|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Except for the generation gap - and "in-law" dimension - which (in the mental image I hold) - changes the dynamic of the relationship a bit.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Jesus and John the disciple.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
oops ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
quote:
I can't, off the top of my head think of any similar relationship to David and Jonathan in the Bible. Any suggestions?
I cited the relationship between Jesus and John as similar to that of David and Jonathan.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
But, the point I am getting at is that this is, at least in part, a circular argument.
Actually, it's not a circular argument.
...
I'm not saying "It won't be in the OT.... therefore homosexuality is wrong"
I'm just saying "It won't be in the OT."
[I disagree, but perhaps I am not being clear. I am saying that this matters not because you are arguing that homosexuality is wrong on this basis, the lack of the therefore you referred to in your post, but because many people (and I am assuming Fish fish in this) do.]
I understand you to be saying that you don't know - or can't describe - what a positive OT view of homosexuality would look like, and that this is irrelevant because there isn't a positive view of homosexuality in the OT. I am saying that this is a circular argument.
To clarify, let me try putting it differently:
What won't be in the OT ? When you read the OT how is it you know that it is not there ? I am in my sitting room, I know there isn't a dog in my sitting room because I have an idea in my head of what a dog would look, sound and smell like - and I am not experiencing any of these things.
Now imagine, if I saw a minature a yorkshire terrier I would recognise it as a dog - it is part of the idea of dog I have in my head that I don't see in my sitting room.
[Anarchonism]
If I were reading an OT account which included a room containing a minature yorkshire terrier, I would not expect it to say - 'and lo, there was a dog in the room, and it was exceedingly small'. Cos the witness might not recognise it as a dog, I might expect it to say, 'and lo, there was a rat overgrown with hair like straw - straightway it ran squealing like swine.'[/Anchronism]
If I were looking in the OT to see if they were familiar with yorkies I would not be expecting the writers to be talking about dogs. I might try and build up an argument for the existence of yorkies at that time by looking for accounts that share features with modern descriptions - if I got enough, it might be persuasive.
In the same way, many people have made a fairly compelling argument that a lot of the religious rules in the Torah developed because of the need to maintain hygenine or die, rather than particular moral value of washing your hands to your wrists versus to your elbows.
OK, so, if there were positive - or even neutral - accounts of homosexuality in the OT, I would not expect them to be along the lines of:
And lo, he did lay with the younger brother of Jacob, even as with a woman, but so great was their love, that even the levites did accept it saying - what fire has been kindled in their souls by our lord burns so fierce it can not be denied. And they did live out the days of their lives quietly, and give a bullock of their own cattle to be sacrificed each year in thanks for the mercy Israel had shewn them.
I would expect something more subtle - what do you folks think ?
P.S. Can anyone tell me if there are any specific prohibitions against female homosexuality in the bible ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42
|
Posted
quote:
P.S. Can anyone tell me if there are any specific prohibitions against female homosexuality in the bible ?
No, there aren't. Except for the much-debated vers Romans 1, 26+27.
--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.
Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Thanks for that.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
I cited the relationship between Jesus and John as similar to that of David and Jonathan.
I think you probably mean the relationship between Jesus and the 'Beloved Disciple', who is never named as John in the gospel of the same name.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
Then of course, there's the relationship between Jesus and the "young man" in Secret Mark, on which the relationship in John seems to be modeled. That relationship was interpreted by the Carpocratians as having been a sexual one, though Clement says this is a mis-reading of the text of Secret Mark...
Jeff
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
quote:
I think you probably mean the relationship between Jesus and the 'Beloved Disciple', who is never named as John in the gospel of the same name.
Yes. Thank you, DOD.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
seems to be modeled.
Seems to whom? 'Secret Mark' - a document there is no extant copy of, and of which we have only a few fragments - is made to do a lot of work by a few US scholars (of whom Dominic Crossan is the best known). Most of the rest of the world would want a little bit more evidence about assertions such as the above, not least because many of us think it likely that the gnostic 'Secret Mark' was written after the Fourth Gospel; this rendering the use of the former by the latter a little problematic.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I was thinking about the last two pages of posts and wondering if anyone still posting on this thread, is actually still disagreeing with anyone else still posting on this thread.
(About whether homosexuality and Christianity are in conflict, rather than about the essentiality erotic - or not - nature of close personal relationships.)
P65
Narnie: Reference on close male friendships
Psyduck: Possibility of considering the erotic undertow of close personal relationships
Various: Praise of Psyduck's interesting post
Me: Banging on about what a positive OT account of homosexuality would look like.
Incipt: Comment re earlier comment on CBT/psychodynamic split as generational
Various: Comments about Incipt's comment
Mdjon: Query my post on postive OT text
Mdjon: Comment absence/presence of evidence of sex in D&J
Amy: Comment re Mdjon's comment
Amy/Mdjon: Exchange of views / clarifications
Mdjon: Can't know from text. Liked Psyduck's post.
Me: Banging on about what a positive OT account, again
Mdjon: Query ?
Others: Various clarifications
Mdjon: Thanks, was thinking of inerrancy - which is a tricky topic.
MT/Psyduck: Exchange re importance and value of platonic male friendship
Eliab: Textual critique re D&J, but saying don't think homosexuality would be a fault
John Holding / Psyduck / Eliab: Exchange on textual criticism - re nature of D&J relationship
Paxchristi: On freud over sexualising things
Me: On that OT take again, replying to mdjon
Psyduck: Freud + textual critique re D&J
The Great Gumby: Arguing platonic interpretation of D&J
Mdjon: Disagree on circular argument + not arguing homosexuality is wrong on this basis
TGG / Psyduck: Exchange re erotcism of close personal relationships
Calindreams: Bigging up Ruth & Naomi
P66
Mdjon / Noelper: Commenting on possible biblical same sex relationships, platonic and otherwise.
Me: Oh go on, guess the topic ...
Lioba: Answering my q, saying no specific prohibitions on lesbianism in bible
PaxChristi / Noelper /DOD: Commenting on possible biblical same sex relationships, platonic and otherwise. + Introduction of 'secret Mark'
I think the person I was originally trying to make a point to was fish fish, and I think they've disappeared. Everyone else appears, pro, neutral or opaque.
I read the first three pages and the last twenty-five, did you all manage to reach a consensus in the bit in the middle I haven't read ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
quote:
Most of the rest of the world would want a little bit more evidence about assertions such as the above, not least because many of us think it likely that the gnostic 'Secret Mark' was written after the Fourth Gospel; this rendering the use of the former by the latter a little problematic.
As I understand it, the use of Secret Mark by gnostics doesn't render it a gnostic text. Indeed, Secret Mark was a text available only to the initiated, where canonical Mark is the catechetical text for baptizands. This is the reason that the "mystery of the kingdom" (the baptism) was omitted from canonical Mark.
As to the text's date, I didn't intend to suggest that this influenced the presentation of the Beloved Disciple in the Fourth Gospel. I apologize for the mis-statement. What I meant to say was quite the opposite. Oops. My purpose was only to highlight another text that had a similar relationship.
Jeff
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
'Scuse me,but am I alone in reckoning that Doublethink's last post is a majorly impressive piece of virtual community spirit?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Now if someone could do that for the preceding 63 pages...
--------------------
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
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
Doublethink, would it help if I started playing Devil's Advocate for a while? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
'Scuse me,but am I alone in reckoning that Doublethink's last post is a majorly impressive piece of virtual community spirit?
Now if someone could do that for the preceding 63 pages...
How about:
Some Christians who disagree about homosexuality air their views, have some interesting discussion, but no-one really changes their position.
?
Or were you hoping for something a little more detailed?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Psyduck,
On the textual analysis point, I think we are agreed about the distinction between the story form and the historical facts. It is, of course, possible that the scribe has invented or exaggerated for literary effect an affectionate relationship that did not really exist. It is possible that he has played down as much as he dared a notorious love affair which he thought was scandalous. But since all we have is the story as he wrote it, the question of ‘what happened’ can meaningfully be asked only in the context of ‘what happened according to the story he meant to tell’.
Where we differ is that I think the author remains the master and interpreter of the narrative once the ink is dry. Tolkien’s view on the friendship between Legolas and Gimli would be (if we had it) definitive. You can choose to make a story based on his text in which the characters are (or as the case may be, are not) lovers, and it may be a very good one, may be better than the original, but if it is not the story he meant to tell, it is not an equally valid reading of the text.
That should not, of course, stop you if you are reading LOTR for entertainment – if you prefer your story to Tolkien’s then by all means enjoy yours and not his. But if you are reading David’s story for guidance, then reading an unintended homosexual theme into (or an intended one out of) the text gives no clue at all whether the author, or God, approves or disapproves of that theme.
My point about my son is that the feeling of delight in someone, and the desire to cuddle and touch and express love in an affectionate and intimate way is common to my love for him, and for some close friends, and for my wife. There may well be a strong narcissistic element in each case (I admit to that freely). It doesn’t bother me in the least if you want to call that common experience “eros”. But I think that if you do, then you have to say that there is an erotic (in that sense) element to relationships which have nothing to do with sex at all.
This seems confirmed, to me at least, by any young lady in a low cut dress who sits opposite me on the train. I can’t help but notice that she is attractive, and sexual desire may well be engaged. But I don’t feel the need to express sentimental affection for her. I don’t feel delight in my heart when she looks at me with a faint smile - maybe excitment, maybe hope, but not delight. The experience which is common to parental love, married love, and friendship - which I take to be what you are calling eros - just isn’t there, be there no end of sexual passion or lust. And therefore there is no necessary connection between the two. They can coincide, but they need not.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
I apologize for the mis-statement. What I meant to say was quite the opposite. Oops. My purpose was only to highlight another text that had a similar relationship.
Jeff
No need for an apology!
But if the texts are dependent, in whatever sense (my view is that we don't have sufficient grounds on which to reach a judgement), we don't have 'another text' in a useful sense i.e. one constituting independent multiple attestation. But there we are...
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
I understand what you mean about the value of "multiple attestation" but that wasn't my point either. I was simply pointing out that there were two communities whose texts included a relationship grounded in "love." In John it is "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and in Mark/Secret Mark the young man whom Jesus ultimately raises from the dead, and who is baptized by Jesus, and who appears in the Garden in his baptismal syndon (and has it torn from him as he runs) and who reappears in the syndon at the end of the gospel, in the empty tomb, this disciple begins his career in Mark as the one whom Jesus loves. "And looking at him, Jesus loved him, and said..."
Pax (should I sign out that way instead of my first name??)
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LatePaul:
Some Christians who disagree about homosexuality air their views, have some interesting discussion, but no-one really changes their position.
Actually, I think I've changed my position. Not dramatically, but a bit.
But don't ask me how.... I seem to be struggling enough simply to communicate what it is now, let alone where it came from.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
So, genuinely, what do you believe about this issue at the moment ?
FWIW reading what I have of this thread (and some conversations on Fair Havens), has made me somewhat more tolerant of the views of people who believe that homosexuality and Christianity are incompatable - though it hasn't changed my belief that that opinion is mistaken.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
My view has not changed. That is, homophobes use biblical texts in justification for their views, as other hate mongers have and will continue to do - slavery and Apartheid being the clearest examples.
For myself, the bible is the one wellspring of love and redemption in a world otherwise filled with hatred. Those who seek to pervert that message, condemn themselves.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Hi Pax Christi,
Jumping in midway into your exchange with DoD but are you saying there is a case to be made for Jesus having a sexual relationship with John the disciple from the Biblical text plus the extra-text of ‘Secret Mark’?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
My view has not changed. That is, homophobes use biblical texts in justification for their views, as other hate mongers have and will continue to do - slavery and Apartheid being the clearest examples.
It would be easier if I could believe this but I know too many people who are clearly not hate mongers or homophobes who simply don't feel they can go beyond a certain interpretation of the Bible. Heck I was one.
quote:
For myself, the bible is the one wellspring of love and redemption in a world otherwise filled with hatred. Those who seek to pervert that message, condemn themselves.
Having finally reached a watershed where I can allow my misgivings from experience to overrule what (I thought) the Bible says, I have to say my view of the Bible is a whole lot more complicated than that. Sure there's a lot about love and redemption - but there's all this other complicated, confusing, opaque stuff. One way to approach it is certainly to say that love/redemption is the central theme and we interpret any difficult passages accordingly. But it's not the only way and I can't judge someone who finds another.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
LatePaul
quote:
One way to approach it is certainly to say that love/redemption is the central theme and we interpret any difficult passages accordingly. But it's not the only way and I can't judge someone who finds another.
My real point is that none of us are in any position to judge - albeit it makes for good sport/discussion.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Personally I'm of the view that scripture alone cannot decide the homosexuality debate either way. In relation to the 'clear authority of scripture', and leaving aside (quite important) ambiguities in translation, I'm not aware of an NT passage where the author's primary intention is to condemn homosexuality. Paul, for example, in Romans 1 lists homosexuality, almost as an aside, in constructing an argument about universal sinfulness and the tragic situation of God's covenant people. To pluck verses out of literary and rhetorical contexts strikes me as doing violence to the nature of Scripture as God's word in literary form.
Conversely I don't think there is a single example of a passage in scripture which in the literal sense is pro-homosexuality. We might want to develop some passages in that direction, but that is to go beyond strictly scriptural data.
My sense is that both conservatives and liberals abuse scripture in this debate in an attempt to avoid the hard work of doing theology. None of which really helps the debate, but might help set some parameters...
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Hi Pax Christi,
Jumping in midway into your exchange with DoD but are you saying there is a case to be made for Jesus having a sexual relationship with John the disciple from the Biblical text plus the extra-text of ‘Secret Mark’?
No, Luke. Sorry that I wasn't clear on that. Only that there was a close male/male relationship in texts valued by two different communities, one that was interpreted as sexual by a gnostic sect.
I would never cite these texts as having anything to say about homosexual relationships.
Pax
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Hi Pax Christi,
Jumping in midway into your exchange with DoD but are you saying there is a case to be made for Jesus having a sexual relationship with John the disciple from the Biblical text plus the extra-text of ‘Secret Mark’?
No, Luke. Sorry that I wasn't clear on that. Only that there was a close male/male relationship in texts valued by two different communities, one that was interpreted as sexual by a gnostic sect.
I would never cite these texts as having anything to say about homosexual relationships.
Pax
Why do you think that a homosexual relationship requires a sexual relations? Do straight people always have sexual relations when they are in a relationship?
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Depends on what kind of a relationship. But why call it a "homosexual relationship" if it's not a sexual relationship? Why not just call it "friendship" or something?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Depends on what kind of a relationship. But why call it a "homosexual relationship" if it's not a sexual relationship? Why not just call it "friendship" or something?
When two people are dating in high school, there doesn't have to have a sexual relations (although it does happen, of course). This dating—going to dances, proms, and the like—is not the same as a couple of buds going out for a ride on their dirt bikes. There is the context of a heterosexual (or increasingly among today's youth, homosexual) relationship without the sexual relations.
Having sexual relations is not a prerequisite of making an emotional bound, or what a person's thoughts and fantasies are about.
Failure to recognize that a person can be in a same-sex relationship without sexual relations (just the same as a different-sex relationship without sexual relations) leads certain groups to undercount the number of homosexuals.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Mousethief
quote:
Depends on what kind of a relationship. But why call it a "homosexual relationship" if it's not a sexual relationship? Why not just call it "friendship" or something?
This is the crux of much discussion about David and Jonathan's relationship. The lack of overt reference to sexual misconduct between the two, far from clarifying the position, has fuelled prurient speculation.
Divine Outlaw Dwarf
quote:
...Romans 1 lists homosexuality, almost as an aside, in constructing an argument about universal sinfulness and the tragic situation of God's covenant people
FWIW I would be glad to see the church engaged in at least some discussion of the other issues of misconduct denounced by Paul, ie envy, murder,strife, deciet, malice, gossip, slander, insolence, arogance, inter alia.
Too much to hope for, I guess. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
To Bede:
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
FWIW I would be glad to see the church engaged in at least some discussion of the other issues of misconduct denounced by Paul, ie envy, murder,strife, deciet, malice, gossip, slander, insolence, arogance, inter alia.
Absolutely.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
To Bede:
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
Thanks. I think this "mode of thought" separates more people on this issue than is typically imagined.
For example, to use the David and Jonathan story recently mentioned, I see the part about David saying Jonathan's love is better than the love of women, and it is "enough said." Others don't see it because there is no mention of sexual relations between the two. My response to that is always "so what?" This is when I get the blank look back from the typically-straight person.
<mode class="soapbox">
It seems as if gay relationships are treated differently than straight relationships on this point. I don't think it is conscious. It probably has something to do with most people considering the "default" mode for a person to be straight, with a person being gay only if they have acted on it by having sexual relations.
Gay isn't what just what gay does. Gay is what a person is, whether or not it is acted upon.
(I feel better now. MT, I'm sorry it looks like I dumped on you. The anger isn't for you. You just found the trigger point, like a massage therapist working on my back. The analogy is that the message therapist may not have put the trigger point there, but finding one can release tension in me.)
</mode>
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
... It probably has something to do with most people considering the "default" mode for a person to be straight, with a person being gay only if they have acted on it by having sexual relations.
...
My default position is that relationships aren't sexual. Thus there is no need/reason to classify them as heterosexual or homosexual unless it becomes a sexual relationship.
In the case of David and Jonathan, there is, in my opinion, nothing that suggests a sexual component to the relationship. For, like Mousethief, if whenever we refer to love we mean sex, then I cannot say that I love anyone, except my wife. Indeed it is becoming more and more like that already, and that is a sad thing.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sharkshooter: quote:
My default position is that relationships aren't sexual. Thus there is no need/reason to classify them as heterosexual or homosexual unless it becomes a sexual relationship.
Just as long as you understand that this is an assertion, not an argument. quote:
For, like Mousethief, if whenever we refer to love we mean sex, then I cannot say that I love anyone, except my wife.
This is only the case if, when we say sex, we mean sexual intercourse. Mousethief and Bede seem to have discussed this above.
--------------------
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
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Sharkshooter: quote:
My default position is that relationships aren't sexual. Thus there is no need/reason to classify them as heterosexual or homosexual unless it becomes a sexual relationship.
Just as long as you understand that this is an assertion, not an argument.
And your point woud be?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Psyduck has been arguing that platonic relationships have an erotic element - taking a Freudian perspective.
I don't happen to agree, as I have explained somewhere above, but I think that the point is that it is not unproblematic to say that relationships such as parent/child brother/sister and friend/friend are not inherently sexual - you'd need somekind of psychological / philosophical backup for that position (mind you there is plenty.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Psyduck has been arguing that platonic relationships have an erotic element - taking a Freudian perspective.
I am no expert on Freud. However, what I do recall is that he was rather pre-occupied by sex.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't happen to agree, as I have explained somewhere above, but I think that the point is that it is not unproblematic to say that relationships such as parent/child brother/sister and friend/friend are not inherently sexual - you'd need somekind of psychological / philosophical backup for that position (mind you there is plenty.)
So, you think I need to support the asexual nature of relationships? I think the need for proof is on the other foot. In fact, in my experience, the vast majority of relationships (mine and those I see around me) are asexual. I would have a difficult time believing otherwise.
[ 12. June 2006, 16:05: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sharkshooter: quote:
So, you think I need to support the asexual nature of relationships? I think the need for proof is on the other foot.
I know you're not talking directly to me here, but yes, I do. Otherwise you're not debating with us. You are telling us what you think is true. I happen to think you're completely wrong about this one, but I would like the opportunity to test the strength of my position against yours. As I say, you are asserting, not arguing.
That's my point.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
As it happens I agree with you, I think that those taking Psyduck (Freudish) positions mistake sensory for sexual. And if I were going to argue it at length, I would argue from a different theory of the human psyche.
I think the problem is that we have a confusion of perspective here:
You are saying your default position is that most relationships are not sexual.
Psyduck is saying that all relationships are in some sense sexual.
But the thing about which you are debating, whether the lack of mention of sex in the David & Jonathan story is signfies likely homosexual affection (and/or sex) or not - is not addressed by Psyduck's point.
There is a difference between your lover and your friend, there is a different quality to what you feel about someone who will shortly become your lover - or whom you desire to be your lover (i.e. before any actual sexual act) as compared to what you feel about your friend. That is how we are able to experience these relationships as different. Whether all relationships are fundementally erotic or not does not negate the existence of this difference.
It is clear there is something different about David & Jonathan's relationship. In a modern context a relationship described to me in those terms whether between two people of the same or different genders, would lead me to assume a sexual relationship.
(You are saying it wouldn't Sharkshooter, if so you surprise me - to me what you say sounds more like an assertion that you do not gossip rather than that you do not assume.)
I am genuinely unsure whether I am justified in making that assumption in the case of David & Jonathan.
[ETA Crosspost]
[ 12. June 2006, 17:32: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
... but I would like the opportunity to test the strength of my position against yours. ...
So, do you have anything other than Freud, who I think saw sex in everything he looked at?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is clear there is something different about David & Jonathan's relationship. In a modern context a relationship described to me in those terms whether between two people of the same or different genders, would lead me to assume a sexual relationship.
(
The problem is that you are projecting modern/Freudian ideas (that the default is that sex exists in relationships) into a time when such thought was not the case. The words used to describe this relationship reject sex as a component of the love between David and Jonathan. The writer refers to the love being deeper than a sexual one. This obviously suggests it is asexual, rather than sexual.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[rant]
Why do I feel the need to shout things like Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, Bowlby - because everybody seems to think developmental psychology stopped with Freud !
Come to that what about John Shotter, what about Aaron T Beck, what about several hundred others ?
Freud died in 1939, that is 67 years ago, like every other discipline psychology has moved on - sometimes building on his work, sometimes not, but there is a hell of a lot out there.[/rant]
[ETA Crosspost, I am not a freudian, my issue with whether D&J had a homosexual relationship is not do with a belief that all relationships are fundementally sexual. That said, I acknowledge that chronological distance is an issue here.]
[ 12. June 2006, 18:01: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
... Why do I feel the need to shout ...
I don't have any idea.
Are you saying those people you referred to think D&J had a homosexual relationship? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
All I am saying is that there is no evidence supporting it, and that looking at a relationship thousands of years ago with 20th century biases is wrong. I think you have admitted that as well, but Psyduck hasn't. Neither has he given any reason why he is right to do so - unless I missed it.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
My rant is about the way people bang on about Freud as if no-one else ever had a theory about how people develop.
If you cared to argue the idea that relationships are not fundementally sexual from anything other than anecdotal evidence, you may find those authors useful.
I have said I am not certain of my interpretation - you are, why is that ?
I have not read the original hebrew, my KJV says 'surpassing the love of women'. I understand that to mean 'better than the love of women' - I don't think it makes a statement about sex or lack of, you can argue that there is no explcit mention of sex in D&J but I don't think you can argue that there is an explicit statement of 'no sex here'.
There are statements that can be read as hinting at a sexual relationship, or not. I take it you think not.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Psyduck
quote:
....you're not debating with us. You are telling us what you think is true.
Whatn is the difference between Freud's assertion and that of Sharkshooter ? Aside from a difference in comparative status, when all is said and done, Freud 'asserted' the existence of sexuality in myriad contexts, many of which are highly suspect.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, there is a bit of research evidence for some aspects of psychodymnamic theory - but not that much, as there are few falsifiable predictions to be made from it.
Freud had some good ideas, like listening to the patient, and some insights. Kids are more sexual than was thought, and masturbate earlier than folk had liked to admit.
However, you can - for example - easily explain the oedipal conflict as jealousy based on the desire for the sole attention of the care-giver rather than lust.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Exactly! And although I have some insights, I would not set myself on the kind of pedestal upon which Freud is placed.
As for the notion of penis envy.... ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
