|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: gay sex - being and doing
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I recall an incident where a law student asked Scalia if he sodomized his wife. I think this was in the context of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas where he essentially argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in sex. At any rate, despite not accepting that gays had a right to privacy in their sex lives, Scalia felt very emphatically that he was entitled to it in his own.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Scalia presumably feels that oral and anal sex are fine and Christian if he's doing them, but dangerous and wrong if gay people are doing them.
That anecdote reminds me of a church in my own town that has been similarly hypocritical... Ten years ago a friend boasted to me that his (anglican, evangelical) church had made leaflets available to the congregation that encouraged the married members of the congregation to have more exciting sex lives, arguing that good sex was part of a good Christian marriage, and suggesting various sexual positions including anal. My friend thought this was great and that it showed the church wasn't repressed and stuck in the past and didn't consider sex a bad thing, and was actively concerned about the quality of the marriages of its attendees in ways that were relevant to their lives. Since that time, that particular church has publicly and vehemently been a staunch opponent of gay rights including gay marriage through to the present day. I guess, like Scalia, they think oral and anal sex are fine if they're doing it, but that the exact same acts are horrible and disgusting if gays are doing it.
Since every kind and position of gay sex act are also performed on a regular basis by many heterosexual Christian couples, the hypocrisy involved in such condemnations is always massive. I for one am rather curious about which of the various false rumours about the evils of gay sex Steve Langton is planning to use to condemn gay sex. I'm curious to know if he thinks it's okay when married Christian couples do the exact same acts.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I call bullshit on the unrelated claim. You are picking and choosing.
If you keep this up I'm going to call you to hell. You can't change the generally accepted definition of a word in order to make a point. In this case "the Law". Christians have always used "the Law" to refer to those specific laws Moses gives to the Israelites. Indeed, the Apostle uses "the Law" in the same manner in his epistles.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The purpose of the bible is to instruct humans in God's will, no? So can you explain how one set of instructions contained within varies from another? Can you explain how an explicit instruction may be ignored and how an inferred suggestion must be obeyed? I am seriously asking, not being snide.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The purpose of the bible is to instruct humans in God's will, no? So can you explain how one set of instructions contained within varies from another? Can you explain how an explicit instruction may be ignored and how an inferred suggestion must be obeyed? I am seriously asking, not being snide.
The Scriptures tell us of Christ and his Church. Even in the OT, albeit through a veil.
The Law is dead. It was for a specific people for a specific time. That is why Christians are able to eat pork, for instance. By "the Law" we mean those laws which Moses gave the Israelites. Christ tells us God's intention from the beginning. All other sexual relations which deviate from that pervert the original intention and are sinful, which is why when sexual immorality is mentioned elsewhere in the scriptures it is seen as sinful, shameful etc.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christ tells us God's intention from the beginning.
Christ said nothing whatever about homosexual sex. He could have done, there was plenty of it about in Roman times.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christ tells us God's intention from the beginning.
And where does he talk about gay sex?
No, no, no, not the part where one must infer, where does he mention gay sex?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christ tells us God's intention from the beginning.
And where does he talk about gay sex?
No, no, no, not the part where one must infer, where does he mention gay sex?
Using the same logic then, where does he specifically approve of it? No, other things have to be taken into consideration, such as the rest of the scriptures and, for those who consider it important, the constant teaching of the Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
That argument is rubbish. The bible mentions humans are stewards of the earth, they do not have permission to explore the moon. Will NASA personnel all go to Hell? Nowhere is mentioned all the trappings modern up the candle churches get in such a tizzy about, how are they important?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
If it's particular sexual acts that you wish to object to, Steve Langton, then you need to object to them as constantly and vociferously when they are taking place in the bedrooms of heterosexual married couples as you do when the couples are gay. You need to preach against fellatio and cunnilingus, against anal sex (of course) and the use of sex toys. You need to make clear that these things are wrong, campaign against them, and exclude all those, gay and straight, who do them from ordination, employment in the church, teaching, and communion. You need to root them out of your congregation, where they are undoubtedly rampant.
[ 29. July 2014, 06:53: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Interpreting that as anti-gay is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Thanks for the link but it's bollocks. It's not arbitrary and I certainly don't know where yoy get inconsistent from. Heaven forbid that anyone should think that the scriptures have anything to say on these things.
Do you believe it it wrong for men to leave the family home before they're married?
Do you believe it is wrong for men to get married unless they have both parents alive?
Heaven forbid that anyone should think that the scriptures have anything to say on these matters.
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And in all honesty, if that is the case, I can't see any reason, apart from a rather selective emphasising and interpretation of a couple of Bible verses (and if you're going to do that, then you have to be consistent- no scallops with black pudding starter for you next time you dine somewhere fancy, and you'd better denounce anyone who does eat it!) why anybody should get hot and bothered about it at all.
Traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality has nothing to do with the Law. Therefore this argument of yours, which one hears all the time, is nothing but a strawman. Rather it is based on the words of our Lord himself.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
Well, first of all there are people who seem to derive their attitude to it from the Law and/or some verses in the NT, and it's at them that I'm aiming. But I acn't see that Our Lord's words which you've quoted necessarily exclude another, less usual, form of sexuality and relationship.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I must admit, I'm rather surprised to hear of evangelicals advocating anal sex in a heterosexual context.
I'd always assumed that evangelicals considered this out-of-bounds in any context.
Mind you, it's not one I've heard discussed that often.
I've heard evangelical preachers denounce oral sex in any context.
I've also heard evangelicals say that this one's ok ... but with some caveats - ie. it has to be mutually agreed and not imposed by one partner against the other's will etc.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Which should, surely, be the case with any sexual practice.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've also heard evangelicals say that this one's ok ... but with some caveats - ie. it has to be mutually agreed and not imposed by one partner against the other's will etc.
Did the evangelical in question not consider consent to be a necessary prerequisite for any and all sexual acts? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
EDIT: ninja'd
[ 29. July 2014, 10:50: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, of course, what I think they meant was that blokes shouldn't try to coerce or pressurise their wives into giving them head.
There was a kind of unspoken - and sexist - assumption, perhaps, that it would be the fellas who were more likely to 'demand' sexual favours against their partner's consent or against their reluctance.
On the other hand there is that notorious example of the US pastor who gloatingly related that he'd advised a congregant to go down on her non-Christian husband - contrary to her own repugnance at the prospect - in order to show him unconditional love and thereby win him to Christ. He later boasted that the woman had taken his advice and the husband had become converted ...
This was discussed and the pastor excoriated here aboard Ship - and rightly so in my view.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But it’s very much NOT just about what they ARE; the point is that they want to live out what they ARE by actually DOING THINGS. And to be blunt, other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS.
Firstly, we're talking about wanting to do certain things where those certain things are things that only a particular class of people want to do. People talk about a spectrum of sexuality, but there are substantial numbers of people who not only largely don't want to do those things (at any conscious level) but can't even imagine being tempted. So the link between being and doing is rather closer than it is usually.
Furthermore, sexuality is fairly central to most people's life goals. Even within certain conservative religious traditions where it is a second-best to celibacy, the appropriate use of sexuality is regarded as an important fulfilment for those who aren't called to celibacy. So there again, we're not talking about something incidental to a person, but as something that is widely considered to be integral to what we consider a good life worthy of respect. And therefore, the desire to perform the relevant class of acts under appropriate romantic circumstances is far closer to who the person is.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I must admit, I'm rather surprised to hear of evangelicals advocating anal sex in a heterosexual context....
I've heard evangelical preachers denounce oral sex in any context.
I've also heard evangelicals say that this one's ok
In my observation, age tends to be the most relevant factor, simply because social norms have changed. I would say that if you went to almost any evangelical Christian couple today under 35 or so and tried to tell them that oral and anal sex were bad they would look at you funny, because they are probably doing oral regularly and anal occasionally. While if you said the same thing to someone 55 or older they would probably nod in agreement because they probably aren't. (Data - a US 2010 study found 90% of women aged 25-29 reporting having done oral sex, and up to 46% of certain age groups reporting having done anal)
These changes to social norms affect both what evangelical Christians are doing (eg I happen to have been told by my best friends, an evangelical heterosexual couple aged around 30, that they do anal regularly) and what gay people are doing (eg Stephen Fry, age 56 and gay, is on record saying he doesn't do anal and thinks it's icky). So, yes, old people could do their usual outraged rants about the moral decline of modern society, but I suspect they would actually find it rather difficult to mount a biblical case against oral/anal sex acts within heterosexual Christian marriage, so it's hard to prove that this change in social norms towards having more varied and enjoyable sex is morally wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Did the evangelical in question not consider consent to be a necessary prerequisite for any and all sexual acts?
Well substantial numbers of conservative Christians have historically read 1 Cor 7:3 as meaning that no Christian wife ought ever deny her husband's desires, and concluded that therefore there is no such thing as marital rape. I guess we could chalk up ~1700 years worth of the legalization of marital rape, and the countless such rapes thus legitimized by it, as yet more examples of the very questionable morality that Christianity brought to the world.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You're being very silly. When we talk about "the Law" we means the laws Moses sets out in Leviticus etc. For most here that is the accepted definition of "the Law".
I'm not being silly at all. Jesus was a Jew, and when Jews talk about the Law, they mean more than what is set out in Leviticus, etc. What is the accepted definition for most here is irrelevant to what Jesus, whom you were quoting, and his hearers understood.
Regardless, your attempt to set Albertus straight by use of this quote to show that Christian understanding comes from the Gospel falls flat. Law or not, Jesus is quoting the OT, and his answer is firmly rooted in the OT. That dog you're trotting out won't hunt.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Law is dead. It was for a specific people for a specific time.
Really? Even though Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law"?
I'll make a note, then, that the Ten Commandments are dead and we needn't worry about them. Glad I finally got the memo.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
You know, it could just as easily be argued that the Genesis narrative says God wants us to fuck every other person in the world. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Okay this distinction between BEING and DOING has split so many philosophical hairs that I now need a metaphysical haircut. This for me is why Christianity falls down when it tries to hold any position apart from outright condemnation and outright acceptance (eg that this orientation is from God, natural but as a Christian you are held to the same moral standards as any straight person) You can't sit in the middle and make mealy-mouthed statements about acceptable levels of gayness before its sinful.
There is no way to separate BEING and DOING when it comes to sexuality. There is no line in the sand where you go from BEING gay to DOING gay. People's sexuality is an intrinsic and integral part of who they are. You cannot just switch it off when you don't want it. It's like one of those ballons, when you squash one bit it pops up elsewhere or else explodes very messily and noisily when over pressed.
Why is it that straight people are so happy to suggest this and never stop to think how ridiculous it sounds. I mean, try and apply it to BEING Straight (what does this even mean?) and DOING Straight (again - what? Is this man hunting in the woods home to little wife with fire going and squalling small humans?) At what point do you stray into DOING straight? When you look at someone and the hormones flow? When you hug someone in affection? When you have close daily with someone you might like but haven't said anything yet? When you flirt but don't touch? You're DOING straight, you're engaging in behaviours and reactions in accordance with your sexuality.
This whole compartmetalized, reductionist and mechanical approach to sex as slots and tabs is frankly really weird and odd.
[ 29. July 2014, 12:27: Message edited by: Macrina ]
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Jesus was a Jew, and when Jews talk about the Law, they mean more than what is set out in Leviticus, etc.
What did they mean, then, and what's your evidence for it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Jesus was a Jew, and when Jews talk about the Law, they mean more than what is set out in Leviticus, etc.
What did they mean, then, and what's your evidence for it?
When Jesus talks about the Law and the Prophets he means the Torah and the Prophets. I thought that was well known.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
When Jesus talks about the Law and the Prophets he means the Torah and the Prophets. I thought that was well known.
i thought so, too.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
And what does the Apostle mean when he speaks of "the Law"? This is important, because he is speaking in a Christian context.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
[...] This whole compartmetalized, reductionist and mechanical approach to sex as slots and tabs is frankly really weird and odd.
I'll take Albertus' "amen" and raise it a "Testify!"
It's the worst kind of legalism, especially coming from fecund preacher-men basking in the glow of their wife and family. Bizarrely, when I've asked them to empathize, they've been baffled. Guess that level of dogma really does slam on the blinkers.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Two points:
1. I'm totally on board with fighting for laws that allow same sex marriage and prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, selling services, etc., on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. I do believe, however, that any individual person's belief that same sex sexual activity is sinful should be something that they should feel free to talk about publicly without fear of legal repercussions or of becoming a pariah at work and in society. Granted, it is wrong to speak about a belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality in a way that is harassing (Repent now or burn! Repent now or burn!), vulgar and cruel (Piss off you cockswallowing pilowbiter!), hateful to the point of inciting violence (you perverts want to recruit our children into your disgusting sexual games and are terrorists out to destroy western civilization) or scientifically inaccurate (AIDS doesn't come from the HIV virus - it comes from anal sex even among people who don't have the HIV virus, so anal sex is a threat to the human race - as one person running for congress in Texas believes, forgetting that straight people have anal sex too ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ). Some people make a living by being representatives of the image of public and private institutions (celebrities, CEOs, politicians, etc.), so if they lose fans, shareholder confidence, votes, political contributions, etc., from sharing their moral beliefs on homosexuality then that is not a "bad" thing - that is just the social marketplace functioning. We still have public figures (not all of whom are religious ministers) who make a career about talking about how awful homosexuality is.
2. I will note a very important difference between being gay and being black. Having dark skin is something you cannot hide and that causes people to (unfairly) make assumptions about you the moment they see you. It usually means being born into a family that has experienced the same discrimination that you face, and therefore is tied to systemic socioeconomic inequality. LGBT people are also paid less, denied work, denied professional connections, etc., because of their sexual orientation and gender identity (plus there are lots of people who want to kill us), but being gay is not linked with a likelihood of being born into systemic social inequality in the way race is. The discrimination facing gay people - even if being gay is something you are born with - is not something that usually begins before a gay child is even born, unless they themselves are born to same sex parents. Straight parents have gay kids all the time, and gay parents have straight kids all the time.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I do believe, however, that any individual person's belief that same sex sexual activity is sinful should be something that they should feel free to talk about publicly without fear . . . of becoming a pariah at work and in society.
Why not? This seems to give an unfair advantage to bigots. They're free to express their opinions ([disliked group] is horrible, sinful, and criminal) but no one else is allowed to express their opinions of them in turn ([specified bigot] is a horrible person and unfit for decent society). If you wear a swastika armband everywhere you go and enthusiastically pepper your conversation with quotes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion you're likely to "becom[e] a pariah at work and in society", and justifiably so! Freedom of speech (i.e. the state won't inflict "legal repercussion" on you) is not the same as freedom from criticism (i.e. people recoiling in horror at your hate screed), though an increasing number of people seem confused on this point.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems to give an unfair advantage to bigots. They're free to express their opinions ([disliked group] is horrible, sinful, and criminal) but no one else is allowed to express their opinions of them in turn ([specified bigot] is a horrible person and unfit for decent society). If you wear a swastika armband everywhere you go and enthusiastically pepper your conversation with quotes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion you're likely to "becom[e] a pariah at work and in society", and justifiably so! Freedom of speech (i.e. the state won't inflict "legal repercussion" on you) is not the same as freedom from criticism (i.e. people recoiling in horror at your hate screed), though an increasing number of people seem confused on this point.
Exactly.
In particular, some Christians seem to think that as long as the position they are expressing is a sincerely held religious belief then their position and expression of it are somehow legitimized and that other people ought to refrain from all criticism and condemnation of them for expressing their views.
In practice what it boils down to is they think they should be able to say all sorts of false, nasty, and hurtful things about me and other gay people that hurt my feelings and the feelings of those I care about, and they think that I shouldn't be allowed to criticize them in return because such criticism hurts their feelings.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
And celibacy?
Eh?
Bit of a failing with the cleaving...
Ah! I see. Well, both our Lord and the Apostle address the question of celibacy. Some are called to it for the kingdom of God, others are not.
I'm gay and am definitely not called to celibacy. I tried it for a few years as an evangelical Christian and it was a disaster. It distorted my relationships with God and neighbour to a degree of unhealthiness that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Now I'm happily partnered and far more emotionally healthy. What about us?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
And BTW, while I was celibate (but still self-identified as gay because being gay is more than what you do, it's what you think, how you relate to others and how you see the world), the hostility I received from fellow Christians didn't go away. I was still considered a threat to men and children and a poor role model.
I would agree that there are differences between being gay and black. One huge advantage racial minorities (in whatever context have) is that they are born into families of the same racial group. No family member questions their right to exist. They have family traditions, rituals and support networks that assist in growing up and becoming comfortable with their differences. They have role models to help guide them.
With very very few exceptions gay people are born into straight families and lack all of these things. In most cases, they have to deal with a certain degree of misunderstanding and hostility from their closest loved ones. There are no familial role models. There are no familial rituals or traditions that reinforce their identity. They have to emotionally detach themselves from their families to form their identity.
[ 29. July 2014, 21:19: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm gay and am definitely not called to celibacy. I tried it for a few years...and it was a disaster.
Perhaps you weren't doing it correctly? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I've deliberately let this thread run a bit before re-appearing, so that I could get a 'picture' of overall opinion on the ship. I'll be considering what's been said and trying to produce some sort of response – but with over 80 posts to deal with already, please don't expect something both quick and comprehensive.
One issue I would like to deal with straightaway; and I've picked a post by Oscar the Grouch to base my comments on because he made the point succinctly and overall fairly.
by Oscar the Grouch;
quote:
I find it deeply offensive that people who have spent a huge amount of effort in seeking to oppress gay men and women turn round and cry "persecution" the moment that they don't get their own way. It is childish behaviour.
On this one I agree with you, Oscar; and it's not only about the gay issue but a wider area as well. However that's not, I think, the kind of attitude I'm taking. For those contributing on this thread who may not have come across me before on the Ship, although in my 1950s-mid60s youth I was vaguely Anglican, these days I am pretty much 'Anabaptist' and a key part of Anabaptism is that we reject the idea of a 'Christian country' and other kinds of favoured position for Christianity in the state, and the idea that the state has any obligation to uphold a specifically Christian morality. Therefore we would not want gay people to be legally persecuted.
Current Anabaptists (eg, US/Canadian Mennonites) are somewhat divided on whether gay sex is acceptable Christian conduct; but what the state allows or doesn't allow in areas like same-sex-marriage would be regarded as 'not our business'. To express an opinion, perhaps a strong one, and try to persuade, maybe; but no more.
As I said, I agree about the 'childishness' of many current Christian protests about 'persecution' which do amount to little more than suddenly finding that in a modern plural society they're no longer getting things their way. And I understand that as the dominant but nominal Christianity of my youth dies away, atheists and agnostics are pushing hard to destroy the last remnants of that improper dominance, and I can't say I blame them.
I do feel that, although minor compared to real persecution as suffered by the Apostles and, say, Christians in Stalinist Russia and some other countries, there have been occasions when the 'politically correct' (or people claiming to be so) have in fact over-reacted and can be realistically said to have improperly harassed Christians over various issues. And if my OP point is correct, that the issues surrounding gay sex are not simply the same as racism, then there would be a reasonable argument that calling it the same and demanding that people who don't just agree with the gay case should be treated like racists would be a form of improper persecution.
My aim is absolutely NOT that gay people be persecuted; but that some of the discourse might be more closely examined in the interests of a reconciling approach.
Sorta PS; I've just found on another thread a link to Benjamin L Corey's blog – interesting and so far it seems I agree with a lot of it....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(waits for Steve Langton to clarify what he's basically asking/talking about)
(still waiting)
(Oh wait there you are! Never mind...)
[ 29. July 2014, 22:02: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
(lots of stuff)
Can we import your kind of Anabaptists to the US? We have some deeply scary people here who are aggressive about wanting to turn the US into a theocracy.
Indeed, I think something which should be considered is the context in which a lot of this tends to come up--it so often has been in the context of persecution of gay people that after a while anything which is not overtly affirming of both identity and behavior starts sounding like an argument for persecution.
Perhaps a good parallel might be the ministry to non-Christian Jews. As I understand my own Christian faith, we are indeed called to preach the Gospel to everyone--but the treatment of Jewish people for centuries has been so horrible that it's hard to broach the subject without stepping on emotional/cultural land mines, and various groups out there have already poisoned the well, so there needs to be a lot of "I don't agree with those people who have been jerks about it." (I have such an interesting life; not only the gay stuff above, but by blood I'm Jewish (down the mother's line etc.) but since I am also a Christian it means I don't get to fit in with most Jewish people, but the "Jewish Christian" groups/ministries out there tend to be Fundamentalist, which I'm not...)
[ 29. July 2014, 22:14: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[...] My aim is absolutely NOT that gay people be persecuted; but that some of the discourse might be more closely examined in the interests of a reconciling approach. [...]
Crucial are the terms of reconciliation. Is it contingent on advocates of homophobia admitting they're wrong?
There's a world of difference between the Andrew Marin "elevating the conversation" riff (i.e., giving bigots license to continue their bigotry) and people asking forgiveness after they've renounced their homophobia. Marin likens himself to Martin Luther King (!), but the bumptious clown ignores the fact that King detested the white moderates who refused to take a stand.
Reconciliation without change perpetuates harm.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Can I remind people that getting personal with accusations eg "You are being very silly' "You are picking and choosing" and threats of Hell calls is contravening Commandment 4? If you want to get personal, you need to actually make the Hell call and move any spat with another poster off this board. Otherwise people need to rein themselves in and stop short of making personal accusations.
Thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My aim is absolutely NOT that gay people be persecuted; but that some of the discourse might be more closely examined in the interests of a reconciling approach.
Then you should closely examine the logic of tying sexuality to actual sex. I've already pointed out how illogical it is. I was not asexual for the first 33 years of my life. I was a virgin. There's a massive difference.
[ 29. July 2014, 23:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And if my OP point is correct, that the issues surrounding gay sex are not simply the same as racism, then there would be a reasonable argument that calling it the same and demanding that people who don't just agree with the gay case should be treated like racists would be a form of improper persecution.
Why? Could you expand on why anti-gay discrimination is okay but racial discrimination isn't?
Most of the arguments along those lines usually involve the idea that gays have the option of "passing" in a way not available to most racial groups. While I'm sure this would be just as non-controversial in the LGBT community as it is for various racial groups (i.e. not at all), my major issue is that it seems like an attempt to blame the oppressed for their own oppression; essentially arguing that if only they'd been better closeted they wouldn't have a problem. Or, to put it another way, racism is okay if some limited number of people have a way to beat the system.
And once again I think you've confused "persecution" with "criticism".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Could you expand on why anti-gay discrimination is okay but racial discrimination isn't?
He appears to think he has spotted a being vs doing distinction that he thinks differentiates the two. I find myself slightly more prepared than other posters on this thread to grant that his distinction is somewhat valid (and would suggest to Steve therefore that a more apt analogy is between being against gay marriage and against interracial marriage because both involve "doing" something - choosing to marry a person from a particular group of people - but I'd note that most people would regard being anti-interracial marriage as racism and wrong despite it being about "doing" rather than "being"). However Steve seems to have totally failed to supply any reasoning why a being/doing distinction is relevant to making racism unacceptable and being anti-gay acceptable.
In my view, anti-gay discrimination and racial discrimination are both equally unacceptable because they cause serious psychological and physical harm to the people that are discriminated against. Hurting people hurts people. Therefore it's bad. Period.
I stand against racism for the same reason I am against anti-gay views, because both hurt people. It is not because of anything to do with "being" vs "doing", it is about me not wanting to see other people harmed. That is why we have anti-discrimination laws - to try to limit the harm that a prejudiced and ignorant majority occasionally tries to inflict on harmless minority groups which they happen to have taken a dislike to.
In certain Christian circles there seems to be a belief that such anti-discrimination laws represent "persecution" of Christians (which I presume is what Steve is referring to), since the laws prevent Christians inflicting the level of harm on gay people that they wish to inflict. Christians are therefore "victims" of these laws because they are not allowed to hurt other people as much as their religious beliefs lead them to want to do.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And what does the Apostle mean when he speaks of "the Law"? This is important, because he is speaking in a Christian context.
My understanding is that he is sometimes speaking of Torah, which in Greek and English is translated as "law," but which in Hebrew has more the sense of "teaching" or "instruction," but sometimes speaking of the Levitical Code, which is also translated in Greek and English as "law." Paul is indeed speaking in a Christian context, but he is also speaking from a Jewish background.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I absolutely think that people should have the right to express their opinions freely. I also absolutely think I have the right to debate those opinions, show why (in my opinion) they are completely wrong-headed and ensure that people who may be harmed by those opinions are not harmed by them.
I am a gay person who has been harmed by these opinions. I have felt myself unable to engage in meaningful and close relationships with people that I have loved and do love sincerely because of internalised fear and loathing about my love for others and its expression. This is something I am angry about. It has taken me until now to realise that I have the right to be angry about it and to fight the Church on it.
As I said before I believe that sexuality is intrinsic and that you cannot separate the being and doing aspects of the intrinsic parts of yourself. With this in mind I interpret what Steve Langton is actually saying to be that certain kinds of DOING are not okay but other kinds of DOING i.e existing and living day to day are. This is why I think his argument is flawed and why I disagree so strongly with it. I would be happy for him to outline what forms of expression for gayness and gay sexuality are acceptable to him.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I do feel that, although minor compared to real persecution as suffered by the Apostles and, say, Christians in Stalinist Russia and some other countries, there have been occasions when the 'politically correct' (or people claiming to be so) have in fact over-reacted and can be realistically said to have improperly harassed Christians over various issues. And if my OP point is correct, that the issues surrounding gay sex are not simply the same as racism, then there would be a reasonable argument that calling it the same and demanding that people who don't just agree with the gay case should be treated like racists would be a form of improper persecution.
My aim is absolutely NOT that gay people be persecuted; but that some of the discourse might be more closely examined in the interests of a reconciling approach.
Sorta PS; I've just found on another thread a link to Benjamin L Corey's blog – interesting and so far it seems I agree with a lot of it....
So you belong to a sect that doesn't want to oppose legal homosexuality or same-sex civil marriage but doesn't think homosexuals can be valid practicing members of your denomination?
Are any of these non political Christians the Christians who are being harassed? Most of the harassment in the United States goes against people who organized initiatives against gay marriage or preached from the pulpit against constitutional amendments or who have allowed gay children to be bullied and attacked violently or fund ministers in Africa to get jail and capital punishment for being a homosexual.Are these the people you're worried about being harassed? If you're representing them, I would point out the saying about beams and motes.
I'll also point out that your magical different between being and doing applies here. It's ok to criticize these Christians because it's what they do, rather than what they are. If they didn't go to church or get baptized or fund raise for Christian laws none of them would be harassed as Christians.
The remaining "harassment" will be popular dislike of your exclusion of Gays from your church as sinners. Consider the 1960 Mormons who wouldn't let Black men be full members of the church. I think they were racists even though they claimed their scripture made them do it. Reconciliation with such a racist theology doesn't seem like a worthwhile effort. For me, reconciliation with a homophobic theology doesn't seem any better.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
It's not the homosexual gay people's fault- it's the fart demons.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Meaning 'gaydar' is in truth a well developed sense of smell?
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Are these the people you're worried about being harassed?
On the list you've given, they sound as if they brought their harassment upon themselves by being what Peter would have called "self-appointed-managers-of-other-people's-affairs" ('allotriepiskopoi', I Pet 4; 15), trying to impose their view via state law rather than persuade to voluntary acceptance as members of a voluntary body.
The problem is that the issues have become so heated that at times there is also harassment of people who aren't like that.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
So you belong to a sect that doesn't want to oppose legal homosexuality or same-sex civil marriage but doesn't think homosexuals can be valid practicing members of your denomination?
NOT a complete response, but to make you think about it; try "has serious doubts whether aggressively practicing homosexuals can be accepted as members". That is, making the distinction between 'being' and 'doing' which your way of expressing it doesn't make. We would, I hope, be open to demonstration that we've got that biblically wrong. Thus far many of us are not convinced on that point.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I don't think "self-appointed-managers-of-other-people's-affairs" refers to state action, otherwise it wouldn't be "self-appointed". It more refers to things like the community enforcement of strict Sabbatarianism in Lewis - when some people decide they know what is best for others and involve themselves in private decisions. The sort of "persuasion" directed at gay people by churches that think they should be celibate or pretend to be straight comes out of the same oppressive playbook. It's the same sort of coercion that results in FGM and forced marriage.
BTW I'd love to know how you practice homosexuality "aggressively".
[ 30. July 2014, 11:42: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, that's interesting. Do you mean, Steve, that if an actively gay couple in a stable relationship were fairly discreet about who they were and what they did, they would be acceptable to you and to your church?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think "self-appointed-managers-of-other-people's-affairs" refers to state action, otherwise it wouldn't be "self-appointed". It more refers to things like the community enforcement of strict Sabbatarianism in Lewis - when some people decide they know what is best for others and involve themselves in private decisions. The sort of "persuasion" directed at gay people by churches that think they should be celibate or pretend to be straight comes out of the same oppressive playbook. It's the same sort of coercion that results in FGM and forced marriage.
BTW I'd love to know how you practice homosexuality "aggressively".
Surely a Church has the right impose certain conditions upon membership? If one happens not to like the conditions then one doesn't have to join, surely?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
