known term and usually well-respected. Those who mean the word in a business sense need only to add 'business partner' to avoid confusion of meaning.
-------------------- Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
quote: Elijah on Horeb pronounced: Surely it is possible for Christians, and the Church, to both declare that homosexuality has no place in God's purpose for humanity, and to demonstrate by word and deed God's self-giving love for all people, regardless of who they are or what they do. I really cannot see that this should be such a problem for so many.
So, you're reducing it all back down to a "love the sinner, hate the sin" aspect; and using the grounds that the Bible only refers to homosexual actions to conclude that all homosexual behaviour is a sin? Your comments made me wonder - how much of what gay and lesbian Christians have been saying did you really read? Take in? It's not as simple as your statement makes out. You focus right back on the sex again, with your example of "two men sodomizing eachother" - and your very choice of verb is one that would offend and upset many gays and lesbians. The story of sodom is not about homosexuality. So using 'sodomize' in this context is inflamatory at best. (And, from what my friends tell me, anal sex is not necessarily a part of many gay men's sexual behaviour anyway.) You are right in stating that the Bible in no way condemns - and actually in several places affirms male-male friendship ("More pleasing to me was your love than the love of women" as David said to Jonathan or vice versa), and the female bonding of Ruth to Naomi, where the words originally said from one woman to another are now often used in wedding services. And I would say that from there is the place of acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships. Not focusing on what may or may not go on in anyone's bedroom. But meeting us as children of God, as equals, with a right to form monogomous faithful partnerships, just as heterosexuals have. Peace, Kirsti
-------------------- All shall be well And all shall be well And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf
Ship's curiosity
# 1283
|
Posted
Alaric - . Thanks.
-------------------- "There is a divine discontent which has always helped to better things."
Posts: 1123 | From: Floating in the blue | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
jlg, you are not alone. quote: I have to admit that I read this topic because I find it so mind-boggling that homosexuality is such a big issue for so many heterosexual people. I guess somehow I lucked out and didn't pick up any early indoctrination about it, so as I grew up and became sexually aware of people, I just gradually discovered that there were different sexual attractions and added it to the long list of attributes that people have in our minds which causes our brain to sort them into interesting/sexual, interesting/nonsexual, boring.
I have the same feeling when I get into these threads -- even ones that are as well conducted as this one has been. We had so many gay friends around growing up that it never occurred to me that it was an issue. My parents did say that they'd rather I was straight because parents want their children to have a good life, and (especially at the time they were speaking) being homosexual could make life difficult. I remember how astonished I was (as a child) when I first heard a serious argument, the implications of which were that many of my honorary uncles were apparently doomed to hellfire, a position not preached in my church, which generally taught on more pressing international issues, such as the obligation to work for justice and alleviate suffering, etcetera. As a result, I tend to regard extended public debate, and indeed, extended speaking from the pulpit in this regard an active distraction from our primary duties as Christians, in over-focusing on something that just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, using a convenient group to blame and hate, for no reason than to spotlight our own supposed holiness. There are so many other things condemned in the scripture these same people aren't yammering on about. It's just extraordinary to pick this one thing and make it such a huge issue.
-------------------- Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
amen laura. i've never understood it either. it always seemed such an odd thing to care about. why would anyone care who someone else was having sex with, as long as it was consensual??? and yet, some people seem to absolutly fixate on it, as though its the most important thing in their religion... the "godhatesfags.com" bunch (deliberatly not a link), for instance. thats the major focus of their faith? good grief. so pathetic.
-------------------- On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
blackbird
Shipmate
# 1387
|
Posted
it must be the multiple partners that have silenced us. maybe there needs to be a new thread to discuss that angle...don't look at me.
Posts: 1236 | From: usa | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quinine
Shipmate
# 1668
|
Posted
No, no, don't feel bad, Chastmastr!Myself, I was just thinking I'd leave this thread alone now because I've pretty much said anything even semi-original I have to say, and was worrying that people might think I was unhealthily obsessed with homosexuality issues/sex/the conduct of this thread if I didn't go and post elsewhere! Or that I might indeed become so, given time... I must have a chat with you about C.S. Lewis (on another thread) at some point instead. Yours affirmatively Elaine
Posts: 252 | From: In a fen | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Quinine
Shipmate
# 1668
|
Posted
Joan - hurrah and ((hugs)).
Posts: 252 | From: In a fen | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|