|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Spawn,
In every response you make you seem to be calling people names, only you are rather subtle at it.
Even when you mentioned suicide, you couldn't do it without saying that this wasn't the place to discuss such things, thereby putting down those of us who are open and honest about our experiences.
You really don't get it.
Gay people are not allowed in many churches, or are not allowed Communion. My point about segregation, a thought experiment, was not over the top, it was very relevant.
You just don't get it.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Spawn,
In every response you make you seem to be calling people names, only you are rather subtle at it.
Even when you mentioned suicide, you couldn't do it without saying that this wasn't the place to discuss such things, thereby putting down those of us who are open and honest about our experiences.
You really don't get it.
Gay people are not allowed in many churches, or are not allowed Communion. My point about segregation, a thought experiment, was not over the top, it was very relevant.
You just don't get it.
Christina
I'm not sure that we're in the same discussion. No I don't get it.
In the past page or so of this thread I thought at times things have been building into a constructive discussion. Some of the points which have been made by Adeodatus, Callan, Louise, Ruth and indeed you, I have taken on board and I think that I have acknowledged this in my posts. You seem to be entirely negative about the discussion and my contribution in particular.
I would genuinely like to know how I have been calling people names. You claim that it is subtle but I would still you to show me how I have been doing this. I am totally unaware of having resorted to name-calling and may need to moderate how I post if this is the case.
I don't believe I have said that this is not the place to discuss suicide. In fact, I was open and honest about my experiences as well.
I still think that the analogy with segregation was inappropriate in that as with all such analogies it is faulty, it upped the ante, and it makes light of the reality of segregation.
I've just noticed this link which may or may not take the discussion a bit further - this is written by a member of the Muslim minority community in Australia about minority rights and political correctness there.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
...I'm just reporting the theory that many gay people find matches their own experience. Of course absent fathers is not a simple cause of homosexual feelings so that every child without a father develops homosexual feelings - in the same way that every person who takes a chainsaw to his leg falls over. The development of the mind and sexuality is obviously much more complex than that.
However, it still seems to me that male parenting issues is a strong factor. I find it striking that almost every gay man I have met has had a poor relationship with his father - either he is physically or emotionally absent or abusive. I can't back this up with statistics - but it is an observation which strikes true almost every time. But I can't back that up with statistics. It just seems to be true.
Welcome back to me after a weekend away!
I tentatively posted this a few days ago. I sort of expected the usual roasting I get!! But no one commented on my observation. So I’ll tentatively post it again! I just wonder if anyone else has noticed this - that gay men almost always say they had a poor or non-existent relationship with their father?
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
That is a very revealing response Spawn. You really can't see it can you. You really are that much in denial.
My point is that you fundies...
It is very difficult to engage with someone who is calling you names. I'm not going to respond because I don't recognise myself in your descriptions.
I don't agree with Spawn on a number of topics (no surprise.) But I would not call him a "fundie". I don't recognize him in that description either.
Not all conservatives are fundamentalist ... and for many classic definitions of "conservative", many fundamentalists aren't conservatives.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
...that gay men almost always say they had a poor or non-existent relationship with their father?
The logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc must be carefully avoided in this kind of thing.
First, I would say that the "almost always" is not true in my experience. Some, certainly.
Second, one must examine how many straight men have a poor or non-existent relationship with their father. A pretty high proportion, in my experience. This is one reason why Iron John was a runaway bestseller, and men's drumming circles were everywhere in the 90's.
Thirdly, which is the cart and which the horse? Many gay people state that their knowledge of their sexuality goes back to an early age, often around five years old. (Likely because that's a typical school starting age.) This could make the poor relationship with the father a consequence, not a cause.
Finally, it's irrelevant to the discussion. Perhaps worse than irrelevant. IMO, discussions of the "cause" of homosexuality reflect an interest in "curing" the "condition" or "reversing the choice". And, they are entirely beside the point of what I think this discussion is about, which is, from the OP:
quote:
Should homosexuality and Christianity be that mutually exclusive?
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Not all conservatives are fundamentalist ... and for many classic definitions of "conservative", many fundamentalists aren't conservatives.
Henry---I think the problem is that, on this issue anyway, and from a practical standpoint, there is no real difference between them.
Both groups (conservatives and fundamentalists) haul out the 7 verses in the Bible that condemn sex between people of the same gender. This is the foundation on which both groups rest their arguments against acceptance of gays and lesbians.
What difference does it make to gays and lesbians (and their advocates) that Spawn is not a fundamentalist, when he and the fundamentalists end up in the same place?
Spawn---I appreciate your willingness to share your experiences, and your admission that you recognize gays and lesbians as full members of the Anglican church. I also appreciate your recognition that you have been "bloodyminded" on parts of this issue. (I recognize, BTW, that I am bloodyminded on this one too---for different reasons and with a different result, of course.)
Can you explain to me how your position differs from a fundamentalist's? And what, if any, practical difference that makes for gays and lesbians who want to be part of the church?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
quote:
“I find it striking that almost every gay man I have met has had a poor relationship with his father”
I know a young gay man with a poor relationship with his father. His father has not spoken a single word to him or wanted anything to do with him since he came out – six years ago. He has been completely disowned. So try NO relationship at all rather than “poor” relationship.
I also know a young lesbian who can’t even bring herself to tell her dad. She told her mum & is now being treated like “the scum of the earth” (her words). She knows her dad will be worse, so her plan now is to get her degree and then run as far away from her parents as she can get. She has given up on the idea of having any kind of future relationship with either of her parents – she feels she’s “talked the issue into the ground” with her mum & she can more than guess her dad’s views from his past comments about “poofs” and “dykes”.
I dare say though, that if either of these young people were to experience any mental health problems it would no doubt be the result of “overblown language is used by older gay men,” wouldn’t it. That would explain it all away conveniently wouldn’t it. After all I don 't think there is much hope for younger gays and lesbians who are “being told that they have to play the role of victim for the rest of their lives.”
There is a big difference between "being told they have to" and "being forced to". Some people don't seem to appreciate that difference.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
...I'm just reporting the theory that many gay people find matches their own experience. Of course absent fathers is not a simple cause of homosexual feelings so that every child without a father develops homosexual feelings - in the same way that every person who takes a chainsaw to his leg falls over. The development of the mind and sexuality is obviously much more complex than that.
However, it still seems to me that male parenting issues is a strong factor. I find it striking that almost every gay man I have met has had a poor relationship with his father - either he is physically or emotionally absent or abusive. I can't back this up with statistics - but it is an observation which strikes true almost every time. But I can't back that up with statistics. It just seems to be true.
The key word, unfortunately, is almost. Male parenting cannot be a cause of homosexuality as not all homosexuals have bad relationships with their Fathers. You yourself concede this in your first paragraph. So, what exactly is the point, beyond the fact that you happen to have a number of gay acquaintances who don't get on well with their parents?
The subject, IIRC, came up because Karl asked if there was any reason, beyond the fact that the Bible is agin' it, that homosexuality was wrong. 'Well, I know lots of gay people and none of them get on with their fathers (except the one's that do)' isn't a reason. It is, to be brutally frank, tittle tattle and innuendo. You'll have to do better than that.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Male parenting cannot be a cause of homosexuality as not all homosexuals have bad relationships with their Fathers.
Not at all - that could only be true if homesexuality was one thng, with one cause, and that cause inevitably led to it.
But homosexuality is pretty obviously not a single thing.
And it is obvious that in psychological as well as biological development things can have multiple and complex causes. The same cause can lead to different results in different individuals, or different intensities of the same result. (Geneticists have fun jargon words for all this: "penetrance", "epigenetic factors", "quantitative traits" and so on) One apparent result can be caused by many different factors.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
<Host Mode - ACTIVATE>
Paul Careau - you have been on board long enough to know that attacking an individual (an ad hominem attack) is not allowed on this Board or indeed any other with the possible exception of the Hell Board.
If you wish to attack Spawn at the personal level (e.g. 'your fundementalism'; 'your brand of Christianity'; 'you fundies'; (you are) 'in denial') call him to Hell- though he is not required to respond.
As far as this board is concerned - an apology please, to Spawn and the other contributors.
<Host Mode - DEACTIVATE>
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Leaving aside the personal attack, I don't think Spawn's really being heard here. It's because of posts like the one I'm about to quote that I keep engaging in this discussion. (Observant readers will note that I have been participating since the day this thread was opened over three years ago.)
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I agree that having a sense of community and people who do love you and accept you for what you are is fundamentally important - I wish more people found that in the Church. I concede that for mere survival of some adolescents the act of self-identifying as gay and gaining the support of the community might be the only option. For others, to identify as gay so early in life might create more problems than it solves.
Finally, let me just say that not all conservatives are coming from the same place on this one. I fully accept that lesbian and gay people within and without relationships are part of the Anglican Church. As far as I'm concerned they have as much right to the sacraments and ministry of the Church as I do. I believe in a comprehensive and diverse Church in which there will be different views and different choices on all sorts of issues. However, there are issues to do with authority, church teaching and church leadership which pose other questions and challenges.
Finally can I say to Adeodatus that Christians shouldn't impose '... buts' on others in the kind of situations he talks about. But I'd be very surprised if anyone stays in one place in a life of Christian discipleship and we are all going to hear challenges to our most deeply held views, beliefs, and choices in a life with Christ.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
CM, that article seems to be pointedly ambivalent. Higher rates of estrangement between homosexual sons and their fathers is caused by fathers pushing away effeminate sons, although admittely most of the homosexual sons in the study aren't effeminate.
Huh?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
It's arguing against the theory that estrangement causes homosexuality, MT. There's lots of guys who don't get on with their Dads who aren't gay.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
If we're going to continue with the current conversation for - oh, I dunno - a couple of dozen pages or so, could I just ask one thing first?
What has the aetiology of homosexuality to do with its relationship with Christianity?
Think carefully before answering, please....
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Well, based on Fish Fish's post on the subject on page 39, the point seems to be that homosexuality is a psychological dysfunction caused by an absent or abusive father and, therefore, Not Of God.
Originally posted by Ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Male parenting cannot be a cause of homosexuality as not all homosexuals have bad relationships with their Fathers.
Not at all - that could only be true if homesexuality was one thng, with one cause, and that cause inevitably led to it.
But homosexuality is pretty obviously not a single thing.
Well, it may be a cause but it's certainly not THE cause and probably not the major cause.
There appear to be four groups of people:
1/ Straight people with good relationships with their parents.
2/ Straight people with bad relationships with their parents.
3/ Gay people with good relationships with their parents.
4/ Gay people with bad relationships with their parents.
(Yes, I know about the continuum vs binary thing. Let's just say there is a dividing line of sorts. You can read gay people as 'people with a pronounced homophile inclination', or whatever euphemism is in favour this week).
An aetiology based on bad relationships with ones parents is going to need vast amounts of qualification. It is also going to need to establish cause and effect, which is also questionable. IME gay people are no more disfunctional than the rest of us, so classifying homosexuality as a psychological disorder is, frankly, question begging. The most we can say, as far as I can make out, is that: In some instances it may be the case that a bad relationship with a male parent has some influence on the development of a homosexual orientation.
Which doesn't really answer the question that Fish Fish was trying to answer, to wit, why does God disapprove of homosexuality?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
It's arguing against the theory that estrangement causes homosexuality, MT. There's lots of guys who don't get on with their Dads who aren't gay.
I realize what it's arguing. I'm just saying it doesn't do a particularly good job of it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
TonyK,
quote:
“As far as this board is concerned - an apology please, to Spawn and the other contributors.”
Oh really – you think? I am expected to apologise for saying what I honestly believe now am I? It’s OK for certain people to say what they damn well please about gays, lesbians and bisexuals and they are never asked to apologise at all. No matter how disparaging, no matter how hurtful, no matter how much it might be nonsense.
FishFish says…
quote:
“However, it still seems to me that male parenting issues is a strong factor. I find it striking that almost every gay man I have met has had a poor relationship with his father - either he is physically or emotionally absent or abusive.”
Thereby suggesting that both my sexuality and the sexuality of others is a product of some kind of behavioural maladjustment. THAT is a personal attack. Is he going to be asked to apologise to everyone for writing that?
Spawn says…
quote:
“…given the fact that such overblown language is used by older gay men, I don 't think there is much hope for younger gay males who are being told that they have to play the role of victim for the rest of their lives.”
Thereby outrageously suggesting that the mental health problems experienced by many young gay and lesbian people, including SUICIDE, are nothing at all to do with the negative messages pumped out by Christianity over the years – but rather a product of “victim culture”. Some of my friends have experienced these problems as a direct result of the attitudes and opinions present in society that people like Spawn, FishFish and others like them have contributed to encouraging. Is Spawn going to be asked to apologise for THAT?
quote:
“Paul Careau - you have been on board long enough…”
No. Now I come to think about it – I’d say I have actually been on board TOO long. I don’t think there is any real point in further discussion if I am really honest. I must admit I have increasingly come to view Christianity as an inherently negative life philosophy, and over the last few years that feeling has grown and grown. The direction of the recent discussion here has served to confirm my very worst fears about the direction in which it is heading. By pandering to the fundies/conservative Christians/whatever you want to call them, you are ignoring real human suffering just in order to avoid “rocking the boat”. Now it is clear that the moderators on this forum wish to censor forthright opinion in order to avoid “rocking the boat” as well. At the point at which that happens there is no longer anything to be gained from discussion or further debate.
Clearly it would seem that I don’t belong here. And further debate on this matter is plainly just a waste of time if I am to be expected to apologise simply for being honest. This will be my last post.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
{Admin Hat /On}
Paul: quit it with the bitter poor me thing. Lots of people of differing opinions and sensitivities manage to have conversations on this board. If you like it, stay. If you don't like it, go. But don't pull the Pitiful Pearl routine.
And the having to apologize for "being honest" is neither here nor there. If I called you an ignorant fathead because I honestly believed it, it would still not belong here, but in Hell, where personal attacks are allowed.
Now, we require that people respect the Hosts here. However, you are not obligated to apologize, because due to a change in Hosting policy a while back, which Tony (who is a terrific Host) must have missed (sometimes even Hosts need a holiday), we aren't requiring apologies anymore. However, you should still take what Tony said seriously, and leave off personal Hell-style attacks here on Dead Horses in the future. Okay?
[admin /off]
[ 01. December 2004, 13:55: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
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
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Paul - following Laura's comments (and notwithstanding the 'no apologising required' rule) I apologise for asking you to do that which is no longer necessary.
As Laura implied, I must have missed the change notification.
Otherwise - just as Laura said ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) so much better than I could!
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Righteous Rebel
Ship's Hobbit Lover
# 7524
|
Posted
Seeing this Dead Horse thread has over 2000 replies as I am writing, I daresay, someone else may have said much the same things I am about to say. I did read several of the threads before doing this reply, and I want to respond to one or two issues directly.
First of all, gays don't have to stay home from church, because there are gay churches these days. In fact, there is a rather large one in Dallas, I believe called Cathedral of Hope. In any event, gays do have services available to them and should not have to closet themselves to attend a "regular" church.
Which brings me to my next point. The church is fortunately (on one hand) and unfortunately (on the other hand) is made up of people and people talk about other people and criticize them, many times without good reasons: there is the person who condemns their brother or sister in Christ for drinking alcohol, while they, themselves, are extremely obese; the "straights" will condemn the "gays", even though, till the 14th century, homosexuality was widely practiced in the church and had no official "condemnation" up to that point.
My salient point is this: though it exsists, we need to actively work on getting condemnation out of the pulpit and out of the Church, and start learning how to truly love one another. That is why we have such a forum as SoF.
I stopped going to church years ago when, as an act of pure mercy, I took care of a friend who was dying of AIDS. Because he was ill and I was the one taking care of him, I was branded a homosexual, not by ignorant people off the street, but by the church I had been attending for many years. I still just want to ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) sometimes, just thinking about it.
I am running out of computer time, so will stop beating the horse. PM me, email, whatever, if you want to and I'll discuss this more at length. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
To be or not to be: is there really any question?
Posts: 223 | From: Blue Ridge Mtns., TN USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Righteous Rebel:
I was branded a homosexual
So you of course replied "I'm afraid I'm straight, but if you want to find a gay man there are some good bars I could show you..."
[ 03. December 2004, 17:00: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Righteous Rebel:
quote:
the "straights" will condemn the "gays", even though, till the 14th century, homosexuality was widely practiced in the church and had no official "condemnation" up to that point.
Broadly speaking, Rebel, I agree with you. But AFAIK it would be more accurate to say that homosexuality wasn't generally condemned between the 11th and 14th century. There are passages in Paul's epistles which condemn homosexual behaviour (not, IMV, loving monogamous relationships but the jury is out on that) and the same sort of thing can be found in the Didache and the Fathers.
I think Boswell did an extraordinarily good job in 'Christianity, Homosexuality and Social Tolerance' in demonstrating that the tradition was by no means monochrome, but the pre-medieval parts of the book are the weakest. (Parenthetically, his last book which argued that same sex blessing rites had occured in medieval Europe was widely dismissed. Professor John Gillingham of the LSE wrote a review in the Sunday Telegraph, the burden of which was that he sympathised completely with Boswell's agenda but was unconvinced by his evidence. I think that Boswell was right to point us in the direction of a kind of gay underworld which has always been with the Christian tradition, yet never acknowledged, but that he was too keen to allege that homosexuality was accepted where it wasn't).
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...(Parenthetically, his last book which argued that same sex blessing rites had occured in medieval Europe was widely dismissed. Professor John Gillingham of the LSE wrote a review in the Sunday Telegraph, the burden of which was that he sympathised completely with Boswell's agenda but was unconvinced by his evidence. ...).
Was this the one that argued that the rites Boswell found were basically Christian alternatives to "blood-brotherhood" rituals? I was quite convinced by that argument.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
That's the one.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
It would be more convincing if the evidence was better. I wanted to believe Bosworth, but my own study of medieval history has acquainted me with the paucity of information both specific and contextual in which to consider such a claim. The documentary record is very poor, and a lot of medievalists bootstrap arguments from a very small set of data.
--------------------
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
|
|
Iggy
Shipmate
# 8833
|
Posted
Personally, I always consult medeival documentation before engaging in any sexual act, to check that there's a precedent....
--------------------
ig
Posts: 127 | From: Brighton | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Good one! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Welcome Iggy!
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Iggy: I'm a liberal, therefore (according to another poster on this board) I support rampant sex of any kind. Medievally supported or not. Go to it!
--------------------
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
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Iggy:
Personally, I always consult medeival documentation before engaging in any sexual act, to check that there's a precedent....
Ecclesiastes 1:9 (New International Version)
quote:
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
nor under the sheets... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Walker
Apprentice
# 8838
|
Posted
A friend of mine was recently told he had to have his cancer (his homosexuality) cut out...by his mother.
She then made him choose between his friend, who love him no matter what, and his family, who want him to be heterosexual. He has no broken off all contact with me and other friends, when before we talked almost every day.
I know this has all been said before, but no matter who he ends up with (boys or girls), he (and the countless others) should know that no matter who they are their mummies and daddies and brothers and sisters will LOVE them no matter what. This is what is important.
Playing I'll Stand by You, by the Pretenders in the background
--------------------
T W M W
--------------
No, you cant have my finger prints and my photo.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Walker:
I know this has all been said before, but no matter who he ends up with (boys or girls), he (and the countless others) should know that no matter who they are their mummies and daddies and brothers and sisters will LOVE them no matter what. This is what is important.
Welcome Tom, and I hope you enjoy your trip here on the Ship.
Sad story - I've been supporting a friend who chose to leave her family behind in the same situation. At some stage the anger is going to have to be dealt with...
I agree totally.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Another welcome to the Ship from me, Tom. So sorry to hear about your friend; unfortunately I don't think that's an unusual story.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Iggy
Shipmate
# 8833
|
Posted
yes..er...thank you for your welcome La Sal, Laura and Henry.
Cheeers Sal. Thought of an addition actually - never go out for a stroll....without a scroll..
Anyhow, Re: Tom's posting above I have also heard some absolute HORROR STORIES in my time about how some Christians treat gays. I once had a little flingette with a guy at college whose father was an ordained minister ( of some kind..) to whom he had just come out. Well, his Dad wasn't being very Loving towards him, lets put it that way.
Another chap at college (partially-sighted, as it happens ), met up with the two flatmates at the begining of term 1, with whom he was posted to share their small on-campus digs. "We have something to confess to you - we're Christians" they said. "Oh thats OK", said my friend, "I'm Gay". They left the room. They maintained minimal contact with him from then on. Weird, eh ?
Such real-life horror stories hardly endear one to Christianity, particularly as they seem to contradict its basic message.
Having said that, i have met plenty of very OK Christians - I once had a job working in a kitchen at close quarters with two absolute BORN AGAINS. We got on like a house on fire, though I did avoid touching on certain theological issues ( it was a work situation...)
What's even weirder, perhaps, is that almost all the Christians I know ARE gay. I can't agree with the view expressed somewhere a million pages back on this thread that gay culture and Christianity are poles apart. I hardly ever seem to go into The Bulldog - Brighton's priceless central sleazey cruise bar - with out it being occupied by some Churchperson and their mates, going for a post-ordination booze-up.
I remember once I discovered that the guy I was chatting to had just been CONSECRATED. ( I was unfamiliar with the term, and fairly drunk )."WHAT - LIKE A BUILDING ??" I blurted out, incredulously. He was far from amused actually....
--------------------
ig
Posts: 127 | From: Brighton | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Iggy:
Another chap at college (partially-sighted, as it happens ),,,,, said. "Oh thats OK", said my friend, "I'm Gay". They left the room. They maintained minimal contact with him from then on. Weird, eh ?
They probably couldn't cope with the idea of a disabled person having sexual desire. How do you reckon Blunkett got away with an affair for so long? "Does he take lovers?"
--------------------
"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
|
|
sanc
Shipmate
# 6355
|
Posted
I always check this thread, but few new posts are made and mostly far between. It just shows that after 40+ pages its quite hard to push an old horse a few more step. Am no expert on this one, but I sure want to read exchanges on this old topic. Recently I read in my denomination periodical which addresses evolution an old article THE SEARCH FOR AN EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISM (1992) Am wondering if there are recent evolutionary mechanisms?
Am a creationist as some of you may have already know. Given the choice between inanimate matter and a designer to produce life, I'd rather take side with the designer. So may I ask this question to fellow shipmates who are mostly evolutionists (as I come to realize) what evolutionary mechanism they are currently espousing.
--------------------
I am, therefore I think.
Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Er, I think you may have intended to post that on the 'Death of Darwinism' thread.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You mean homosexuality isn't an evolutionary mechanism? Things have changed a lot since 1992.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
[Serious mode] Actually I remember hearing or reading somewhere that some thought that gayness might be an evolutionary mechanism that develops when the environment is overcrowded. (and just about everywhere is overcrowded nowadays.)
Rabbits, for instance, have a mechanism that causes them to be infertile or to "re-absorb" their fetuses when warrens become overcrowded.
Anybody heard something like this? Apologies if any of this is unbearably ignorant or inadvertantly offensive somehow.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
I recall hearing or reading some years ago that homosexuality in rats increased in incidence when the rats were kept in overcrowded conditions. That might or might not be correct, because I've no idea at all where it came from. Homosexuality in animals also occurs in optimum conditions; I know it is well documented in some birds, most recently penguins. Also a primate called bonobo seems to be mostly bisexual(and rather promiscuous as well, I have read). I suppose you could find some of this out on Google if you wanted to take the time.
I also apologize if this is offensive to anybody here; it certainly is not meant to be. I would actually like to know whether it is hurtful to talk like this, so if anybody wants to weigh in on that I would appreciate some guidance(sure don't want to hurt anybody's feelings).
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by Zeke: quote:
homosexuality in rats
Cue the reminiscences about former partners .... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
I know it is well documented in some birds, most recently penguins.
Well, yeah. Penguins are the most floridly queer members of the animal kingdom. Well apart from the yearly participants in the Dupont Circle Drag Race.
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
Also a primate called bonobo seems to be mostly bisexual(and rather promiscuous as well, I have read).
And, we now have a new epithet for that unfaithful ex-boyfriend who would apparently cheat on you with anything that moved. ("How's your new boyfriend?" "Ex-, I'm afraid -- what a bonobo he turned out to be!")
--------------------
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
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
I recall hearing or reading some years ago that homosexuality in rats increased in incidence when the rats were kept in overcrowded conditions. That might or might not be correct, because I've no idea at all where it came from.
I always had the idea that the Open Range in the Days of the Golden West was (sparsely) populated by archetypically gay cowboys (won't say 'cowpokes'), which, if true, would be a contraindication of the Crowded Rat Hypothesis. But this might or might not be correct because I may have derived the notion from the poems of Frank O'Hara.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
The hypothesis sounds plausible - millions of gay people in New York, only one gay per village in Wales. Makes sense to me.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dewi Sant
Apprentice
# 8869
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
only one gay per village in Wales. Makes sense to me.
I would have thought that the proportion of homosexual people from Welsh villages would be about the same as the average for the rest of Wales and England; they probably don't stay in Welsh villages because of a mixture of social opportunities and prejudice
--------------------
I think that counts as an official ITTWACWS
Posts: 44 | From: North Wales | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147
|
Posted
From Wikipedia:
quote:
Countries or territories with the highest population densities are:
* Macau
* Monaco
* Hong Kong
* Singapore
* Gibraltar
These territories share a relatively small area and an exceptionally high urbanization level, with an economically specialized city population drawing also on rural resources outside the area, illustrating the difference between high population density and overpopulation.
The most densely populated large state is Bangladesh, where 134 million people live in a highly agricultural area around the lower Ganges river, with a national population density in excess of 900 persons per km². World overall population density presently averages 42 persons per km².
Cities with exceptionally high population densities are often considered to be overpopulated, though the extent to which this is the case depends on factors like quality of housing and infrastructure or access to resources. Most of the largest densely-populated cities are in southern and eastern Asia, though Cairo and Lagos in Africa also fall into the category.
--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)
Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
So now somebody has to do a lot of very interesting research, I suppose.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dewi Sant:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
only one gay per village in Wales. Makes sense to me.
I would have thought that the proportion of homosexual people from Welsh villages would be about the same as the average for the rest of Wales and England; they probably don't stay in Welsh villages because of a mixture of social opportunities and prejudice
Not at all. The only gay in Llanddewi Brefi has no prejudice, and wears his bondage gear freely.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Watch out in January for a new tv series The only Gays in the Village (on Sky, I think) in which 4 gay urban "celebs" are transported to deepest rural Derbyshire to see how they survive. Among the comedy, of which I don't doubt there'll be plenty, it'll be interesting to see how they get on.
Meanwhile....
On a thread in Purgatory, Gareth quoted Bertrand Russell as saying quote:
“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”
which seems to be the principle on which this whole debate is conducted.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
[tangent]
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
which seems to be the principle on which this whole debate is conducted.
Not unironically, it also seems to be the principle on which Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins et al. reject God.
[/tangent]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
