|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Fish aren't animals?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
And some fish even change sexes. I'm not sure about herrings, however.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Kinky. I like it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
I think the main thing I have learned is that, courtesy of Spiffy, the problem is that lesbians have girl cooties.
What was Spiffy doing giving them girl cooties in the first place?
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
I think I'll stick with boy cooties! Better the cooties you know.
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Just looking at page 1, I'd like to remind everyone that this thread could make it's 10th anniversary.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Just looking at page 1, I'd like to remind everyone that this thread could make it's 10th anniversary.
IIRC the CV thread managed to muster about the same number of posts in under 2 years - it's quantity not quality that counts! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
[Takes the risk of poking this dead horse in the eye with the sharp stick of wakeup... does that make it a Zombie Horse?]
The (Anglican) Bishop of Liverpool's Presidential Address to Diocesan Synod, 2010 is really quite interesting. And I think sums up a lot of British (but maybe not American) evangelical thinking about these issues.
Which, being executively summarised, seems to be: "we have lived with different opinions on other moral questions for centuries, so we can live with different opinions on this one" [My paraphrase] Its not worth splitting over.
quote:
...we do already as a Diocese accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality in the same way that the church has always allowed a diversity of ethical opinion on taking human life.
Within our own fellowship we are brothers and sisters in Christ holding a variety of views on a number of major theological and moral issues and we are members of a church that characteristically allows a large space for a variety of nuances, interpretations, applications and disagreement.
I know that sometimes it stretches us, but never to breaking point, for it seems to me that there is a generosity of grace that holds us all together.
If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who
advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be? That in a world of such little love two people sought to express a love that no other
relationship could offer them?
And if those advocating the acceptance of gay relationship are right and the traditionalists are wrong what will their sin be? That in a church that has forever wrestled with interpreting and applying Scripture they missed the principle in the application of the literal text?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Could my lord of Liverpool please have a discreet word with the American bishops who've up and left?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
Now forgive me for not having the time to read through fourscore pages to see if it's been mentioned before, but I'm wondering:
Are there any homosexual Christians, who are not celibate and do not believe their actions are sinful, and yet nonetheless uphold the traditional meaning of marriage solely between a man and a women?
Or in other words, do we ever see "Gays for Prop 8"?
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Ken - that is a wonderful letter. Thank you for posting it. It gives me hope in the CoE.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Ken - that is a wonderful letter. Thank you for posting it. It gives me hope in the CoE.
Seconded. And it reinforces for me the biggest difference between my views and those at the extremes of this polarised debate: I do not believe in a God who has got eternal damnation lined up as a punishment for people who accidentally but in all good faith believed the wrong things about him
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Are there any homosexual Christians, who are not celibate and do not believe their actions are sinful, and yet nonetheless uphold the traditional meaning of marriage solely between a man and a women?
Or in other words, do we ever see "Gays for Prop 8"?
It probably depends on how "traditional" you are with the meaning of marriage. In a lot of ways heterosexuals destroyed traditional marriage long before gay marriage was even an issue.
Traditionally (meaning 'prior to the late nineteenth/early twentieth century') marriage involved strictly defined, mostly non-overlapping gender roles. The relationship also had a strict hierarchy, with the man in charge and the woman legally a non-person. For most homosexuals this sort of arrangement is so unattractive it's a non-starter. So if marriage is understood in this tradition, I'm sure most (if not all) gays would be more than happy to leave it to opposite sex couples.
Eventually a series of legal and social reforms destroyed traditional marriage (described above) and redefined it as a loving partnership of equals. It was at this point that same-sex couples started saying "Hey, a 'loving partnership of equals' sounds a lot like my relationship". While there may be a few out gays who oppose legal same-sex marriage for everyone else, I suspect that a such opposition would come from an understanding of "traditional marriage" most heterosexuals have abandonned.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The thing that truly outraged me about GAFCON was not that they said "this is what we believe on homosexuality". It's that they said "this is what we believe, and anyone who believes differently is a heretic".
Nice to see a rather different view being expressed.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Just read Ken's latest post and the Bishop of Liverpool's address, which is very hopeful. Isn't there still a problem about leadership though? Agreeing to disagree works until you get a Jeffrey John fiasco.
The point about pacifism is a good one, similarly good ones can be made about divorce, remarriage and women priests (particularly on the perceived ditching of scriptural authoritativeness). However, this is the issue that causes all the problems.
I went to Spring Harvest and heard some interesting discussion on this issue by Andrew Marin, particularly the idea that reconciliation can require capitulation of one party.
I went to a debate on the subject at which I felt some wanted to win the argument rather than communicate and understand why their respective beliefs were so important, and this is how the issue comes across generally.
I wonder if the need is to properly understand how important the positions are to those holding them and see if and how they can be accommodated. As the Bishop suggests, a bottom up process might be the way to go. This could go on for years otherwise and I strongly feel the row damages the Church's mission.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I agree 100% with what you are trying to say. BUT:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
As the Bishop suggests, a bottom up process might be the way to go.
Perhaps (in a discussion on homosexuality), you could have found a different way of making your point (so to speak!)
I laughed so hard, my corn flakes came out of my nose.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I'm glad you said that - I did the same! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[n/]
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
my corn flakes came out of my nose
Youtube beckons...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Whoops ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I'm the Duke of Edinburgh's scriptwriter in my spare time...
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Are there any homosexual Christians, who are not celibate and do not believe their actions are sinful, and yet nonetheless uphold the traditional meaning of marriage solely between a man and a women?
Yes.
I've heard rationale ranging from:
locating marriage as a uniquely opposite gender institution (appealing to the traditional theological view of the male as supreme in a relationship structured innately as hierarchy necessitated by the requirement for "cover" and "authority" over the female; the structure doesn't apply)
or, going to the other extreme,
in the belief that marriage as it's currently instituted and practiced is an unworthy goal for same-sex committed relationships (who in their right mind shoots for a 50% failure rate?).
I'm not one of them, btw. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Don't be silly, Croesos. When people say "traditional marriage" they mean Ozzie and Harriet, not that pre-Victorian stuff.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I know someone on-line who, while in a long-term, committed lesbian relationship, is opposed to homosexual marriage because she is opposed to the institution of marriage in general, and was afraid that if it was legalized in California (where she lives) her domestic partnership would somehow get upgraded to a marriage. She only has the domestic partnership at all because she needed to put her partner on her insurance (or vice versa, I forget).
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Don't be silly, Croesos. When people say "traditional marriage" they mean Ozzie and Harriet, not that pre-Victorian stuff.
So they're talking about a marriage lacking color and full of canned laughs. How enticing!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How silly of you! I didn't say they meant The Ozzie and Harriet Show. I said they meant Ozzie and Harriet. The marriage, not the TV show. You have made a category error.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How silly of you! I didn't say they meant The Ozzie and Harriet Show. I said they meant Ozzie and Harriet. The marriage, not the TV show. You have made a category error.
I didn't realize that many people were personally acquainted with Ozzie and Harriet Nelson to know the private details of their marriage. Certainly not enough to spawn a fairly wide-spread political movement.
Quite frankly, to most people the Ozzie and Harriet they saw on television were the real Nelsons.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It's possible that wasn't Mousethief's point. Just thinking out loud.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think he's taking the piss.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
fill my eyes. Smiles awake you when you rise.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Would people return to the thread topic, please?
thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Returning to topic, at what point is it simply easier to assume that all anti-gay evangelical leaders are closeted?
quote:
On April 13, the "rent boy" (whom we'll call Lucien) arrived at Miami International Airport on Iberian Airlines Flight 6123, after a ten-day, fully subsidized trip to Europe. He was soon followed out of customs by an old man with an atavistic mustache and a desperate blond comb-over, pushing an overburdened baggage cart.
That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy's client and, as it happens, one of America's most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.
Reached by New Times before a trip to Bermuda, Rekers said he learned Lucien was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. "I had surgery," Rekers said, "and I can't lift luggage. That's why I hired him." (Medical problems didn't stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.)
So the author of Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity is claiming he didn't recognize a website hawking gay prostitutes. I'm not sure which would be worse, if he's lying or if he's telling the truth.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
I think Peter Ould makes an excellent case that sexuality isn't ontological, like say gender, but should be understood more as a spectrum of behaviors, some morally better than others.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If a gene or set of genes is found that corresponds to sexual orientation, will he be likely to adjust his theory accordingly?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Whilst I am 'pro-gay', he makes some very good points about ontology - indeed many LGBT now argue that 'gay' is what people do, not who they are.
So it comes down to "are you gay because you have sex with same-gendered partners, or do you have sex with same-gendered partners because you're gay?"
Religious equivalent: "Are you a Christian because you go to church, or do you go to church because you're Christian?"
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
No, that isn't what it means.
Rather, sexuality is largely fluid. Instead of being 'born gay' people create an identity by the things they do. So the mnore one has gay sex, the more 'gay' one feels oneself to be. i think it is called 'constructivism' as opposed to 'essentialism'.
The essentialist probably sees himself as gay because he grew up when it was illegal and created an identity as an outsider.
Younger people may cheerfully have sex with men or women according to who is available and not see themselves as 'gay' not even bisexual but as 'men who have sex with men'.
So people CONSTRUCT their identities by all the choices they make.
'Gagnon [who I loathe]and Simon's book, Sexual Conduct (1973), presented a theory of sexuality that is fundamentally social constructionist. They rejected an essentialist view, arguing that "sexuality is not ... [a] universal phenomenon which is the same in all historical times and cultural spaces" (Gagnon, 1990, p. 3). Sexuality is created by culture, by the defining of some behaviors and some relationships as "sexual," and the learning of these definitions or scripts by members of the society.....
'According to social construction theorists, our mating preferences are the result of socialization, of learning the universe of meaning of our (sub)culture with regard to mate selection.' http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746720/?tag=content;col1
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If a gene or set of genes is found that corresponds to sexual orientation, will he be likely to adjust his theory accordingly?
Aren't we just on a 'genetic' swing of the pendulum at the moment and really it's a balance between it and 'behaviorism'?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Whilst I am 'pro-gay', he makes some very good points about ontology - indeed many LGBT now argue that 'gay' is what people do, not who they are.
So it comes down to "are you gay because you have sex with same-gendered partners, or do you have sex with same-gendered partners because you're gay?"
Religious equivalent: "Are you a Christian because you go to church, or do you go to church because you're Christian?"
The chicken and egg dilemma doesn't render Peter's argument invalid.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If a gene or set of genes is found that corresponds to sexual orientation, will he be likely to adjust his theory accordingly?
Aren't we just on a 'genetic' swing of the pendulum at the moment and really it's a balance between it and 'behaviorism'?
You didn't answer my question.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
leo, how does that theory explain those who have identified as gay and have had not had any reinforcing sexual experiences? Because my understanding is that theory says homosexuality is reinforced by behaviour, and is not innate. Or those who identify as homosexual in repressive regimes when their lives are at risk?
A few years back I read Child Development and a lot of research into a condition that is either seen as a somatising disorder or physical, depending on the research being considered. My broad general overview to get my head around the research was that
- because we have a lot of ethical dilemmas all research into human beings is compromised by our lack of willingness to investigate intrusively;
- because they are trying for scientific studies with "fair tests" with only one variable changing and the study looking at only that variable, the hypothesis being tested tends to be only looking at the psychological or the physical;
- the interaction between the psychological and physical is not fully understood because it is so difficult to work out what is happening for anything in complex human beings and scientific testing tends to look at one or the other because complex interactions are very difficult to quantify
Second health warning, this is a broad generalisation with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but it helped me understand why we have psychological or physical explanations of many human conditions, and researchers tend to be considering one or the other in their work.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If a gene or set of genes is found that corresponds to sexual orientation, will he be likely to adjust his theory accordingly?
Aren't we just on a 'genetic' swing of the pendulum at the moment and really it's a balance between it and 'behaviorism'?
You didn't answer my question.
You'd have to ask Peter, I think he sometimes posts on the ship. For myself I don't buy into the everything is determined by our genes argument.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
leo, how does that theory explain those who have identified as gay and have had not had any reinforcing sexual experiences? Because my understanding is that theory says homosexuality is reinforced by behaviour, and is not innate. Or those who identify as homosexual in repressive regimes when their lives are at risk?
Evangelical ideologues appropriating Foucault for the purposes of sexual discipline is one of the odder intellectual phenomena in recent years.
Foucault was writing against a background in which homosexuality was treated as a medically identifiable abnormality from normal or mature sexual development (which was assumed to be heterosexual by definition). Foucault wanted to say that there is no essential sexuality - if I think I'm heterosexual that's only because I've been sufficiently disciplined by power to internalise my view of myself as normally sexual. The uses of power are best served by having some people who are deviant, who can be stigmatised as not-normal; therefore power will never discipline everyone enough so that everyone fully internalises the normal sexual model.
The new wave of evangelicals want to take on board the bit about there being no essential sexual identity, but then include on top of that a claim that there is a normative sexual identity given by God after all. (Take the letter of Foucault's theories and miss the spirit.) This on the face of it would seem to be a self-contradiction: I don't know how (or whether) they avoid it even on their own terms.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
For myself I don't buy into the everything is determined by our genes argument.
Everything? Never said so. Even things with a strong heritable component often need some kind of environmental or experiential (same thing?) "trigger" before they become active or instantiated in any given individual's life. But even if there's some heritable component, it would give lie to the belief that it's simply chosen.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The idea that you're not gay or straight until you start having sexual experience is falsified by the testimony of hundreds of gays/Lesbians who say they knew they were different in mid-to-late adolescence and went through a process of figuring out what exactly it was, and it either slowly or suddenly dawned on them that they were gay. This before any sexual experience.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
MT, that would match my experience in 40 years of schoolteaching and following up on people I have taught.
That specific point was brought up yesterday by one former student talking about two gays that he knows, one a cousin of his, both of whom were sure they were "different" before puberty. They didn't understand the significance of that difference until they were well into puberty, any more than any prepubertal kid has any clue about sex until later.
And you can be damn sure that they did not grow up in a "gay-friendly" atmosphere in this community! As you might expect, one is in Montreal, the other in Vancouver.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
The new wave of evangelicals want to take on board the bit about there being no essential sexual identity, but then include on top of that a claim that there is a normative sexual identity given by God after all. (Take the letter of Foucault's theories and miss the spirit.) This on the face of it would seem to be a self-contradiction: I don't know how (or whether) they avoid it even on their own terms.
I think the argument is that homosexual isn't an essential sexual identity but that being male or female is (male and female he created them) and that marriage is between males and females (one flesh and all that jazz) so that on the one hand you have an imperative to male-female unity found in revelation. I think the idea is that the Bible divides sexual activity into goodsex and badsex (with same sex activity firmly in the latter camp) and that attempts to legitimate other forms of sexual activity are attempts to elevate essentially ideological (in the proper sense) discourses to the same level of authority as scripture.
This isn't immediately obvious to me, it must be said, but then I'm just Doubleplusungoodthinkful.
--------------------
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
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I think Peter Ould makes an excellent case that sexuality isn't ontological, like say gender, but should be understood more as a spectrum of behaviors, some morally better than others.
Begs the question of whether gender is ontological.
Transgender and intersexed conditions make even binary determination of gender a bit murky.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
For myself I don't buy into the everything is determined by our genes argument.
Straw Man. No one posits that.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The whole evangelical use of social constructionist theories of sexuality is a result of a confusion between social construction and autonomous choice.
Just because something is socially constructed doesn't necessarily mean it can be freely chosen like one would choose a flavor of ice cream. Race is a particularly apt analogy. Race is a socially constructed category. And yet if you ask an African American if he can become "white", he would look at you like you are the biggest idiot in the world.
Most things having to do with humanity is socially constructed.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If a gene or set of genes is found that corresponds to sexual orientation, will he be likely to adjust his theory accordingly?
I'm not sure the genetics makes much difference to the discussion either way.
Studies have shown that a propensity to violence may well be genetic. Whether we are naturally inclined towards a behaviour is a related issue but not directly relevant to the morality of that behaviour.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Most things having to do with humanity is socially constructed.
True but you seem to be taking behaviourism to some extreme form of predestination!
Leaving the matter of homosexuality aside for a moment, I thought the Christian gospel was about metanoia, that is change. If all of us are bound in our social construct then change is never possible.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
