quote:

---

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???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Canucklehead:

Personally, I don't view homosexuality to be different from any other sin

---

As one who has, elsewhere on these boards, quite clearly stated my opinion that the bible prohibits homosexual practice, I must come in here (having restrained myself as much as possible to date).

Let me make this clear: Homosexuality is not repeat not a sin. This has been agreed even by Pope John-Paul II. All arguments on this and other threads revolve around homosexual practice, something that is a matter for debate, but has been done to death here and which I, for one, have no wish to rehearse again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Open relationships and all that's not particular to homosexuality

---

Sometimes I think my communities (mainly leather but I'm connected to the "bears" as well) are not well-liked by some others in the gay community who are fighting for acceptance, because the image they think will be most acceptable (two committed, exclusive partners, no more, no less) to outsiders who are dubious about gay relationships is far, far away from the way our own lives go. They don't like it when we march in gay pride parades in leather -- sometimes we are not even invited to, though we are often in attendance -- they think it gives the rest of them/us a bad name. Yet for me and for many others, the way we approach being gay is just as valid as theirs; all we want is to be accepted, or at least not persecuted, for not matching their model.

Some of us in the gay community are even dubious about legalised "gay marriage" (despite the obvious benefits to us) because it will still leave us out, or perhaps even pressure us to conform to that image. (Which may be part of the reason we accept "domestic partnership" more.)

Sorry for nattering on (and on) -- and I truly hope none of this is inflammatory to anyone.

ahem.

canucklehead... i'm straight.

If you've read this thread you will realise that many people here do not consider someones' sexuality as unnatural. To say people are homosexual because it is simply something they enjoy fails to recognise the struggles many people have had coming to terms with their sexuality.

Second I find the use of speech marks in the phrase "christian" homosexuals implying that homosexuals are not Christians. On this Ship we do not take it upon ourselves to decide who is or is not a Christian.

So, regardless of the rhetoric or who agrees with whom or who doesn't agree with whom, God will judge each of us justly. The justice may not have anything to do with anyone's rhetoric on this thread. Or it might. Regardless, our souls are in the balance.

If you aren't 1000% sure of how things will wash out, then change. Even if 95% of people think you're a kook for changing. If on the other hand, you are 1000% sure, then don't change. Even if 95% of people think you are a kook.

The bottom line is:
Kook is okay. Sin is not.

We should avoid sin. Since homosexuality seems to be in the gray area, then just watch it and stay in the white. People are obviously concerned for your everlasting souls.

But, Homosexuality definitely is not a reason to push someone out of the church. And it definitely isn't a reason to say "Oh gross, that must be crushed." And most definitely, homosexuality is not a reason to abandon God's grace or say someone has abandoned God's grace.

We shouldn't sin and we shouldn't judge like we are God.

Second I find the use of speech marks in the phrase "christian" homosexuals implying that homosexuals are not Christians. On this Ship we do not take it upon ourselves to decide who

Alan, I will in the future avoid the use of speech marks in the way that I did, thankyou for pointing this out to me. However, just because people struggle with a sexual issue doesn't mean it isn't unnatural, the fact is that homosexuality is not found in nature; hence it is "unnatural".

The problem with saying stay away from homosexual practice 'just to be on the safe side' is that there isn't a 'safe side'. There's no default practice that God's calling us to. It's flatly unnatural for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual practices, so steering clear of homosexual practice would mean celibacy. This isn't something to go for just because we can't do anything else - it should be a positive choice in its own right (ask any religious). There is no 'white' for a homosexual to stay in.

This actually ties up with what canuckle said, that we should "seek to break free of their unnatural lifestyle and turn their hearts toward God.". Putting aside the sanctimoniousness of his/her post, this is actually exactly what I have done by coming out. I've broken free of the unnatural lifestyle of first pretending to be straight, and then when that didn't work pretending that I was not a sexual being and not interacting with people sexually. My heart was turned towards God when I broke free of that pretense and oppression. Being homosexually active is something I see as a natural consequence of the way I am (not just as gay) - I am not called (at this time) to celibacy. Denying that side of a relationship would be denying what I feel God is leading me to, and has healed me enough to be able to do at some point. Avoiding sexual contact would be, I feel, wrong, and wronging God. For me, coming out was sacramental: it was a visible sign of God working within me. I mean more than that, but I don't have the words.

please go back to the beginnning and take a look at my links on homosexual animals.

its perfectly natural.

Anyways... if you had read the thread, you'll realise you're only the second time I've questioned if someone's a troll, out of all the people who've disagreed with me. It's a perfectly reasonable question on a thread such as this when someone comes in who looks as if they haven't read the thread, who hasn't posted anywhere else, and who says that anyone who disagrees with them is in denial because they want to carry on with something they like. I have to say I laughed out loud when I read that, it's not an argument that I find easy to take seriously

Read the exchanges with Drake, as this seems a bit familiar: his first posts were saying "come on guys you know I'm right". The point is we're debating - we're all entitled to our own views and to have those views taken seriously, rather than told we're trying to justify something that we know in our hearts is wrong because we enjoy it. It's common debating courtesy to engage with the issue, not try and psychoanalyse people. I've restrained myself a lot on that score

You say you've read this thread but then you raise exactly the same positions about homosexuality being unnatural or not occurring in nature which were responded to at length several pages ago here.

Similarly, the position that all homosexual activity is prohibited by scripture has also been argued against intelligently and in detail on this thread.

This is a debate board and not a place for you to simply announce, as if from on high, that you think something is 'unnatural' or not 'normal' or a 'sin' or 'abomination'.

If you want to debate, then please give original and cogent reasons why you find the previous rebuttals of your positions unsatisfactory.

If you don't want to debate, then why are you posting on this board?

Joan - thanks for the welcome. I have lurked the boards for some time now, and although this isn't the first one I have posted to it's true that i haven't been very active. I suppose that in some sense my psychoanalysis, as you called it, of people justifying what they are doing so they can keep doing it is my way of trying to understand a behaviour that is so (in my mind) wrong. Anyway, as you can plainly see I have some very deep seated views on the topic which are not about to be changed anytime soon. But, as I alluded to in an earlier post, I am a sinner too and have my own sins to struggle with, so I don't view homosexuals to be any different from myself on that level at least. I do recognize that my viewpoint is offensive to you, but I do think it needs to be expressed at times.

I never said that one should avoid homosexual practices. I just said, just watch it and stay in the white. If to you there is no white, then that is fine. Stay in the lightest shade of gray as you can. I am not going to tell you what that is.

I am not God and neither is this Canucklehead. I am not agreeing nor want to be put in the same pot with him/her. On other things sure, but this - not the same Corningware for me.

Let me clarify, as it seems that I didn't write like my mind thought I was writing ...

We should avoid sin. Since homosexuality seems to be in the gray area, then just watch it and stay in the light gray area. I do not know what that means for you. It may have to do with practices, it may not. Again, I say I do not know. But somewhere there is a line over which it would be a sin, natural, unnatural, feels right, feels wrong ... regardless there is a line. God and you alone know what that area is for you. Follow that and have no fear.

Even if Canucklehead says he knows, he don't. Only you and God know. Stay gold and avoid sin. That is all we can try to do. Right?

That is all I am saying. No judgement here. I got too much to clean up over here. My backyard is awfully littered with wood. As you detect those things, please let me know and I'll think about them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[
people (on the boards and elsewhere) keep mentioning "committed couples," particularly monogamous ones, as their example of morally acceptable gay relationships. [...] When I see the assumption that we're talking about monogamous couples, I feel baffled and frustrated, because to me that's not the issue, and is completely irrelevant to my own life and to the lives of most of the other gay men I know. (I'm quite unlikely to meet monogamous gay men in the social venues I am part of, so I have no real idea what the proportion of monogamous to non-monogamous gay male relationships are.) To me "committed" also doesn't mean "exclusive," and so I felt I had to comment.

---

I suppose I'm one of the people who has quoted the example of a committed gay couple as an 'morally acceptable' relationship. Though I wouldn't use the phrase 'morally acceptable' in this context as it sounds rather grudging. It would sound as if I was saying, 'Okay, I'm willing to tolerate your being a practising homosexual so long as you do it in as respectable and heterosexual a way as possible, right down to the white dress and joint mortgage,' which is not what I have meant to say at any point, and apologise if it sounded that way.

I quoted the example because it's one I'm familar with: pretty much all my gay friends are 'non-scene', and so I don't have any experience of the sort of situation you describe, Chastmastr.

From my position of extreme ignorance, I have no idea how the dynamics of a non-exclusive sexual relationship, gay or straight, would work itself out in a loving way, having been brought up in a culture that sees long-term monogamy as the ideal.

But I'm sorry if the terms of this debate have been framed in a way that excludes a wide section of the gay community. Please don't stop posting on that account! We need to know if there's an aspect we're ignoring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elaine from the bar:
[QB]From my position of extreme ignorance, I have no idea how the dynamics of a non-exclusive sexual relationship, gay or straight, would work itself out in a loving way, having been brought up in a culture that sees long-term monogamy as the ideal.

QB]

---

From my experience of answering a Lesbian Line for five years I'd say that for most lesbians non-exclusive sexual relationships don't work at all, and from listening to straight friends who experimented with it I'd say the same. But gay men seem to be very different with regard to being non exclusive anda happy couple. Lesbians tend more to be serially monogamous than having several partners at the same time, but that's another problem.

Maybe it is not such much a problem of being gay or straight but of being a man or a woman.

higamous hogamous,
women monogamous,
hogamous higamous,
men are polygamous

Because I believe that this is what gay Christians are called to. In the same way that straight men might like to have multiple partners, or casual sex, but their Christian ethics and beliefs mean that they aim for the ideal of monogomy - which has, as far as I know, been the church's teaching on marriage since the days of the Church fathers.

And it's not about 'aping' heterosexual partnerships - I simply believe that monogomous and faithful is the Christian "norm" for relationships, be they gay or straight.

Jeffrey John makes an excellent case for this in his book "Permanent, Faithful, Stable: Christian same-sex partnerships", published by Darton, Longman & Todd, which I highly recommend. It's a small book, and only £3.50 too.

And yayy Joan for your own news!! *Cheers loudly*

Thanks for letting me clarify my point.

By the way, I didn't say I was for or against homosexual practices. And I don't think it matters where I weigh in on that.

That is between anyone who ever practices homosexual acts and God. (I did as a 8yr old kid with a friend). Determining if it is a sin or not is between every person and God. It is not for me, a crowd of people or anyone else to say what is a sin for anyone. The Church is our source for the truth (that is if we believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit). If the Church is fine with it, then go baby go, there should be no sin and it is good. If it is gray, then be cautious - be bold too and live well and hard.

My point was: We all bring our skin to judgment. That's just the simple point.

P.S.
I love homosexuals. I have an uncle who is gay (he gave me 5 cousins too, before he came out). He is a great guy who impresses me with his understanding and compassion. I have a brother in law who is gay. A friend is also a homosexual. They are great people. And my dear ol' mom thought I was a homosexual until I was in college and started to date. But that is beside the point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
joan, maybe he thinks that everyone whos been on the one side of the debate is gay?

ahem.

canucklehead... i'm straight.

and i don't think homosexual acts are sinful.

---

(And we can even discuss our views without fighting.)

quote:

---

The problem with saying stay away from homosexual practice 'just to be on the safe side' is that there isn't a 'safe side'. There's no default practice that God's calling us to. It's flatly unnatural for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual practices, so steering clear of homosexual practice would mean celibacy.

---

I knew a man at a previous church I attended that had been in the same University Christian Union as me. In my student days I had no idea he had homosexual inclinations (I choose my words carefully). It was a major barrier between him and his father (AFAIK) that he was 'gay'.

Now, many at that church were the sort that believed God could 'change' someone from having homosexual inclinations to being 'straight', and believed this was possible in his case. Someone must have put him in touch with a place 'down south' that he could go on a 'residential' (or more than one) for counselling and prayer. So he went.

Eventually he had a girlfriend, one who knew exactly wht he had been through. I believe they meant a lot to each other. Then they split up, which AFAIK was NOT because of his 'past' homosexuality. Then he got another girlfriend, and this time they got married (I and Mrs the G. went to the wedding).

Does it?

There is a whole range of what sexuality is - a sliding scale with completely gay and completely straight at the extremes. I think most peoples' sexuality is a lot more in the grey areas than they think .

I was part of an online community debating the whole issue of Christianity and homosexuality, with the aim of "bridging the divide" and enabling good honest communication with people on both sides of the issue. (It's at Bridges Across if anyone wants to check it out)

And I met people there who claimed that God had healed them, and who had families etc to back up their evidence. And could show God at work in their lives, and told of how deeply unhappy they were with their sexuality prior to healing.

I also met people like myself for whom God's healing had taken the form of helping us to accept both our sexuality and our faith.

I don't believe we can limit God. I do believe that the former instance - the true "ex-gay" is incredibly rare, and that for many people, the ex-gay ministries have caused an awful lot more emotional damage than they were trying to heal.

And this even applies to its founders - the two men who ran the ex-gay group Courage (I /think/ it was that one) are now living together in a committed Christian partnership, and have apologised for the damage that their ministry caused.

It's a tough area. But I don't want to deny what God is doing in other people's lives. I also would like other people to respect what that same God is doing in mine, and how I am "working out my salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who is working in me."

It's such a contrast to the "debate" on the christianity & renewal site, where there just seemed to be lots of very prejudiced people, some with rather weird obsessions!

In the end, God's love encompasses all of us in our struggles. I have my own struggles with sex and relationships, and I'm sure I've been as imperfect as the rest of us; but God loves us anyway.

Thank you everyone. Aside to Joan: I'm really happy that your mother has changed her mind. God works in mysterious ways...

In the original DSM, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder; same in DSM-II. In DSM-III, homosexuality was a mental disorder ONLY if it was "ego-dystonic"--which means that it is a psychological disorder if one feels this way: "I'm homosexual, but I don't want to be."
In the DSM-IV, homosexual is not mentioned as a psychological disorder at all.

Sexuality is not a 'duality' situation. Not "either homosexual or heterosexual". It's a continuum - in fact, several continua (if that's the correct plural form?

See Using the Klein Scale to teach about sexual orientation for more on this - people may have very different 'attractions' from 'behaviours', 'emotional preferences' to 'sexual fantasies'. (How else, for example, would you classify a gay Christian who believes that his sexual attractions to other men are wrong, and so has married, and is having sex with a woman, while fantasising about men?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:

The whole 'ex-gay' thing is massively muddied by the growing number of 'ex-ex-gays'.

---

Must... not... make... pun... about... whether or not... ex or ex-ex- or ex-ex-ex-gays... are "uncanny"...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inanna:
I was part of an online community debating the whole issue of Christianity and homosexuality, with the aim of "bridging the divide" and enabling good honest communication with people on both sides of the issue. (It's at Bridges Across if anyone wants to check it out)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
we're all entitled to our own views and to have those views taken seriously, rather than told we're trying to justify something that we know in our hearts is wrong because we enjoy it.

---

Joan,

This struck a real chord with me.

It's not immediately obvious to me (which may be my own stupidity) whether your defence of homosexual acts amounts merely to special pleading, or whether you have a genuine philosophy of what morality is, which happens to allow that homosexual acts are morally permissible.

For example, homosexual acts have something in common with incest, cannibalism, prostitution, or necrophilia in that:
• they are morally wrong according to Christian tradition
• they're about bodies and what we do with them
• there's a strong element of public disgust which can impede rational discussion.

Is there a substantial moral difference between these and homosexual acts, or do the same moral principles permit or condemn each equally ? Do you have a consistent moral philosophy which applies the same considerations in each case ?

I suppose that I grew up with the phrase "consenting adults behind closed doors". (Meaning that if there is no sin against other people, then it's not for other people to condemn homosexual acts, or incest, or anything else. God can sort out any sin against God).

While it may be stretching a point to call this a philosophical position, it is a consistent point of view which I would be happy to apply (at least provisionally, as a starting point pending further thought) to any of these sort of "issues". (I can't say that any of them as such have actually been a big issue for me personally, but the question of what morality is is an issue for everyone).

People do try to justify something that they know in their hearts is wrong, because they enjoy it. We're human; we're like that.

I don't know how far this applies in your case, and want to give you the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise...

However, the bit which I do find difficult is that my Bishop won't ordain me unless I either marry my girlfriend, or end the relationship. (We're both happy with it as it is) However, he is happy to ordain practising homosexuals.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this ???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maestro:
As I see it - the man-man, or woman-woman sexual realtionship is no more or less sinful than the one which I have with my Girlfriend. All 3 fall short of God's idea, all are sins, and all can be confessed and forgiven.

However, the bit which I do find difficult is that my Bishop won't ordain me unless I either marry my girlfriend, or end the relationship. (We're both happy with it as it is) However, he is happy to ordain practising homosexuals.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this ???

Maestro

---

If it is not then you have no need for forgiveness concerning it.
If it is a sin then repentance involves stopping living with her outside marriage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Joan,

This struck a real chord with me.

It's not immediately obvious to me (which may be my own stupidity) whether your defence of homosexual acts amounts merely to special pleading, or whether you have a genuine philosophy of what morality is, which happens to allow that homosexual acts are morally permissible.

---

Yes, I do - I'm not "special pleading". More below...

quote:

---

For example, homosexual acts have something in common with incest, cannibalism, prostitution, or necrophilia in that:
• they are morally wrong according to Christian tradition
• they're about bodies and what we do with them
• there's a strong element of public disgust which can impede rational discussion.

Is there a substantial moral difference between these and homosexual acts, or do the same moral principles permit or condemn each equally ? Do you have a consistent moral philosophy which applies the same considerations in each case ?

---

First, I'll be terribly improper and quote myself, on the first page of this thread. I don't have an algorithm for deciding what's right cos Christianity doesn't give simple answers . I said:

quote:

---

How do we tell what's right? The best answer I've found (I can't off the top of my head remember where) is that we have to look at what forms of life lead to an increase in holiness and Christian living and love. In terms of relationships, do they bring people closer to God and an understanding of his love? Are they a blessing to the world around them?

---

The difference I see between homosexuality and the other things people try and lump it with is that between two adults in a proper relationship you can have the emotional physical and spiritual bond that I (and an awful lot of theologians) believe is a God-given gift to humanity (not saying those theologians endorse homosexuality!). There is mutuality, love, and the creation of an entity that is more than the sum of its parts. This is not to say every straight or gay relationship is like that, but that this is the ideal for relationships, and it is empirically observed to be possible in straight and gay relationships.

However when we consider things like bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia we can see very clearly that they do not have the potential to be a part of this idea of relationships. There is no mutuality, and the relationships are fundamentally self-centred and abusive. There is not the reaching out to God and one-another that characterises a Christian relationship of love. An abusive straight marriage would be similarly bad. As would an abusive gay partnership. All of them are "actions against the Kingdom": things that sin against building God's Kingdom in our lives and our world (that may seem oddly phrased, but it's something I've felt quite strongly about since September 11).

I do not believe in the principle of "what people get up to behind closed doors is their own business" if that is abusive and degrading for both parties. However I also don't agree with the idea of breaking down the doors and barging in sermonising As someone said, we've got to decide for ourselves what is sinful or not, but we have no right to impose that on other people, we have to proceed in love, understanding and openness.

With Homosexual and lesbian couples there is no equivalent to Marriage. the Bishop will belong to one of three camps,

1)practising homosexuals should not be ordained (the official line)

2)I don't know whether they should be ordained or not so i won't ask the question, (lot's of variations here)

3) they can be ordained i won't make a big fuss about it but I want to make certain they are in a relationship that is committed and is near to marriage as possible.

It's an interesting statement you made: "Without an something absolute I could convince myself that rape and murder are completely acceptable". That's very black-and-white: either we have a 100% sure case-iron easy-to-understand moral code, or else anything goes. There are other options - there's all the area in the middle where we're trying to get towards the absolute truth with all the resources available to us (as I've said above), and we know that we might be wrong, that we can't be sure of what we've said, but nevertheless it's all we are ever going to have to go on, and it's rational to base our moral choice on that. It's OK not to be 100% certain - it can be frightening at first not to be sure of things, but ultimatly IMHO it's necessary for our growth to relax and open ourselves to God and not imprison God, ourselves or others in our own rigidity. Not knowing everything doesn't mean that we can know nothing.

As long as what is happening between people is mutually loving then it is fine.

Unfortunately the bible does provide absolutes. The vexed question is how is this tension between society and the Churches understanding of it's identity resolved.

There are two answers
one is what the hell lets go with society

The other lets hold on to the absolutes.