|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Unless you can show me otherwise, my undertsnading of the auhtority of scripture insists that I must also see same sex sexual relationships as sinful.
So what? That's my point. Unless you yourself are homosexual and are trying to work out how you need to live, or unless you have a parental or pastoral responsibility over someone who is homosexual, what freaking difference does it make to you what the Bible says about it?
The Bible condemns gossip more frequently and more strongly than it condemns homosexuality. But we don't have a 50+page thread on the Ship talking about whether gossips can be Christian, no one makes comments about the gossipy lifestyle, or whether gossips are born that way, or what God thinks of gossips.
No one kicks their kids out of their homes for being gossips. I suppose people lose their jobs or get beaten up for being gossips occasionally -- but only for a specific act of gossip, and not for having a gossipy orientation.
We have periodicals on the newsstands at the grocery stores dedicated to nothing but gossip, where everyone, even vulnerable children, who might be led to choose a gossipy lifestyle, can see them. Schools hire gossips as teachers. Uncontrolled gossip goes on in courtrooms, prisons, offices, anywhere that people get together.
Even in churches! In fact, to try to push it down the throats of Bible-believing Christians, to give it a veneer of spiritual acceptability, in churches we often bless it and call it "prayer requests." But it's still gossip!
However, it isn't my business to correct anyone else for their gossip. If someone wants to gossip with me, it's my duty to refrain from engaging with them in that particular sin, no matter how much, or how little, I'm tempted. It's my duty to set an appropriate example of conversational purity, and to teach my children and my godchildren how to control their words. But beyond that, whether or not you gossip is just flat none of my business.
My point, Fish Fish, is that people who make the most noise about homosexuality make it clear that there are two kinds of sins. There are my sins, the sins that nice people like me and my friends are guilty of -- gossip and gluttony and the like -- and who can blame us if we chat about the neighbor's spendy new car and take an extra piece of apple pie whether we need it or not? And there are the sins that we're never in the least tempted by, sins like homosexuality. And those sins are horrid, and against the Bible, and God is going to send the people who commit those sins straight to hell!
And the hypocrisy in this just stinks. It reeks of pride and of self-justification. Blind guides and hypocrites. Whitewashed tombs. Motes and logs, pots and kettles. Sin is sin. If you're going to make any exception, and declare one person's sin is worse than another person's -- either by outright declaring it so, or by acting as though it's worse -- the only sin that you can declare is worse is your own. Each of us declares every Sunday that we are the first, the chief of sinners -- well, if you're Orthodox, you do. I don't know about in your church.
Look at your own sin. Until you can really see it, and understand how dark and sinful your own heart is, how deeply mired in sin you are, how strongly the Bible condemns your sins, the ones that you commit over and over and over, what right do you have to condemn someone else's sin?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
Do gay christians owe an explanation to the larger church about how they've arrived at their conclusions? I'm of two minds on this.
On one hand, I recall the incident where Peter asked Jesus about John, "What about him?" and Jesus' response was, "What is that to you?"
On the other, since we are challenging tradition and social convention and asking for a more careful reading of the passages that have historically been used to fortify the traditional view, I think we do owe an explanation.
However, I don't think a considered reflection is likely going to occur in the absense of relationship of the participants in the dialog or where it's viewed as a debate with entrenched positions and keeping score or where political power (religious and civic) is involved.
Unfortunately, in the US, that's precisely the situation we have. It's all about drawing lines and doing whatever is necessary to cast the "other" as intrinsically depraved, morally disordered, willfully corrupt, incapable or unfit for parental and partnership responsibilities and undesirable in the church.
It's difficult to have a discussion about the nuances when rhetorical and political WMD's are being earnestly exchanged and where, indeed, the participants are often speaking past each other because they don't share a common conceptual framework for the issue.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Josephine --
But Christians don't gossip -- they "share". And that's all right because it just shows Christian concern and love.
At least, that's the word used for it among the evangelicals and charistmatics of my acquaintance. (Not all of them, of course -- I consider myself among the latter and I DON'T "SHARE"!)
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Ah - is this "sharing"? Or is it Speaking The Truth In Love™? I'm never sure of the distinction. Anyway - it can't be a sin, or people would be preaching against it...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Ah - is this "sharing"? Or is it Speaking The Truth In Love™? I'm never sure of the distinction. Anyway - it can't be a sin, or people would be preaching against it...
Lots of people do actually. Maybe you need to alter your preaching programme to include it. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Do you know this, or is it just gossip? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Josephine, you are my hero. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Josephine
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
While this does not in itself constitute an argument concerning the validity of same-sex unions, it does suggest that there is a conflict at work in parts of the church between the interests of women and gay men.
People who take a liberal line on this issue do have to stop and think what the effect on the church as a whole would be to openly tolerate gay male relationships (would this be an argument from catholicity ? At least it's an argument with the welfare of the group in mind). It strikes me as a question of the signals given out to different groups of people.
The majority of the church is made up of women, a number of whom are forced into celibacy or end up leaving church because they cannot find Christian spouses (and straight single men, especially younger ones, are less likely to gravitate towards more liberal churches). In those cases where these women are then treated in a misogynistic manner by some gay men in the church, ordained or not, and also find that gay men are allowed to have sexual relationships whilst they cannot find Christian husbands as would be preferred both by the church and by the authors of the NT, it isn't that surprising that there is going to be opposition to the move to validate same-sex unions from those churches attended by the majority of (female) Christians (i.e. churches that turn out to be less liberal on this issue).
I’d like to return to this post by the Lady of the Lake.
There has been an enormous amount of discussion on this thread from many points of view: biblical, theological, behavioural, medical, psychological, and justice-related. However, as best as I recall, there has been relatively little discussion on the sociological issues involved and how this issue may impact the wider church in the future.
It certainly seems to me to be a matter of common sense that any proposed change in the life of the church should be examined closely for all possible consequences. In nuclear safety this process is taken very seriously in a formalised manner. It was called by the jargon term HAZOP – see here.
So, I propose a thought-experiment. Let us suppose that the responsible pro-gay cause is accepted universally in the church. Any moral criticism attached to same-sex unions per se is removed, and ‘Permanent, Faithful, Stable’ as per Jeffrey John becomes the only moral criterion.
For the purposes of this thought-experiment we may also presume that the church openly blesses same-sex unions in public ceremonies (perhaps tied in to the civil law on such partnerships) and that such sexually intimate relationships are permitted (and even encouraged) for both laity and clergy, from bishops downward.
What will the consequences of such a change be in the sociological life of the church (if any)? How will this affect other major groupings presently in the church, such as young and old, single and married, male and female? What will it do for other minority groupings within the church who perceive themselves to be at some disadvantage?
I would like to kick off with a response that picks up on the post from the Lady of the Lake.
I know that there are many young, straight, single women posting on the Ship. Despite the many advantages that the Internet gives in communication, it is clear that many female shipmates are still having difficulty in finding a prospective husband, especially a mature marriageable man confident in his heterosexuality.
Given the present sociological make up of the church, the odds of finding a Christian husband are against them. It is already the case that many Christian women remain single all their life or otherwise end up marrying someone who is not Christian, with all that this may imply.
Furthermore, the UK church already has a much higher-than-average proportion of gay men. As the culture of homosexual normalisation extends to the wider church, that proportion is likely to increase, and the church may approach the same social environment as a gay bar or a gay club.
As a result I see fewer straight Christian men around, perhaps markedly so. Those men with religious sensibilities will disappear to another environment, perhaps to the Masonic lodge (big with men in Scotland), or even to the local mosque or synagogue.
That option is certainly not going to appeal to many Christian women. Many will remain faithfully in the church, but with an even lower statistical chance of finding a decent Christian husband, and increasing numbers permanently single.
Hence I think that the proposed normalisation of same-sex unions in the church will seriously damage the marriage prospects of Christian women as a group. This issue will have an inevitable sociological consequences for them, with further knock-on consequences for the whole church.
What do you think? And is this a valid line of argumentation?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588
|
Posted
Faithful Sheepdog said:
quote:
Hence I think that the proposed normalisation of same-sex unions in the church will seriously damage the marriage prospects of Christian women as a group. This issue will have an inevitable sociological consequences for them, with further knock-on consequences for the whole church.
What do you think? And is this a valid line of argumentation?
I don't think so, hon.
Speaking as a straight single Christian woman, even if the normalisation of same-sex unions in the church harms my marriage prospects, why should I be against it? Nonono.
Also, I am not entirely sure how more gay men in the church means less straight men in the church. Surely it would just mean...more gay men in the church.
The message of Christ is not about your orientation. It transends time, space, and everything. It's God moving in next door. That's the appeal to everyone, no matter which gender they prefer to get their jollies with.
quote:
Originally posted by the Lady of the Lake
The majority of the church is made up of women, a number of whom are forced into celibacy or end up leaving church because they cannot find Christian spouses
Which is very unfortunate. Very very unfortunate. I'm not sure how it is to the present point though. I'm still unconvinced that more gay men = less straight men. But if you would like to provide an example, that would be good.
Are there more women in the church than men? Ooh. Didn't know that. Hmm.
quote:
In those cases where these women are then treated in a misogynistic manner by some gay men in the church, ordained or not, and also find that gay men are allowed to have sexual relationships whilst they cannot find Christian husbands as would be preferred both by the church and by the authors of the NT, it isn't that surprising that there is going to be opposition to the move to validate same-sex unions from those churches attended by the majority of (female) Christians (i.e. churches that turn out to be less liberal on this issue).
Misogynistic manner? Oh dear. Umm...could you give us some examples for this as well please?
My point is this (however badly I'm expressing it, please bear with me). The argument that blessing same-sex unions in the church will somehow damage the marriage prospects of straight Christians is, I think, not a valid argument. The church's job is as a means of support to help people become more like Christ. To spread His message and to generally love God and your neighbour. Though it can be used as such, the church is not primarily a dating service. The church is about serving God.
And we don't get to choose who God calls to serve him. Straight, gay, bi, transgender, addicted to chocolate, hates peanuts...doesn't matter. We're all sinners, and we all label ourselves as such. Churches collect sinners who know they're sinners, that's what they do. We're all trying to become more like Christ, as best we can.
--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
So what? That's my point. Unless you yourself are homosexual and are trying to work out how you need to live, or unless you have a parental or pastoral responsibility over someone who is homosexual, what freaking difference does it make to you what the Bible says about it?
Because the world wide church is debating whether such relationships are moral are not. Since I am accepting the long held view held by the church and found in the Bible which is now being challenged, then of course I can have a view of what is right and wrong. Who makes you the arbiter of wheter I can have a view or not?
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The Bible condemns gossip more frequently and more strongly than it condemns homosexuality. But we don't have a 50+page thread on the Ship talking about whether gossips can be Christian, no one makes comments about the gossipy lifestyle, or whether gossips are born that way, or what God thinks of gossips.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Look at your own sin. Until you can really see it, and understand how dark and sinful your own heart is, how deeply mired in sin you are, how strongly the Bible condemns your sins, the ones that you commit over and over and over, what right do you have to condemn someone else's sin?
I think you have a fair point that some Christians are hypocrites, pointing out the sins of others, without looking at their own sins. That's fair enough. But if we take a step back from looking at who is pointing at who, and ignore the hypocrisy, both sins are still sins. So it is sinful to gossip - absolutely right. But just cos some people are hypocrites about that doesn't mean that homosexual activity suddenly is morally right. You are arguing that two wrongs make a right!
Conservatives haven’t chosen this as the issue to fight over – its been chosen for us by people who will not accept Biblical authority. When people begin to assert that gossip is not sinful, when the Bible asserts it is, then I'll join in a debate defending that biblical standard. But that isn't happening - and that's why there is no 50 page thread on that issue. But people are asserting that what the Bible teaches to be wrong is in fact right. And unless you can find me a single verse about God blessing such relationships rather than condemning them, then hypocrite or not, I'll still have to believe that God thinks homosexual sex, just like gossiping is sinful.
Just one verse…
--------------------
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
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
I would like to kick off with a response that picks up on the post from the Lady of the Lake.
I know that there are many young, straight, single women posting on the Ship. Despite the many advantages that the Internet gives in communication, it is clear that many female shipmates are still having difficulty in finding a prospective husband, especially a mature marriageable man confident in his heterosexuality.
Given the present sociological make up of the church, the odds of finding a Christian husband are against them. It is already the case that many Christian women remain single all their life or otherwise end up marrying someone who is not Christian, with all that this may imply.
Furthermore, the UK church already has a much higher-than-average proportion of gay men. As the culture of homosexual normalisation extends to the wider church, that proportion is likely to increase, and the church may approach the same social environment as a gay bar or a gay club.
As a result I see fewer straight Christian men around, perhaps markedly so. Those men with religious sensibilities will disappear to another environment, perhaps to the Masonic lodge (big with men in Scotland), or even to the local mosque or synagogue.
That option is certainly not going to appeal to many Christian women. Many will remain faithfully in the church, but with an even lower statistical chance of finding a decent Christian husband, and increasing numbers permanently single.
Hence I think that the proposed normalisation of same-sex unions in the church will seriously damage the marriage prospects of Christian women as a group. This issue will have an inevitable sociological consequences for them, with further knock-on consequences for the whole church.
What do you think? And is this a valid line of argumentation?
Neil
Hmm. I've never posted to this thread before, but do dip in and out for a read every now and then. But this has prompted me to respond, because I really think I'm missing something.
As a single female Christian of marriageable age as you describe, I'm really not sure that the church blessing same-sex unions would have any effect at all on the pool of eligible men available to me (that makes me sound somewhat predatory, but you know what I mean! lol). Are you really suggesting that a perceived increase in tolerance towards homosexuality in the church is so threatening to heterosexual men that they would avoid the church and take their religious sensibilities elsewhere? I can think of plenty of reasons why men (and women for that matter) choose not to go to church or see it as irrelevant to them, but an increase in tolerance really isn't one of them. And frankly, if someone is so put off by an accepting, tolerant church that they bugger off elsewhere rather than engage with constructive dialogue and trying to understand and reach some point of acceptance of difference, then that says enough to me to know that the odds of a beautiful relationship with me probably were always going to be pretty low. So the net result is absolutely no different from how it's always been (for me, anyway).
Personally, despite my single status marching relentlessly ever onwards, I really don't see how it would be affected either positively or negatively by the normalisation of same-sex unions. I agree with you that involuntary singleness is an issue that has profound sociological implications for the church, but it really is nothing new, and I don't see things getting any worse because of any culture of normalisation of same-sex unions. I think talking about the available marriage pool for single women is a bit of a red herring in the context of this particular debate, to be honest.
I think there *is* something to be said for debating different standards of behaviour expected for different groups in the church. I have been to a church, for example, where at least one couple was cohabiting, but where it was explicitly made clear that single people were expected to remain sexually pure and all the rest of it, and understandably such apparent different messages to different parties caused a lot of bad feeling, hurt and confusion which I would say has still not been resolved. Given the changes in society of patterns of cohabitation, marriage, singleness, homosexuality, I do think these need to be debated in the church. But it is a much wider issue than whether homosexuality and same-sex unions are right/wrong/to be tolerated, and so to be honest I think this is probably not the thread for it.
[ETA: What JillieRose said. That was what I was trying to say, but she did a better job!]
[ 09. October 2005, 16:18: Message edited by: Jack the Lass ]
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Hence I think that the proposed normalisation of same-sex unions in the church will seriously damage the marriage prospects of Christian women as a group. This issue will have an inevitable sociological consequences for them, with further knock-on consequences for the whole church.
Actually, in order to investigate this you don't need to do a thought experiment. There are already churches which take a markedly liberal line towards homosexuality. I would have thought that examining their demographics and internal dynamics would be a reasonable indicator of whether the consequences you suggest take place. I'm not aware of a flight of straight men from such churches, or of congregations consisting largely of gay couples and frustrated female singletons. But for various complicated reasons I've tended to worship at places which have been divided on the issue rather than places which have taken an uncomplicatedly liberal position, so my perceptions come from the outside.
Personally, as a straight man, if our place did turn uncomplicatedly liberal tomorrow, I wouldn't feel the need to join the lodge. If the position of the wider church shifted dramatically, I imagine that it would be because opinions in the church shifted dramatically and therefore the majority of straight men in churches would be reasonably accepting of their new found gay fellow pilgrims.
Finally - this is not a rhetorical question - where do you get the impression that gay people are over-represented in the church?
--------------------
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
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jillie Rose:
Which is very unfortunate. Very very unfortunate. I'm not sure how it is to the present point though. I'm still unconvinced that more gay men = less straight men. But if you would like to provide an example, that would be good.
Jillie Rose, thanks for your query.
Yes there are examples.
1.I've known a number of men who have refused to convert to Christianity because the churches they've come into contact with and found were most helpful turned out later to be pro-gay. These were mainline churches. These men were looking for intellectual clout and traditional, liturgical worship, not dumbing down.
2.I've known single Christian men who have been at the receiving end of inappropriate behaviour (sexual harassment) from some gay men in the church. (I've also known non-Christian men who have been at the receiving end of similar behaviour.) This confirmed and increased their lack of affirmation of male homosexuality and made them want to keep away from those institutions where the abuse figures were in positions of authority or were informally influential.
It's fairly well-known that most straight men aren't enamoured of male homosexuality. A lot of men won't tell women what they actually think for fear of causing offence and appearing illiberal, not very nice, etc.
Yes there are exceptions (straight men affirming of gay relationships - note affirming, not just tolerating), but I (and a number of my friends) have noticed that those straight men, specially Christians, who are pretty affirming of gay relationships are often a)already married (so they no longer know what it's like to be single), or b)have their own, often unresolved, issues with sexuality (not necessarily confusion about sexual orientation, but in some cases yes -cases known to me, I'm not going to go into further details here), or c)are supporting gay relationships because this ties in with supporting sex outside marriage.
Very recent research evidence on the gender ratio and likelihood of children becoming Christians or not, was done by David Voas, a demographer specialising in the sociology of religion in the UK. It was reported in the Guardian.
Voas has also conducted demographic research on the attitudes of Christians and non-Christians towards homosexuality, which makes v. helpful reading for this debate and can be found here
here.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
But Lady of the Lake, I can tell you examples of lesbians in the church being sexually harrassed by single straight men - that doesn't mean that single straight men should not be allowed to participate in the church it tells me that some people will always behave inappropriately.
Maybe churchgoing straight men are uncomfortable with gay people because they are being taught homophobia from the pulpit?
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Lady of the Lake: quote:
1.I've known a number of men who have refused to convert to Christianity because the churches they've come into contact with and found were most helpful turned out later to be pro-gay. These were mainline churches. These men were looking for intellectual clout and traditional, liturgical worship, not dumbing down.
Er... surely you're not equating, or conecting, a pro-gay stance with dumbing-down?
quote:
those straight men, specially Christians, who are pretty affirming of gay relationships are often a)already married (so they no longer know what it's like to be single),
I'm not sure what your point is here. I fall into this category, but I can remember what it was like to be single - really quite vividly. I'm not trying to be obstructive here, and it might help if you could specify in what sense we category (a) men have forgotten what it's like to be single, and in particular what germane-to-this-discussion aspect of being single we've forgotten. I really am trying to see your point here - and clearly if there's something important I and men like me have forgotten, then we won't know what it is!
I can't speak about categories (b) and (c), because I don't belong to them, but I would be very grateful if you could unpack what you mean about them too.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
I've heard gay people blamed for a whole load of things before, but holding them responsible for middle-aged spinsters and widows not getting any is, frankly, pretty laughable.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
The three churches I know that have openly gay or lesbian ministers completely disprove the Lady of the Lake's theory. I realise that's a small sample, but from my experience, churches that have openly queer ministers actually have an influx of straight people, particularly families. From conversations with these straight people they've joined because the church, by having a queer minister, gives them the chance to go to worship with people who don't condemn homosexuality. They don't want their children growing up thinking that queer relationships are bad (offensive to God, according to Lep). That's the way they see the church - either pro or anti gay - which is tragic for the church as a whole. They made their decisions on that basis.
You know, this thread really is proving to me that the church is a bit of a poisonous place for us queers. How can you discuss anything rationally when there are people who come from a position where they don't think there's anything wrong with saying my relationship is offensive to God? I heard Lep saying that he felt convicted about a page ago, but then he comes out with this offensive to God line. That's hardly a statement that suggests kindly respect and love.
And you know, when I think back, I haven't said anything whatsoever about other people's living arrangements/lives. I may have issues with their beliefs and understandings, but I don't tell them that their lives are offensive or sick. I don't tell them that God condemns them. And I certainly don't come up with specious arguments about gay men meaning fewer straight men!
I met my partner at a church. We are both believers. I have a great love for the bible and have a theology degree. I don't believe the bible is as inflexible as some would have us believe. And like so many queer people, we've left the church to be believers-at-large, because we'd rather be out doing ministry than arguing about whether we should be allowed to.
What anti-gay people say doesn't actually affect us, because they're not really talking about us. They're talking about themselves and their opinions, not our lives. They don't know our lives. And this thread is a sparkling demonstration of that. When Neil, Lep and Fishfish can tell me something positive about my life, then they'll have my ear. When they demonstrate that they know more about me than my sexuality, and can talk about whatever it is, then I might just listen to them. But all I hear is them banging on about what a sinner I am. That is their bottom line, and I'm sorry, but its a meager sort of bottom line when you're talking about the wholeness of people. The world is a much richer place than that - even my volunteer work with prisoners tells me that.
That's it from me folks. I'm queer and my life is lived simply and well, according to the dictates of Jesus. If you don't like it, then that's too bad, because I'm going to keep on doing what I can to bring about the reign of God. It won't be on this thread, however, because there are simply more important things to worry about.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
It's fairly well-known that most straight men aren't enamoured of male homosexuality. A lot of men won't tell women what they actually think for fear of causing offence and appearing illiberal, not very nice, etc.
Yes there are exceptions (straight men affirming of gay relationships - note affirming, not just tolerating), but I (and a number of my friends) have noticed that those straight men, specially Christians, who are pretty affirming of gay relationships are often a)already married (so they no longer know what it's like to be single), or b)have their own, often unresolved, issues with sexuality (not necessarily confusion about sexual orientation, but in some cases yes -cases known to me, I'm not going to go into further details here), or c)are supporting gay relationships because this ties in with supporting sex outside marriage.
As a childcare professional, I have read a lot of literature on the use of institutionalized homophobia as a form of social control among boys and young men. It's actually pretty well documented, and I am sure the male shipmates can provide more evidence than any of us want to have.
Boys grow up with the clear message that they have to avoid anthing that the pack has determined to be "gay"-- with their acceptance, their comfort, or even their physical safety at peril. Choose the wrong color of cupcake at the school party? You're queer. Dance a little too enthusiastically? You're queer. Have an interest in art or music or gymnastics, cry at a sad part of the story the teacher is reading? You're queer. Don't join in or (God Forbid!) protest when they guys catcall pretty girls in the hall? You're queer. Even in this day and age, boys still get beat up for choosing the wrong activities, making the wrong friends, wearing the wrong shoes.
Part and parcel of this agreement to stomp out all things "queer" is being loud and adament about hatred of actual homosexual practice. So of course a lot of guys go from just being personally squemish about thinking about something they would never do--as gay people do when they think about straight sex, I've been told*-- to responding with outright disgust and horror at something they have been told over and over again is disgusting and horrible.
There ends the stuff I've gleaned from my readings Here begins my personal observation. Every straight guy I have known who didn't personally know a gay man reacted with disgust and horror at the thought of gay sex. Many of these same men, when they actually formed a close, mutually respectful friendship with a gay man, or when somebody they were already close to came out to them, suddenly began acting as if they had never ever had a problem with it and could not understand the big deal. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) YMMV, of course.
*Actually, most kids of any persuasion think straight sex is pretty disgusting up to a certain age. Imagine if we reinforced that inclination!
--------------------
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
It makes me really sad when the children at my school say things they don't like are "gay." I don't feel as if I have the freedom at a public school to quiz them on whether they even know what that means. I have to give them a general admonition against namecalling and try to keep from having to actually discuss the subject. Parents can be extremely angry about things like this and get people like me into serious trouble. Children sometimes come out with some incredibly bigoted remarks and offensive language, and you know where they are gatting it--home sweet home.
Not sure if this is on-topic, but it really bothers me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
This was probably not the wisest thing for me to do, but I once told an eight-year-old boy at a Christian school I worked at that when he used the word"gay", it didn't mean 'stupid' to me but it made me think of friends I had that the word applied to.I asked him not to use the word as s substitute for 'stupid' in front of me.
Nothing ever came of it, but I guess I could have gotten in trouble.
--------------------
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
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
However, there is teaching in the Bible about same sex sexual relationships. And they are always described negatively and as sinful. If someone can show me one positive verse about homosexual relationships, then you can begin to convince me that the overall Biblical pattern is something other than describing homosexual relationships as sinful.
I would argue that the OT is primarily a story about G-d’s covenant with a person and his descendants. Given that homosexuals can’t reproduce (and thus produce descendants), why would they be mentioned at all, except inasmuch as homosexual relationships might interfere with the business of certain chosen people producing descendants? And, to the extent that homosexual relationships were interfering with the command for humans to procreate, then I would expect the OT to condemn them.
The overall pattern of homosexuality in the Bible is nonexistent. ISTM that if people wanted to be really and truly true to scripture, they would mostly ignore homosexuality (especially as the NT changed some definitions, and we don’t think of our family as being only those who are genetically related to us, which means that homosexuals can produce descendants, although, post-Paul, apparently ideally we’re all supposed to be celibate).
Of course, all those who are True to Scripture also don’t have sex when women are menstruating or for seven days afterwards, because I can’t find a single thing in the NT that would refute that rule. That prohibition is in the same chapter (Leviticus) as that rare clear prohibition of male homosexual sex, and I think it was also forbidden by the early church. The only reason I can see for getting rid of the rule about ‘kosher sex’ is that straight people want to be able to have sex without reproducing (because ‘kosher sex’ arranges for the couple to have sex again when most women are most fertile), and it’s an issue that affects a lot more people than homosexuality does.
Does anyone know if having intercourse during menstruation is still considered a mortal sin? I’m fairly sure it was at one point, but I hear so little about it these days.
My reading of the Bible indicates that (accepting Paul’s teaching) it would be best if I remained celibate, but that if I am unable to do so, I should marry. I assume that the same would apply to those whose natural sexual inclination is towards someone of the same sex.
Therefore, if I prohibit my brothers and sisters who are not able to remain celibate from marrying, I am causing them to sin. Frankly, I’m going to have enough to answer for without having to answer for that. When combined with the commandment to love my neighbor as Jesus loved humanity, I conclude that I can’t just ignore the issue the way G-d seemed to throughout the Bible. The law was given to us for the protection of the most vulnerable members of society. When it actually makes people more vulnerable, it has to change.
From Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Hence I think that the proposed normalisation of same-sex unions in the church will seriously damage the marriage prospects of Christian women as a group. This issue will have an inevitable sociological consequences for them, with further knock-on consequences for the whole church.
I have no idea how normalizing same-sex unions would damage my marriage prospects. I have absolutely no desire to marry a gay man. A number of my female friends had the misfortune of doing so, and their marriages all went badly. I would rather be single than go through that.
My experience is apparently the opposite of the Lady of the Lake’s. Most of my friends are not involved with the church, and the church’s attitude towards homosexuality is a major sticking point. Furthermore, the men I know are more likely than the women to attend church or even have a vaguely positive view of Christianity. I think if they have children, they may return to churches on the liberal side of the dead horses. But they will not return to a church that teaches that homosexual sex is sinful.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Conservatives haven’t chosen this as the issue to fight over – its been chosen for us by people who will not accept Biblical authority. ...But people are asserting that what the Bible teaches to be wrong is in fact right. And unless you can find me a single verse about God blessing such relationships rather than condemning them, then hypocrite or not, I'll still have to believe that God thinks homosexual sex, just like gossiping is sinful.
Just one verse…
Find me a verse that says it's all right to use a motor car -- just one. There are certainly some sects within CHristianity that say using a motor car is immoral because the Bible doesn't say you can.
More to the point, Let me translate your first paragraph -- "Liberals" interpret scripture differently than I do, so they must not respect it or take it seriously.
Nope.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
APW: quote:
How can you discuss anything rationally when there are people who come from a position where they don't think there's anything wrong with saying my relationship is offensive to God?
This hit me with the force of an epiphany. I've redrafted my response to it three times now, and I'm still struggling. I've always just assumed that whatever else any of us think we're talking about, when it comes to homosexuality we are talking also about a genuine human mode of loving.
I always assumed that, leaving out the out-and-out homophobes and bigots, whose urge to intervene and destroy is really akin to vandalism, which is badly-sublimated murder (and not being naive about how many such people there are in the world!) that still left us with a genuinely Christian discussion between people who saw the love and for whom that was determinative, and who acknowledged the love, but were stuck with principles that came from one or two sources in the Christian tradition. One side - us - saw those sources as contingent, the other side saw them as binding. If I can be elegant (!) and use chiasmus: this would leave one side responding to the pain that love suffers because of all this with infinite regret, and a real, if insufficient, measure of compassion, and the other side with an urge to liberate, and to salve the pain of love.
I'd never really looked at this set of assumptions of mine before. But they're wrong, aren't they? What I'd thought was a bottom line of "Oh God, this is difficult - but there it is in Scripture..." is really a bottom line of "Your love is displeasing to God and therefore can't be love."
APW is absolutely right. There is bigotry and homophobia unadorned. There is "natural law", which is just an assertion that "my bigotry is written in the DNA of the universe." And there is "the Authority of Scripture™", which boils down to saying "Your 'love' is as offensive to God as genocide is pleasing to Him."
Thank God, there is also Jesus Christ, and the new Commandment, and the possibility, which is a specifically Christian possibility, of saying that wher eros and agape are co-ordinated, there always is love that is pleasing to God.*
The downside, though, is that there is no debate. There can't be. Not when people can look at love and simply dismiss it.
I can't understand why I couldn't see this.
*There's also tradition, which Josephine wrote eloquently about, several tens of pages ago. It seems to me, re-reading her post, that that's a genuine instance of being caught between a genuine perception of love and a preformed reality of allegiances, but that's really for her to say, if she wishes to revisit it.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Kelly
Speaking now as a teacher, your observations are spot on. I did some agency work at a school last week where the deputy head in an assembly showed the students how they should not use the word "gay" as a criticism or a term of abuse. (You can do this in UK State schools. Isn't this possible in the US?) I might add that there are two other factors:-
(1) Adolescence is, for many, a time of sexual confusion and anxiety about "performance" from making relationships to the pressure of losing one's virginity. Having something to hate is, of course, a perverse way of falsely reinforcing what I would like to be, feel that I am but am unsure or scared about. We need better sex education more focussed on love and relationships rather than "plumbing."
(2) School staff need positive training in rooting out homophobia in schools, (starting with themselves). By "homophobia" here I mean prejudice or disgust concerning gay people, communicated to others and/or influencing behaviour/policy. This is a deliberately much more restrictive definition so that the policy doesn't create a reaction against "thought control" and thereby undermine its own aims.
I agree that "disgust" cannot be dealt with other than by encounter and friendship.
[ 10. October 2005, 07:59: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
*There's also tradition, which Josephine wrote eloquently about, several tens of pages ago.
As in the theological tradition of homosexuality?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Luke: quote:
As in the theological tradition of homosexuality?
No, as in Josephine's post of 08 March, 2005 23:36 on page 46 of this thread.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I heard Lep saying that he felt convicted about a page ago, but then he comes out with this offensive to God line. That's hardly a statement that suggests kindly respect and love.
What you appear to be saying here, Arabella, is "I have made some revelations about my personal life here, which means no one else is allowed to discuss the phenomenon of same sex relationships within the church at all, unless they agree with me, because my feelings will be hurt." Which seems like a rather manipulative way to try and stifle debate AFAICS.
I don't remember making any specific reference to your life. I have, like other people, explained my theological position on a recent development in the church's life, and explained how I am trying to deal with it.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
What anti-gay people say doesn't actually affect us, because they're not really talking about us. They're talking about themselves and their opinions, not our lives. They don't know our lives. And this thread is a sparkling demonstration of that. When Neil, Lep and Fishfish can tell me something positive about my life, then they'll have my ear. When they demonstrate that they know more about me than my sexuality, and can talk about whatever it is, then I might just listen to them. But all I hear is them banging on about what a sinner I am. That is their bottom line, and I'm sorry, but its a meager sort of bottom line when you're talking about the wholeness of people. The world is a much richer place than that - even my volunteer work with prisoners tells me that.
I am sure you are a much richer, more interesting person, more than a single issue sexuality defined person. The problem of debating sites like this is we debate the single issue. In person, I wouldn't define you by your sexuality, or bang on about you being a sinner any more than any other person I met! But here on this thread we're talking about the morality of sexuality, so I'll carry on debating that single issue here...
Actually, I don't find it helpful to define people by thier sexuality. I am defined by being a Christian. That is what i am first and foremost. it seems to me that it is gay people who define themselves by their sexuality - "I am Gay" or "I am a Gay Christian". So they guilt of reducing people to the single issue of sexuality isn't mine!
And while we're talking of reduced ways of defining people, you are doing a grand job by writing me off as "anti-gay".
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The law was given to us for the protection of the most vulnerable members of society. When it actually makes people more vulnerable, it has to change.
No - the law was given to define God's standards of holiness. In all your post you don't really seem to care what God says or thinks. Now while it is admirable and comendable to not want to be a stumbling block to people causing them to sin, we also need to encourage one another in right living and holiness.
The Bible is far from silent on homosexual activity. To say as much is blindness. Same sex activity is defined as a sin in the old testament, not challneged by Jesus in the new, and reiterated by Paul in the new. Its a clear thread that runs through the New Testament. You may not like it. You may ignore it. But its there.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Find me a verse that says it's all right to use a motor car -- just one. There are certainly some sects within CHristianity that say using a motor car is immoral because the Bible doesn't say you can.
That's just not a comparable argument. While the Bible is silent on motor cars (though not other forms of transport), it is not silent on homosexual activity.
[ 10. October 2005, 08:43: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
...Its a clear thread that runs through the New Testament...
I meant to say "Its a clear thread that runs through the Bible".
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
FishFish: quote:
To say as much is blindness. Same sex activity is defined as a sin in the old testament, not challneged by Jesus in the new, and reiterated by Paul in the new.
Presumably you meant to say "To say as much is blindness. Same sex activity is defined as a sin in the old testament, this is not challneged by Jesus in the new, and reiterated by Paul in the new." Of course, your original version, in which same sex activity is not challenged by Jesus, is also true. I'd say more true. Jesus says nothing about it.
And as for Paul - well, why is it that Paul (a) doesn't invoke Leviticus, and (b) actually sets his critique of some same-sex behaviour in a very precise cultural and relational context? (Hint: (a) is because for Paul Christ so subverts the relationship between the Israelite law and salvation that the road back to Leviticus is in a complex but unambiguous sense closed to him. (b) is because that leaves him deprecating what he believes is, and what he believes everyone sees as, uncontrolled and damaging behaviour because it is somehow self-evidently bad. And because it has bad effects. He is clearly discussing a culture-specific, and ideal-typical agape-free, behaviour which would cause lots of us problems. It's equally clear that agapeistic erotic love between two mutually committed human beings isn't within his purview here.
No doubt the folk who want Gagnon added to the canon will be along shortly for a spot of special pleading. But that's basically it.
And as for Jesus - well, basically if you don't believe that Jesus made any difference to the OT, apart from freeing our souls to eat black pudding, well you're going to fill in his silences from Leviticus anyway, aren't you?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
Hmm. I've never posted to this thread before, but do dip in and out for a read every now and then. But this has prompted me to respond, because I really think I'm missing something.
As a single female Christian of marriageable age as you describe, I'm really not sure that the church blessing same-sex unions would have any effect at all on the pool of eligible men available to me (that makes me sound somewhat predatory, but you know what I mean! lol).
“Really not sure…would have any affect at all” sounds a bit like “probably maybe” to my ears. Can you be more specific here and say why you think as you do?
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
Are you really suggesting that a perceived increase in tolerance towards homosexuality in the church is so threatening to heterosexual men that they would avoid the church and take their religious sensibilities elsewhere?
Yes, in some cases. A proportion of men, especially those who may be bisexual and who are already married or in a heterosexual relationship, do find overt homosexuality to be genuinely threatening. That’s no different from the way some women find heterosexual men coming on strong to be threatening.
No, in general. Most men don’t find overt homosexuality “threatening”. Instead they find it unwelcome on all sorts of other secular grounds, some emotional, and some intellectual. This attitude is reciprocated by the gay world with a whole culture of its own.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
I can think of plenty of reasons why men (and women for that matter) choose not to go to church or see it as irrelevant to them, but an increase in tolerance really isn't one of them.
What makes you so confident on this point? Is it wishful thinking or something more? What you call “tolerance” would be perceived very differently in other parts of the country and in some ethnic communities, for example.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
Personally, despite my single status marching relentlessly ever onwards, I really don't see how it would be affected either positively or negatively by the normalisation of same-sex unions.
Is this not just begging the question? What gives you such confidence in the outcome?
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Actually, in order to investigate this you don't need to do a thought experiment. There are already churches which take a markedly liberal line towards homosexuality. I would have thought that examining their demographics and internal dynamics would be a reasonable indicator of whether the consequences you suggest take place.
Yes, I’m aware of such churches, since there are several in my area. At the moment they are partially sheltered from the sociological consequences by congregations who take a much more conservative line. In my thought experiment, such conservative churches no longer exist, and everyone is taking the liberal line.
So the present sociological data (even if it exists) may not be very useful in predicting outcomes for my experiment. I suspect it takes us into completely uncharted sociological waters. I don’t see the present dearth of marriageable men within the church improving as a result.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not aware of a flight of straight men from such churches, or of congregations consisting largely of gay couples and frustrated female singletons.
But for various complicated reasons I've tended to worship at places which have been divided on the issue rather than places which have taken an uncomplicatedly liberal position, so my perceptions come from the outside.
Come to Edinburgh diocese and do some surveys. This is strongly pro-gay country. I suspect we will both be surprised by what you reveal. This diocese is not brimming with eligible Christian men.
I certainly have one long-term single female friend who has moved to a new Episcopal congregation because of the strongly pro-gay line pushed by her new female rector. One person may not make a trend, but if this has happened to a straight single woman, what is happening to the straight single men?
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Finally - this is not a rhetorical question - where do you get the impression that gay people are over-represented in the church?
Well, apart from Kinsey’s utterly discredited figures, later surveys have revealed that the proportion of people homosexual for all of their life is in the region of 2%, depending on which survey one uses. That is an average across all ages and segments of society.
Again, I can only talk from my experience of the UK church, but the proportion of gay Anglican clergy is substantially in excess of that average figure. In my particular part of Scotland, informal estimates have put this proportion as high as 30%, but I can’t document this point. I doubt that it applies to the UK Anglican church as a whole.
As for the laity, I cannot comment authoritatively, but the higher-than-average proportion of gay clergy must be coming from somewhere, and the laity is the only obvious source. It’s possible that the vocation and selection process has some inherent and perhaps inadvertent bias against heterosexual men.
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
Maybe churchgoing straight men are uncomfortable with gay people because they are being taught homophobia from the pulpit?
I find the word homophobia to be useless at clarifying the discussion. From the pulpit I have only ever been taught to treat people with grace and respect. That does not mean that I am obliged to affirm their choices, especially when the whole of Christian theology and tradition throws up a warning flag about sinful actions.
Consider theft. Would be having this discussion about “uncomfortable” if we found someone fiddling the books or with their fingers in the till? This actually happened to a very senior Episcopal clergyman eight years ago. For his acts he was found guilty of embezzlement in a criminal court and then expelled from the ordained ministry. I think he was fairly treated, especially since much of the money has never been recovered.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I have no idea how normalizing same-sex unions would damage my marriage prospects.
Well, I’m inviting you to use your imagination. What do you think will happen?
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I have absolutely no desire to marry a gay man. A number of my female friends had the misfortune of doing so, and their marriages all went badly. I would rather be single than go through that.
Several women on the Ship are in this situation, plus a friend’s daughter from real life. We can all agree that it a very undesirable, but will the normalisation of homosexuality make such scenarios more or less likely?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
[QB] quote:
Originally posted by chive:
Maybe churchgoing straight men are uncomfortable with gay people because they are being taught homophobia from the pulpit?
I find the word homophobia to be useless at clarifying the discussion. From the pulpit I have only ever been taught to treat people with grace and respect. That does not mean that I am obliged to affirm their choices, especially when the whole of Christian theology and tradition throws up a warning flag about sinful actions.
Consider theft. Would be having this discussion about “uncomfortable” if we found someone fiddling the books or with their fingers in the till? This actually happened to a very senior Episcopal clergyman eight years ago. For his acts he was found guilty of embezzlement in a criminal court and then expelled from the ordained ministry. I think he was fairly treated, especially since much of the money has never been recovered.
I have never heard from the pulpit that all thieves are going to hell. Unfortunately that is not true of preaching about homosexuality. Also in this comparison you are forgetting the choice aspect - people choose to steal, the same is not true as to sexuality. All in all a very bad comparison which proves nothing.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
FS,
If I bring some of my black friends to church, some of the white bigots will leave. I don't think that's sufficient reason to not invite them along. That's the logic I hear you employing.
Your attempt to hang spinsterhood on us nancyboys because the straight boys can't hack it would be laughable if we weren't already blamed for earthquakes, tsuanmis and hurricanes. It comes perilously close to scapegoating.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
FishFish: quote:
To say as much is blindness. Same sex activity is defined as a sin in the old testament, not challneged by Jesus in the new, and reiterated by Paul in the new.
Presumably you meant to say "To say as much is blindness. Same sex activity is defined as a sin in the old testament, this is not challneged by Jesus in the new, and reiterated by Paul in the new."
Thank you! Grammar was never my strong point.
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Paul ,snip. actually sets his critique of some same-sex behaviour in a very precise cultural and relational context?
I just don't see that. In Romans 1 he is using sweeping terms to describe a wholly perverted world, which encompasses all people in all places, Jews and Gentiles. And I don't see anything cultural about what he says in 1 Corinthians 6. Again his statements are all encompassing rather than culturally specific. (And if we do some special pleading about the term "homosexual offenders" being only about prostitution, I guess the term "the sexually immoral" would cover all extra-marital sex.)
What people are asking me to do is to say homosexual relationships are morally acceptable in God's eyes. But while you may explain some of the verses in the Bible, the whole tone of the Bible is against such relationships. Unless there is a verse which says God blesses such relationship, I still must conclude that God thinks they are sinful.
So again I say, if you are to convince me that God delights in same sex relationships, you don't just have to water down the verses he has given us, you have to give me some shred of evidence that he actually says something, anything, positive about same sex relationships.
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I have never heard from the pulpit that all thieves are going to hell. Unfortunately that is not true of preaching about homosexuality. Also in this comparison you are forgetting the choice aspect - people choose to steal, the same is not true as to sexuality. All in all a very bad comparison which proves nothing.
Well then I guess you've never heard a sermon on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 where Paul says all sorts of sinners (including thieves) seem to be hell bound, unless they repent of their sinful actions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
A few comments:
I would think that public acceptance of homosexuality would lessen the number of marriages broken up because one spouse came to terms with being gay. If children and teens learn it's ok to be gay, then they're less likely to stumble into a "straight" marriage, hoping to hide or change their sexuality.
If people choose not to join Christianity or a particular church because they encounter "pro-gay" beliefs, that's because *they* already were uncomfortable with gay folks.
Why in the world would gay men in the church keep women from getting married? If God promised we could all find spouses at church, I didn't get the memo.
As far as women being treated badly at church by misogynistic gay men: It probably happens--I've been treated badly at work by misogynistic gay men, and God knows it was damaging. But is it really news that there's misogyny in the church? It certainly isn't limited to *gay* men! Sometimes, it's not even limited to men. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Sure, abuse happens, among both Christians and non-Christians, and it can deeply affect every aspect of your life, including how you relate to God. And it can cause you to avoid the type of person who abused you. But if you keep whole classes of people away from church on that basis, then NO ONE could go to church.
Jillie Rose--SURELY God wouldn't call people who didn't like peanuts!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
I'll reply to those posts that were wiling to take issue politely and rationally with the issues I brought up.
quote:
Originally posted by Jillie Rose:
The argument that blessing same-sex unions in the church will somehow damage the marriage prospects of straight Christians is, I think, not a valid argument. The church's job is as a means of support to help people become more like Christ. To spread His message and to generally love God and your neighbour. Though it can be used as such, the church is not primarily a dating service. The church is about serving God.
There's no need to divide up these different functions of the church. In fact I know of no Biblical warrant to do so. Most Christians, if they do want to marry or feel called to marry, want to marry a fellow Christian. (This of course is similar to the fact that people in western society tend to prefer spouses or partners who share their basic values and outlook upon life.) Christian men tend not to have to look outside the Christian community for spouses (although I am aware that some do have relationships with non-Christian/non-churchgoing women, and of some of the reasons.)
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
Maybe churchgoing straight men are uncomfortable with gay people because they are being taught homophobia from the pulpit?
They will say clearly that their dislike of male homosexuality is distinct and prior to church teaching they hear. It's not traditional teaching that necessarily gives rise to their views.
Psyduck,
I wasn't connecting a pro-gay stance with dumbing down. Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly enough here. What I had in mind was this:
these particular men did not want to go to churches which have 'contemporary' evangelical-charismatic type worship; that is what I had in mind when referring to dumbing down. These churches tend to take the traditional line on homosexuality. Now this is interesting, because it shows that the men in question weren't going to attend a church whose worship etc. they didn't like even though they would have agreed with its traditional stance on homosexuality. They looked for a style of worship and preaching that they would prefer. When they found it, they also found that the churches that offered this took a revisionist/liberal line on homosexuality. This is one of the things that put them off.
That's probably enough for a long post.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
Most Christians, if they do want to marry or feel called to marry, want to marry a fellow Christian. (This of course is similar to the fact that people in western society tend to prefer spouses or partners who share their basic values and outlook upon life.)
Er - what are these "non-western" societies in which people prefer spouses who don't share their values and outlook on life?
quote:
Christian men tend not to have to look outside the Christian community for spouses
If that was the case why are there so many single Christian men around, and so many who are married to non-Christian women?
Its off-topic here (& probably ought to be a dead horse) but I'm pretty strongly convinced that the reasons there are so many single peopel who want to be married and yet are not married are nothing to do with sex-ratios in church, or anywhere else much, and are the same for Christians and non-Christians, churchgoers and non-churchgoers,
quote:
although I am aware that some do have relationships with non-Christian/non-churchgoing women, and of some of the reasons.
That sounds rather doom-laden! For what its worth, I think I know more Christian women married to non-Christian men than the other way round.
quote:
They will say clearly that their dislike of male homosexuality is distinct and prior to church teaching they hear. It's not traditional teaching that necessarily gives rise to their views.
I'm pretty sure that is true. Others have posted on the pressure put on boys, especially at school, not to appear soft or queer. I think that's got a lot more to do with worry about homosexuality than any preaching.
Not that I can remember much, if any, preaching about homosexuality at all. It's something we avoid. No-one wants to stir it. I doubt if I have heard it discussed from the pulpit or in any church meetings more than twice in the last twenty years. In the churches I went to it was a lot more talked about in the 70s and early 80s than nowadays (though maybe that's because I now hang about in different churches) I've probably heard fifty or a hundred talks about racism or poverty or violence for every one about homosexuality In fact I can't offhand recall any at all at the moment, but I'm sure there must have been some. I read a lot about the churches supposed attitudes to gay men in secular press, and I see it discussed on the Ship, and individual members of our church have talked to me about it, but it is a very rare subject for public teaching or open discussion in church itself.
quote:
I wasn't connecting a pro-gay stance with dumbing down. Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly enough here. What I had in mind was this:
these particular men did not want to go to churches which have 'contemporary' evangelical-charismatic type worship; that is what I had in mind when referring to dumbing down.
Some of us might find that just as unfair...
quote:
They looked for a style of worship and preaching that they would prefer. When they found it, they also found that the churches that offered this took a revisionist/liberal line on homosexuality.
Do you mean Anglo-Catholic churches? Which are famously full of homosexual men. Or widely supposed to be. But that's a flavour of church found in few places - perhaps a third of the Church of England and its Australian & Kiwi sister churches, and most of the ECUSA & Canadian Anglican churches. Who all put together maybe account for half a percent of all the people who go to church on a Sunday in the world. (Though perhaps half those who post on this Ship for some reason). I'm sure your friends must have some proper Roman Catholic churches near them, or even Orthodox (are they dumbed down?) Or if they are more Protestant-inclined then there are all those Baptists! They aren't all woolly charismatics. Some of them are quite conservative, or so I am told. Or for a little more gravitas they could try some non-charismatic conservative Evangelical churches in the Reformed or Anglican tradititions. They do exist, in quite large numbers in some parts of the world Especially Belfast of course, but so it goes. In Scotland you could even try the Wee Frees. Of course any one of those churches will likely have some gay members. What church doesn't? And maybe they will even accept tham and love them as they are - though I suspect they will be more likely just to ignore their sexuality completely unless and until some minor scandal or altercation brings it to their attention. But I doubt if they will be promoting a "liberal line" in public preaching
[ 10. October 2005, 17:45: 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 Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Actually, in order to investigate this you don't need to do a thought experiment. There are already churches which take a markedly liberal line towards homosexuality. I would have thought that examining their demographics and internal dynamics would be a reasonable indicator of whether the consequences you suggest take place.
Yes, I’m aware of such churches, since there are several in my area. At the moment they are partially sheltered from the sociological consequences by congregations who take a much more conservative line. In my thought experiment, such conservative churches no longer exist, and everyone is taking the liberal line.
Does your scenario also involve World Peace, International Socialism and Pope Benedict declaring himself to be a Prayer Book Catholic?
quote:
So the present sociological data (even if it exists) may not be very useful in predicting outcomes for my experiment. I suspect it takes us into completely uncharted sociological waters. I don’t see the present dearth of marriageable men within the church improving as a result.
When I was a single man it was always the dearth of single attractive women that I used to worry about. I wonder if part of the issue isn't that it is more acceptable for single women to bemoan their state - the Bridget Jones phenomenon - whereas single men who moan about being unable to pull sound a bit sad and are consequently obliged to moderate their complaints.
In any event, when the Revolution comes it will, presumably, be because people no longer disapprove of permanent, faithful and stable gay partnerships. So, by definition, they won't leave the church over the issue.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not aware of a flight of straight men from such churches, or of congregations consisting largely of gay couples and frustrated female singletons.
But for various complicated reasons I've tended to worship at places which have been divided on the issue rather than places which have taken an uncomplicatedly liberal position, so my perceptions come from the outside.
Come to Edinburgh diocese and do some surveys. This is strongly pro-gay country. I suspect we will both be surprised by what you reveal. This diocese is not brimming with eligible Christian men.
The more trad. places aren't invariably brimming with eligible single people either. A church's attitude to homosexuality is only one of a number of factors that attract people to its worship. I wish my current church was more liberal than it actually is but I can cope with the status quo. I cannot imagine I am the only person with liberal views on the issue in that position. I am sure there are devout old ladies in Southwark Diocese who wish that Father would preach about something else apart from Inclusive Church occasionally but don't leave.
quote:
I certainly have one long-term single female friend who has moved to a new Episcopal congregation because of the strongly pro-gay line pushed by her new female rector. One person may not make a trend, but if this has happened to a straight single woman, what is happening to the straight single men?
I have a single female friend who moved from a Reform place to a liberal catholic church with a gay rector. For that matter when I was a straight single man, at one point, I moved from a place which was strongly anti to one where the Rector was pro and the congregation divided. Anecdotal evidence only gets us so far. Why do you assume that straight single men have a problem with gay people? I held liberal views on the issue long before I met my wife. Again, if the position of the church changes it will do so because facts on the ground change. According to Stephen Bates young Anglicans are more likely than the general population to be accepting of gay people. The level of tolerance declines sharply as one gets older. So the next generation may be quite different from thirty-somethings like me, let alone my parents generation.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Finally - this is not a rhetorical question - where do you get the impression that gay people are over-represented in the church?
Well, apart from Kinsey’s utterly discredited figures, later surveys have revealed that the proportion of people homosexual for all of their life is in the region of 2%, depending on which survey one uses. That is an average across all ages and segments of society.
Again, I can only talk from my experience of the UK church, but the proportion of gay Anglican clergy is substantially in excess of that average figure. In my particular part of Scotland, informal estimates have put this proportion as high as 30%, but I can’t document this point. I doubt that it applies to the UK Anglican church as a whole.
As for the laity, I cannot comment authoritatively, but the higher-than-average proportion of gay clergy must be coming from somewhere, and the laity is the only obvious source. It’s possible that the vocation and selection process has some inherent and perhaps inadvertent bias against heterosexual men.
Well this may be the case in Edinburgh. It is probably the case in Chichester and Southwark Dioceses which are the two I know best. Whether it is true in the Diocese of Carlisle or the Diocese of Sydney or the Diocese of Lagos is really another matter. There are parts of the church where gay people probably are over-represented, where they do congregate. But there are places where it is clear that they are unwelcome. Clearly, therefore, certain dioceses and churches become 'ghettos' because gay Christians know that they will be accepted there. If it were the case that gay Christians were accepted everywhere then such places would be less likely to exist because they would know that they could just turn up at their parish church and be accepted. The gay church exists as the shadow side of the intolerant straight church.
Incidentally, the selection process in the Church of England discriminates against gay people in at least one important respect. I have never met a clergyman or ordinand who felt that his heterosexuality was held against them during that process. Indeed, large parts of the Church of England see the ideal clergyman as being married with 2.4 children and a Range Rover.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Lady of the Lake:
There's no need to divide up these different functions of the church. In fact I know of no Biblical warrant to do so. Most Christians, if they do want to marry or feel called to marry, want to marry a fellow Christian.
Fair enough. But people coming to terms with their sexuality better would, IMO, most likely lead to more stable marriages in the long term. As the partners involved will then be less likely to be closeted homosexuals who are trying to appear 'normal'.
And if homosexuality becomes widely accepted by churches then new, splinter churches will set up whose main doctrinal difference is that they do not condone homosexuality/homosexual acts/whatever.
And if the blokes are so intimidated by gay men in the church, they can always go there.
Tis a fair point, but there has been a gender gap in churches for a while now. I think only God will change that.
PS: Golden Key, didn't you know that? Tut tut. And ITTWACW!
--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Lady of the Lake quote:
These churches tend to take the traditional line on homosexuality. Now this is interesting, because it shows that the men in question weren't going to attend a church whose worship etc. they didn't like even though they would have agreed with its traditional stance on homosexuality. They looked for a style of worship and preaching that they would prefer. When they found it, they also found that the churches that offered this took a revisionist/liberal line on homosexuality. This is one of the things that put them off.
I think Id'd be rather inclined to say "Fromage dur..."
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What people are asking me to do is to say homosexual relationships are morally acceptable in God's eyes.
That's not what I'm asking you to do. I'm asking for three things:
First, I'm asking you not to act as though homosexual sins are worse than heterosexual sins. I'm asking you not to spend more time and energy denouncing homosexual sins than you spend denouncing heterosexual sins. I'm asking you not to treat people who are guilty of homosexual sin worse than you treat people who are guilty of heterosexual sin. I'm asking you to treat a gay couple the same way you'd treat an unmarried straight couple. I'm asking you to treat promiscuous gay people the same way you treat promiscuous straight people. I'm asking you not to treat homosexual people as if their sexual sins are worse than the sexual sins of straight people. There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition to support that idea, so I'm asking you not to act as though there is.
Second, I'm asking for a sense of proportion. There are many, many sins that the Bible speaks about more frequently, more clearly, and more severely than homosexual relations, and those sins are not even on the radar for most Christians.
Thou Shalt Not Covet is one of the Ten Commandments. Yet we have an entire multibillion dollar industry dedicated to inciting covetousness in people. We call it advertising. And the entire point of advertising is to get you to covet. And it's targeted, not only at competent adults, but even at very, very young children. They're being lured into sin when they can barely speak or walk. And we don't think anything of it. It's no big deal. Yet to God it was a big enough deal to go into the Ten Commandments.
Of course, if you put a Christian on the spot and asked them if covetousness was a sin, they'd agree. But if you ask them to repent of it, if you ask them to avoid the occasions for this sin -- to turn off their TV, cancel their magazine subscriptions, avoid shopping malls -- they'll think you're a freak.
Likewise for gossip and gluttony and all the other nice, safe, socially acceptable sins. We treat them as if they were utterly trivial things, when, according to Scripture and Tradition, they most assuredly are not, while at the same time we act as though homosexuality is the greatest and gravest of sins. So I'm asking you to put your emphasis on the sins that are emphasized by Scripture and Tradition.
Finally, I'm asking you to recognize that gays and lesbians are often subjected to cruel mistreatment, and that this mistreatment is sinful and is in no way justified by the sins of gays and lesbians, and I'm asking you to put at least as much effort into addressing those sins -- the sins committed against gays and lesbians -- as you do into the sins committed by gays and lesbians.
None of those things requires you to say that homosexual relationships are morally acceptable in God's eyes. Would any of them be too difficult to do?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Attitudes towards homosexuality of a young, female Christian and an elderly male Christian are likely to be at opposite extremes - even if they belong to the same generation," Dr Voas said.
Er, mmmm, ah....
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
I'll reply to those posts that were wiling to take issue politely and rationally with the issues I brought up.
Upon reflection, I think I was unkind and guilty of the same thing I get annoyed at others for doing -- not taking someone elses experience seriously and dismissing their perspective with loaded words. I apologise for that.
Misogyny should not be tolerated and should be challenged as unjust, unkind, unloving and unchristian. Jesus modeled breaking-the-cultural-mode love for women in so many ways and anybody who acts in misogynetic ways needs to grow up. Being hurtful to others because they are not the same as you is not the sole domain of straight people.
As to where the bigotry originates: whether people come into church with anti-gay prejudices (which, in my mind, is a synomym for homophobia) or whether they learn it in church is beside the point. I rather think that social and religious attitudes are mutually reinforcing and aren't generally or usefully teased apart. As a point of justice, I'd hope the church would, at least, challenge the social stigmatisation and encourage respect, honesty and integrity for all people.
When the church, through it's culture or through less than careful proclamation of it's theology endorses the prevailing social stigma, men and women coming to an understanding of their sexuality are not going to find the church to be a safe place to develop a healthy understanding of who they are and what it means with relation to their god. The result is the closet and an insidious practice of deceit and living a double-life (at best). Some throw God out with the bathwater. I think both are tragedies and the church is complicit in them insofar as it fosters an unsafe culture.
Belaboring the point, but most people don't *choose* to be same-sex attracted or to be gender-questioning. The church would do itself a favor if the topic were approached with less absolute certainty and instead, an attitude of being willing to walk with the people involved.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Josephine:
--------------------
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
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek.:
FS,
If I bring some of my black friends to church, some of the white bigots will leave.
And iGeek plays the race card. Now that’s an original line. NOT.
For the record, I know that many black Americans deeply resent the attempt by present-day homosexuals to hijack the black civil rights struggle for their own purposes. This is just rich white guys checking in 40 years too late for the real fight.
quote:
I don't think that's sufficient reason to not invite them along. That's the logic I hear you employing.
I can only conclude that “logic” obviously means something different in Texas. There is a huge difference between encouraging homosexual people to attend church as part of the congregation, and supporting a political campaign for the full normalisation of homosexuality and same-sex unions.
In the former case they are there on the same terms as everyone else, as repentant sinners seeking the Kingdom of God. In the latter case they are advocating a major change in theology and morality, with unknown sociological consequences for the rest of the church.
quote:
Your attempt to hang spinsterhood on us nancyboys because the straight boys can't hack it…
The word “nancyboy” is yours. I prefer to think of you as a human being made in the image of God.
quote:
…would be laughable if we weren't already blamed for earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes.
Personally I would take it as a compliment that people think of you as such powerful people. Perhaps you should audition for a role in the next X-MEN film. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
It comes perilously close to scapegoating.
And to finish we have the victim card in parallel to the race card. Sorry, in your case I’m not buying it at all. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
For the record, I know that many black Americans deeply resent the attempt by present-day homosexuals to hijack the black civil rights struggle for their own purposes. This is just rich white guys checking in 40 years too late for the real fight.
There is no difference in the fight - discrimination is discrimination irrelevant to what group is being discriminated against.
quote:
In the former case they are there on the same terms as everyone else, as repentant sinners seeking the Kingdom of God.
Not in my experience. In my experience I am not even permitted to be part of the church. I am not permitted to take communion with the other people in the church. I am as much a repentant sinner as anyone else but for some reason my sin is so much bigger, so much more evil, so much more unforgiveable than anyone else's sin.
quote:
I prefer to think of you as a human being made in the image of God.
So would I, but apparently I am unworthy of that.
quote:
And to finish we have the victim card in parallel to the race card. Sorry, in your case I’m not buying it at all.
I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe if you listened to the stories of gay men and women who have been victimised by the church and by Christian people for their sexuality you might learn something. You might learn how much the church has lost. You might even understand why some gay men and women feel the way they do.
It's not about sex. It's not about being promiscuous or any other of the strawmen people pull out when discussing this subject. It's about individuals. Individuals who are the unique manifestation of the glory of God - in all aspects of themselves including their sexuality. To ignore that is to miss out.
[code]
[ 10. October 2005, 20:07: Message edited by: chive ]
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jillie Rose:
Fair enough. But people coming to terms with their sexuality better would, IMO, most likely lead to more stable marriages in the long term. As the partners involved will then be less likely to be closeted homosexuals who are trying to appear 'normal'.
You're jumping the gun here, by assuming that I am asking that people who are closeted homosexuals, as you describe them, should marry.
This is not the issue I'm dealing with. In any case, I've never advocated compulsory marriage.
quote:
And if homosexuality becomes widely accepted by churches then new, splinter churches will set up whose main doctrinal difference is that they do not condone homosexuality/homosexual acts/whatever. And if the blokes are so intimidated by gay men in the church, they can always go there.
I'm afraid I simply find this arrogant. There's also absolutely no Biblical warrant for this attitude. In fact quite the opposite.
It would also be counterproductive in all sorts of ways, to found a new splinter denomination on this one issue. A female evangelical Anglican vicar drew my attention a while ago to this problem. She said that in her opinion, this was what had happened with the formation of a new conservative denomination after the United Church of Canada had become affirmative of homosexuality. She was also concerned that people who form a new splinter denomination in this way can throw a lot of the baby out with the bathwater in terms of styles of worship and understandings of the Christian faith.
Fish Fish got it right a few posts ago: those who take the traditional stance have had this issue pushed upon them. They shouldn't have to leave the mainstream churches because of this.
quote:
Tis a fair point, but there has been a gender gap in churches for a while now. I think only God will change that.
There are debates about why the gender gap exists (you're right; it doesn't simply exist because of this issue).(I noticed that you accepted in your latest post what I didn't see you accepting in your first response to me, which is that this gap exists).
If you look at the surveys to which I linked, you will see that liberal Christians are extremely in favour of same-sex unions, almost more than secular liberals. This suggests that in fact, campaigning for same-sex unions will not in fact bring lots of new people into the church the way a number of liberal advocates have sometimes claimed.
As for thinking that 'only God will change that', well, I am certainly a believer in the possibility of divine influence upon the church, but I rather think that the attitude that God will bring male converts in without the church thinking about the issue is rather analogous to the belief many women have, which is that God will provide them with a husband so they don't really have to be proactive.
The point is, those potential husbands very often just don't exist. God is not going to bring a husband. Either that raises questions about God and his goodness etc. or it raises the question about the human institution of the church. It's possible to hide from a lot of problems behind that sort of attitude that God will do things for us.
Ken,
I agree with you, from my own observation, that the issue of who marries who in the church isn't as simple as some people would paint it. The suggested line of argument I've laid down though is about a general picture, rather than starting from individual cases. Nothing precludes you, or me, or anybody else for that matter, from looking further into how the two approaches can be combined to give a better picture. Personally I think there needs to be more research on relationships, singleness, marriage, etc. in the church in order to give us a better picture of what is going on and why.
In response to your question, yes I do mean Anglo-Catholic churches in this instance.
(I'm not personally interested in the Wee Frees. Whether or not I agree with the theology etc. of a church matters to me.) But in any case, my argument is not about individual cases so much as about trying to think a bit about the consequences to the church of adopting a revisionist position.
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I think I'd be rather inclinde to say "Fromage dur..."
Well as a French speaker I know that this means 'hard cheese', by which I am assuming that you mean that the aforementioned would-be converts should just accept the liberal line of those particular churches or leave ?
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
For the record, I know that many black Americans deeply resent the attempt by present-day homosexuals to hijack the black civil rights struggle for their own purposes.
There is no difference in the fight - discrimination is discrimination. quote:
In the former case they are there on the same terms as everyone else, as repentant sinners seeking the Kingdom of God.
Not in my experience. In my experience I am not even permitted to be part of the church. quote:
I prefer to think of you as a human being made in the image of God.
So would I, but apparently I am unworthy of that. quote:
And to finish we have the victim card in parallel to the race card. Sorry, in your case I’m not buying it at all.
I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe if you listened to the stories of gay men and women . . . you might learn something.
Or maybe if you reviewed the life of St. Peter Claver, whose tireless work among the slaves at Cartagena earned him the reproach of his superiors for ministering the Sacraments to "creatures who barely possessed a soul." And it was not all so long ago, really, that people seriously believed that. Haven't we learned anything?
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
For the record, I know that many black Americans deeply resent the attempt by present-day homosexuals to hijack the black civil rights struggle for their own purposes. This is just rich white guys checking in 40 years too late for the real fight.
Right-fucking-on comrade! The discovery that some black people are not keen on gays has been amazing in inspiring the religious right to suddenly discover the cause of black people. Of course, all gay people are rich and white. Of course, all supporters of gay equality in the church are rich and white.
"It is a matter of ordinary justice. We struggled against apartheid in South Africa because we were blamed and made to suffer for something we can do nothing about. It is the same for homosexuality. the orientation is given, not a matter of choice. It would be crazy for someone to choose to be gay given the homophobia that is present... Our Anglican church says that orientation is OK but gay sex activity is wrong. That is crazy". - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a rich white man checking in forty years too late for the real fight.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
