|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: gay sex - being and doing
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He said: "The back passage is exit only. So sex is only possible between one man and one woman. Anything else is misuse of the reproductive organs."
There... are so many... responses... one could give to this guy (not to mention that he seems to be... rather... "back passage focused," shall we say, and apparently with no imagination to speak of)...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Well, he should look after his own sexual organs, and let other people look after theirs. Prurience.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
you are aware that there is no sexual activity that gay people do that straight people don't also do, right?
Though I seem to recall that last time you made a similar assertion you also had to admit that doing those activities often involved 'marital aids' - which seems just a bit at odds with the claim that gay sexual activity is 'natural'?
I'm still chuckling at this.
Due to this comment, I don't think I can take anything else Steve says seriously. Although I am still eager to hear all about why gay sex is bad, a comedic treat that was promised in the OP.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Starlight;
quote:
I'm still chuckling at this.
Due to this comment, I don't think I can take anything else Steve says seriously.
I'm still chuckling a bit myself. I of course recall the original exchange where that came up, and the contrast between Jade C's first emphatic statement and then, in response to my query, the admission that "Doing everything straight people can do" did involve 'artificial aids' was a bit of an anti-climax.
Actually one of the problems of discussion in this area is that human language uses the word 'natural' ambiguously; even in the NT you're often dependent on context or going back to the Greek as best you can to be sure whether 'natural' means "As God intended" or "As is now natural for sinful men (but unnatural in the other sense)".
And yes, I do need to say a bit more about my own views, and I will. But I'm having one of those weeks, and even if that were not so the sheer volume of response so far would probably be beyond me to deal with all of it. Rightly or wrongly I felt it better to intervene rarely on the thread in order to get Shipmates' views.
Some people still seem determined to attribute to me views I don't necessarily hold; others are not really engaging with the OP but simply seem to believe that 'gay' is somehow beyond criticism and entitled to automatically take the moral high ground. I don't take such a view of my own position - I know that I can't expect my views to be just accepted; like Peter I think in terms of being obliged to have an 'apologia' not a weak 'apology' but 'fitting words' to justify my beliefs and practice.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm still chuckling a bit myself.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:
I of course recall the original exchange where that came up, and the contrast between Jade C's first emphatic statement and then, in response to my query, the admission that "Doing everything straight people can do" did involve 'artificial aids' was a bit of an anti-climax.
I understand artificial aids can help with problems of anti-climax.
quote:
others are not really engaging with the OP but simply seem to believe that 'gay' is somehow beyond criticism and entitled to automatically take the moral high ground.
It's beyond criticism in the sense that there don't happen to exist any valid criticisms of it. Most people here have heard all the various attempts at criticism before and know why they aren't valid. It's not that gay rights are automatically entitled to the moral high ground, it's just that they've clearly won the moral high ground very successfully through the merits of the issue over the course of several decades of discussion.
quote:
I don't take such a view of my own position - I know that I can't expect my views to be just accepted; like Peter I think in terms of being obliged to have an 'apologia' not a weak 'apology' but 'fitting words' to justify my beliefs and practice.
Sure. At the point where you get around to expressing a logical argument against gay sex, a lot of people will point out the flaws in it for you. (Spoiler alert: There's no valid argument against gay sex.) In the meantime, in some of my previous posts, I have explained to you the harm done to gay people by discrimination against them, which is my justification for standing against anti-gay views and actions.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[T]here is no sexual activity that gay people do that straight people don't also do, right?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm still chuckling a bit myself. I of course recall the original exchange where that came up, and the contrast between Jade C's first emphatic statement and then, in response to my query, the admission that "Doing everything straight people can do" did involve 'artificial aids' was a bit of an anti-climax.
You seem determined to reverse the direction of JC's argument. So what is is that gay couples can do that straight couples can't/don't/won't?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Um, perhaps be less likely to turn 'that's not for me' into 'that's disgusting and sinful'?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Although I am still eager to hear all about why gay sex is bad
That's obvious. It leads to interior decorating. Interior decoration might involve graven images.
Will nobody think of the children?!
--------------------
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
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Um, perhaps be less likely to turn 'that's not for me' into 'that's disgusting and sinful'?
Haha so true!
It seems to me that male gay couples seem to be more commonly in open or semi-open ("monogamish") relationships.
That can be interpreted to mean they are more committed or less committed, depending on who you ask!
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
...and I've met more than one gay man who thinks that lesbians are (to quote one of them) 'like tortoises- they mate for life'(!)
A stereotype, then, but not really a condemnatory one.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Starlight;
quote:
I'm still chuckling at this.
Due to this comment, I don't think I can take anything else Steve says seriously.
I'm still chuckling a bit myself. I of course recall the original exchange where that came up, and the contrast between Jade C's first emphatic statement and then, in response to my query, the admission that "Doing everything straight people can do" did involve 'artificial aids' was a bit of an anti-climax.
Actually one of the problems of discussion in this area is that human language uses the word 'natural' ambiguously; even in the NT you're often dependent on context or going back to the Greek as best you can to be sure whether 'natural' means "As God intended" or "As is now natural for sinful men (but unnatural in the other sense)".
And yes, I do need to say a bit more about my own views, and I will. But I'm having one of those weeks, and even if that were not so the sheer volume of response so far would probably be beyond me to deal with all of it. Rightly or wrongly I felt it better to intervene rarely on the thread in order to get Shipmates' views.
Some people still seem determined to attribute to me views I don't necessarily hold; others are not really engaging with the OP but simply seem to believe that 'gay' is somehow beyond criticism and entitled to automatically take the moral high ground. I don't take such a view of my own position - I know that I can't expect my views to be just accepted; like Peter I think in terms of being obliged to have an 'apologia' not a weak 'apology' but 'fitting words' to justify my beliefs and practice.
Please stop saying I 'admitted' anything - I did not 'admit' anything in the sense that I said something which destroyed my argument, because the presence of marital aids does not somehow invalidate sex. Same-gender sex can indeed do all the things different-gender sex can, and vice versa - that some things involve marital aids doesn't change anything, I didn't 'admit' that it made it lesser somehow. That was all your prejudice. Many straight couples need marital aids because of medication, illness etc - so good to know that you view their sex lives as unnatural and inferior.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
'Marital aids'. Presumably until March this year, gay couples in England and Wales had to make do with 'civil partnership aids'.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Um, perhaps be less likely to turn 'that's not for me' into 'that's disgusting and sinful'?
I think the disgust thing (or "ick factor" as it's sometimes called) is an important thing to look at in the argument. I think it usually stands not on the conclusion side but on the premise side. In other words the argument is not "that's not for me, therefore that's disgusting and sinful" but rather "that's disgusting, therefore that's not for me, therefore that's sinful."
For me, the idea of french-kissing a guy is icky. I can't imagine so doing. But I do not conclude from this that it is sinful. There are a lot of things that I find icky, but do not conclude from that that they are sinful. I see no reason why gay sex isn't in the same category. But I think people confuse their personal comfort zone with some kind of God-given inner moral revulsion facility. Using this facility, they easily deduce that gay sex is sinful. They then cast about for arguments to support their conclusion.
Oddly, they do not conclude that eating raw oysters is sinful, even though they may have the exact same revulsion thereat. Okay, it's not so odd.
[ 31. July 2014, 17:13: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
others are not really engaging with the OP but simply seem to believe that 'gay' is somehow beyond criticism and entitled to automatically take the moral high ground.
The problem is that over the 30+ years I've debated this issue (yes, I'm old and need to get a life), I've never heard any criticism other than "It's icky and God doesn't like it."
From my perspective as a gay man here the the facts:
1) Gay people exist. With very few (mostly bisexual) exceptions, it's not chosen, nor can it be changed. Homosexuality is found among many species of animals including our closest cousins chimpanzees and bonobos. So it's not just a human perversion traced to depraved minds or bad upbringing.
2) Sexuality involves far more than sexual acts. If I had a dollar for each time someone has asked the eye-rolling question: "How did you know you are gay when you're celibate?" I could buy a new car. When people condemn homosexuality, it's hard as a gay man not to see that as a condemnation of me as a person. I'm still gay even if I never have sex again. It always amazes me that straight people can't see their sexuality as more than a sex act. Perhaps it's the same kind of blindness white people (like me) have about race. People, even those who are celibate, can't separate themselves from their sexuality.
3) There is nothing inherently harmful about gay intimacy. It isn't like murder, rape, adultery or theft in that it's not abusive, deceptive or causes physical pain. Things tend to be categorized as sinful because they cause harm. (See Romans 13:8-10). There are certain medical risks gay males could encounter at higher rates than straight people, but straight people have their own list of risks.
4) Gay intimacy is extremely pleasurable for those who do it. Kissing, touching oral and anal sex simply feel good. If it's with someone you're in an ongoing relationship with, it leads to greater emotional intimacy and fosters commitment, just like it does for straight married couples. It's life enhancing. It meets a basic need we have as human beings.
5) Christianity, unlike Islam and Judaism, tends to be wary of purity codes. Jesus spent a lot of his ministry exposing the harm of enforcing purity codes for the sake of enforcing purity codes. He healed on the Sabbath; he spoke out against the food and cleanliness laws, he touched the unclean and even praised unclean people for coming to the aid of other unclean people.
At best, gay relationships break a purity code. When people say "It's icky and God doesn't like it" but can't say how it causes objective harm, they are invoking purity. In my opinion the onus is on them to demonstrate why this purity code should remain in effect. I find that invoking Biblical prooftexts (Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy) is unpersuasive because these prohibitions tend to be tied to certain specific contexts and most Biblical scholars would agree, the notion of innately gay people didn't exist in the ancient world.
So I don't engage the OP because it's the same OP I've read approximately 978,456 times over the past 30 years and I'm simply bored with the assertions. There are numerous threats in DH and across the internet where this has been engaged repeatedly.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
You seem determined to reverse the direction of JC's argument. So what is is that gay couples can do that straight couples can't/don't/won't?
Must admit that Jade's comment had so reminded me of the previous occasion I didn't notice I was reversing it this time. In general the answer to all ways round that this point can be made is that by definition gay sex can't be exactly like straight sex because in straight sex there is naturally complementary equipment and in gay sex both partners have the same kit, which obviously can't be made to work in the same way together. It really isn't exactly the same. situation.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
You seem determined to reverse the direction of JC's argument. So what is is that gay couples can do that straight couples can't/don't/won't?
Must admit that Jade's comment had so reminded me of the previous occasion I didn't notice I was reversing it this time. In general the answer to all ways round that this point can be made is that by definition gay sex can't be exactly like straight sex because in straight sex there is naturally complementary equipment and in gay sex both partners have the same kit, which obviously can't be made to work in the same way together. It really isn't exactly the same. situation.
But that's not the question. The question isn't about being but doing, according to the OP. Being equipped differently therefore isn't really relevant.
But even if we granted that is a relevant objection (which I don't), you're still arguing from straight people to gay people (straight people can have PIV sex and gay people can't, therefore something-or-other), whereas what is on the table is going the other way. What do gay people *DO* in bed that straight people don't? Fellatio? Nope. Cunnilingus? Nope. Sodomy? Nope. Fisting? Nope. Straight people do all those things.
[ 31. July 2014, 17:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
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 Albertus:
...and I've met more than one gay man who thinks that lesbians are (to quote one of them) 'like tortoises- they mate for life'(!)
A stereotype, then, but not really a condemnatory one.
It may even be a stereotype when applied to tortoises. A lot of the animals we think of as monogamous turn out not to be upon closer examination.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
But that's not the question. The question isn't about being but doing, according to the OP. Being equipped differently therefore isn't really relevant.
The OP is concerned with a contrast between 'being and doing' as applied to the issue of racism, and 'being and doing' as applied to gay people. And therefore an implication that a lot of current ways of construing the gay issue may be misled and misleading.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
But that's not the question. The question isn't about being but doing, according to the OP. Being equipped differently therefore isn't really relevant.
The OP is concerned with a contrast between 'being and doing' as applied to the issue of racism, and 'being and doing' as applied to gay people. And therefore an implication that a lot of current ways of construing the gay issue may be misled and misleading.
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of whether being opposed to inter-racial marriage is despicable racism since it's doing rather than being or if it's fine if your theology tells you that God intended the races to stay pure. Does the being vs. doing excuse mean that such racism shouldn't be criticized as despicable?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
But that's not the question. The question isn't about being but doing, according to the OP. Being equipped differently therefore isn't really relevant.
The OP is concerned with a contrast between 'being and doing' as applied to the issue of racism, and 'being and doing' as applied to gay people. And therefore an implication that a lot of current ways of construing the gay issue may be misled and misleading.
I wrote two paragraphs. This one is almost a throwaway. Do you have any response to the second one?
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
The OP is concerned with a contrast between 'being and doing' as applied to the issue of racism, and 'being and doing' as applied to gay people. And therefore an implication that a lot of current ways of construing the gay issue may be misled and misleading.
Interestingly a lot of contemporary racists quibble over the same distinction. It's one of the reasons they prefer to be called "racial realists" instead of "racists" (though I see no need to humor them in this regard). They assert that they don't hate anyone, they just have a "realistic" view that there are important cognitive and behavioral differences between various racial and ethnic groups ("doings" rather than "being") which just happen to correspond exactly with historical racism. They also like to claim that they're being persecuted by the PC police simply for expressing the truth that everyone knows but are afraid to admit.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
You seem determined to reverse the direction of JC's argument. So what is is that gay couples can do that straight couples can't/don't/won't?
Must admit that Jade's comment had so reminded me of the previous occasion I didn't notice I was reversing it this time. In general the answer to all ways round that this point can be made is that by definition gay sex can't be exactly like straight sex because in straight sex there is naturally complementary equipment and in gay sex both partners have the same kit, which obviously can't be made to work in the same way together. It really isn't exactly the same. situation.
Actually no, that's not true. There are plenty of same-gender (not everyone having sex with someone of the same gender is gay) couples where one partner is transgender and the 'equipment' involved is indeed what you would consider complimentary. I know it's not the point being discussed in the OP but I hope mousethief and the others don't mind me picking up on this, because it's a nasty bit of gender-essentialism that harms non-straight and straight people alike. Plenty of straight couples don't have strictly complimentary equipment for one reason or another, it doesn't make their sex lives invalid or unnatural. A dildo is functionally a penis and serves the same purpose wrt sex. Sex without artificial equipment and sex with it are no more dissimilar to each other than someone walking with legs they were born with and someone walking with an artificial limb.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of whether being opposed to inter-racial marriage is despicable racism since it's doing rather than being or if it's fine if your theology tells you that God intended the races to stay pure. Does the being vs. doing excuse mean that such racism shouldn't be criticized as despicable?
IF my theology told me the races are supposed to stay pure I might logically have a different position - of course I would also belong to a different religion!! (i.e., not Christian)
"In Christ" there is no 'this-that-or-the-other-race' so the 'doing' in this case would simply be an ordinary marriage - how would you find that a problem? The suggestion that such conduct is a specifically racial 'doing' is specious.
In other cases cultural differences in 'doing' could rightly be subject to moral question; in some cases you might find that there wasn't a real moral question but only disguised racism, in other cases, eg child sacrifice, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be letting worries about 'racism' get in your way in criticising the culture. The moral questions can't just be written out at square one by suggesting they're racist - plus the principle would apply both ways, both cultures would have to face the criticism.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of whether being opposed to inter-racial marriage is despicable racism since it's doing rather than being or if it's fine if your theology tells you that God intended the races to stay pure. Does the being vs. doing excuse mean that such racism shouldn't be criticized as despicable?
IF my theology told me the races are supposed to stay pure I might logically have a different position - of course I would also belong to a different religion!! (i.e., not Christian)
That seems like either a very historically ignorant view of Christianity or a very historically selective one.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"In Christ" there is no 'this-that-or-the-other-race' so the 'doing' in this case would simply be an ordinary marriage - how would you find that a problem? The suggestion that such conduct is a specifically racial 'doing' is specious.
Historically a popular interpretation of that quote focused on the idea that these distinctions didn't matter "in Christ" but in more worldly matters certain Old Testament passages about the importance of separateness should be followed.
Sure you could argue that this is selective, but it's no more selective than you citing your favorite passage about how we shouldn't make distinctions between "Jew [and] Gentile" but completely ignore its admonition not to distinguish between "male and female". It would be just as easy to argue in favor of same-sex marriage thus:
quote:
Originally posted by [a more consistent] Steve Langton:
"In Christ" there is no 'this-that-or-the-other-[gender]' so the 'doing' in this case would simply be an ordinary marriage - how would you find that a problem? The suggestion that such conduct is a specifically [gendered] 'doing' is specious.
I'm not sure how you can proof-text Galatians to argue that there's no such thing as an improper ethnic mismatch in marriage and still argue that there is such a thing as a gender mismatch in marriage.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Except...
Saying in Christ there is no racial distinction is a restoration of the original purpose of God. IN Christ there is neither male nor female is also a restoration of the creation intent.
But there is no need of restoration about marriage. Marriage is part of the unspoiled, and Jesus said, quoting the creation story, that God made them 'male and female'. That still stands - like it or not!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
If marriage is perfect, why will it not exist in heaven, as Jesus told the Sadducees? Surely all things that are perfect will survive the resurrection?
I read Galatians precisely as has been described - that God does not care about whether people are male or female, any more than he cares about their race or economic status.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Marriage is not needed in heaven. But it is still needed on earth, and as God designed, as Jesus confirmed it to be - not as we think we know better.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Marriage is not needed in heaven. But it is still needed on earth, and as God designed, as Jesus confirmed it to be - not as we think we know better.
Marriage is a "doing" thing. What precisely do you feel is 'done' within it, and does it qualitatively change when "done" by same or different genders?
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Saying in Christ there is no racial distinction is a restoration of the original purpose of God. IN Christ there is neither male nor female is also a restoration of the creation intent.
I see the Galatians passage as teaching that in God's eyes racial distinctions don't matter, nor do male-female distinctions. Sure, both things still exist on earth, but they just don't matter to God theologically. Therefore interracial marriage is okay with God, and therefore same-sex marriage is okay with God. He doesn't care about race and he doesn't care about gender, he's the God of all.
quote:
Jesus said, quoting the creation story, that God made them 'male and female'. That still stands - like it or not!
It's still true that people are male and female.* It's still true that people get married. Male and female people get married on a regular basis, this still happens. The passage doesn't say that those are the only kind of people that can marry, you're creatively inserting your own interpretation and limitations into it.
* except for intersex people of whom this was never true
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Saying in Christ there is no racial distinction is a restoration of the original purpose of God. IN Christ there is neither male nor female is also a restoration of the creation intent.
I see the Galatians passage as teaching that in God's eyes racial distinctions don't matter, nor do male-female distinctions. Sure, both things still exist on earth, but they just don't matter to God theologically. Therefore interracial marriage is okay with God, and therefore same-sex marriage is okay with God. He doesn't care about race and he doesn't care about gender, he's the God of all.
I would agree, though I think he may have been doing more. Paul may well have been responding to a theme that seems to have been common at the time. It took somewhat definitive form in the Birkhot Hashachar (morning blessings) of Jewish liturgy a century or so after Paul—"Blessed are you, O God, Ruler of the Universe, who has not created me . . . a Gentile, . . . a slave, . . . a woman." Forms of these three "has not created me" blessings existed earlier in Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Greek philosophy. Diogenes reported that Socrates considered himself blessed not to have been born a beast, a barbarian or a woman.
Paul is presenting the radical idea that the distinctions that not only mattered but were sources of pride and superiority in much of the ancient world were meaningless in Christ, and he appears to do it by echoing the three distinctions that would have been familiar to his audience.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wrote two paragraphs. This one is almost a throwaway. Do you have any response to the second one?
Waiting.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The only time that 'naturally complementary' genitalia mean anything is when you're trying to procreate. The notion that sexual pleasure can only be derived when a penis is inserted into a vagina is manifestly false, as is the notion that this is the only thing that constitutes 'sex'.
I'll say it again: I'm perfectly fine with a principle that says the only permissible kind of sex is the procreative kind, so long as you apply that principle to everyone.
The fact that there is a vast amount of non-procreative heterosexual sex going on is the elephant in the room that most conservative Christians simply refuse to talk about.
The idea that 'gay sex' is somehow a different kind of sex is true in one case, and one case only. In every other case, our DOING is exactly the same as your DOING. Which makes me suspect very much that it's not our DOING that you actually have an objection to, it's our BEING.
[ 01. August 2014, 03:19: 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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that 'gay sex' is somehow a different kind of sex is true in one case, and one case only. In every other case, our DOING is exactly the same as your DOING. Which makes me suspect very much that it's not our DOING that you actually have an objection to, it's our BEING.
So, "having sex while gay." Which is remarkably parallel to "driving while black."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, "having sex while gay." Which is remarkably parallel to "driving while black."
Just imagine, having sex while driving while being both black and gay!
Arguably that would probably be dangerous for somewhat different reasons than social or legal disapproval, though.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of whether being opposed to inter-racial marriage is despicable racism since it's doing rather than being or if it's fine if your theology tells you that God intended the races to stay pure. Does the being vs. doing excuse mean that such racism shouldn't be criticized as despicable?
IF my theology told me the races are supposed to stay pure I might logically have a different position - of course I would also belong to a different religion!! (i.e., not Christian)
"In Christ" there is no 'this-that-or-the-other-race' so the 'doing' in this case would simply be an ordinary marriage - how would you find that a problem? The suggestion that such conduct is a specifically racial 'doing' is specious.
In other cases cultural differences in 'doing' could rightly be subject to moral question; in some cases you might find that there wasn't a real moral question but only disguised racism, in other cases, eg child sacrifice, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be letting worries about 'racism' get in your way in criticising the culture. The moral questions can't just be written out at square one by suggesting they're racist - plus the principle would apply both ways, both cultures would have to face the criticism.
It's interesting to hear that the 15 million Southern Baptists , one of the largest denominations in the Southern United States, were not Christians before the 1990's. I'm sure it will come as a surprise to them as well. I'm glad I didn't use the Mormons as an example.
I'm not saying your theology is racist. I'm saying that until the quite recent past, many groups of Christians in the United States were Racist. By your rules of engagement, an organization like Bob Jones University which in 1975 admitted Black students but prohibited inter-racial dating or marriage for theological reasons would be exempt from criticism because their rules of exclusion were for doing and not being. I'm saying this was racist and despicable. Do you think they should be exempt from criticism?
Note that he historic racism is not the current stances of these churches. They have all offered formal apologies which makes them good examples because there isn't any doubt of what they were doing prior to the recent past.
You keep providing excuses by personalizing the examples and saying they don't apply to you. It's not your theology, but your claim that a group of Christians is entitled to deference for discrimination for theological reasons based on doing and not being and the group shouldn't be subject to public criticism for doing so.
If they get the theology wrong, how are they going to get it right if they are above criticism.
It doesn't make a justifiable excuse for them, and it doesn't for you either.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The OP is concerned with a contrast between 'being and doing' as applied to the issue of racism, and 'being and doing' as applied to gay people. And therefore an implication that a lot of current ways of construing the gay issue may be misled and misleading. [/QB]
So I think there are some basic ethical and philosophical assumptions here that need to be unpicked.
On a fundamental level there is no reason why we should view the physiological differences of race and the physiological/psychological differences within the plurality of sexual expression as being in any way different from one another. They are, at their basic level, simply different expressions of humanity. They are neutral.
Where problems arise is when we attempt to attribute moral and ethical significance to these differing expressions of humanity.
The problem that I think exists between (pardon the oversimplification) Christians and LGBT supporters is that they are using basically opposing ethical and moral systems to interpret the world. Christian ethics is for the most part Deontological and operates within a system of moral absolutes (the commanded by God idea) whereas contemporary secular morality appears to be far more based in Virtue ethics which places more emphasis on the individual to evaluate and judge the appropriateness of behaviours and attitudes. Okay so it's not that simple but broadly speaking this is what I see to be happening and it seems to be a case of never the twain shall meet sometimes.
Going back to the specific question in the OP over the distinction between gay people and people who are victims of racism and viewing it in this light you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
There is no divine command by God (although people tried to read one into the Bible) to develop and maintain racist systems and so Christians and the rest of the world are in agreement that racism cannot and should not be supported. However, Christians believe that there is a command from God that gay actions are bad and so therefore feel compelled to campaign against it, meanwhile the rest of the world looks on slightly bemused operating from an entirely different ethical basis.
Those in support of LGBT rights DO feel very strongly that the behaviour of Christians IS like racism in that it is unjustified and illogical persecution of someone for an expression of their personhood that is just as natural as the colour of a person's skin or eyes.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that 'gay sex' is somehow a different kind of sex is true in one case, and one case only. In every other case, our DOING is exactly the same as your DOING. Which makes me suspect very much that it's not our DOING that you actually have an objection to, it's our BEING.
So, "having sex while gay." Which is remarkably parallel to "driving while black."
Indeed. I didn't pick up that particular parallel, but it's a suitable one.
--------------------
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 Macrina;
quote:
The problem that I think exists between (pardon the oversimplification) Christians and LGBT supporters is that they are using basically opposing ethical and moral systems to interpret the world.
I was wondering when someone was going to notice that one/whether they were going to notice it before I posted about it.
In my mind the big problem we currently have is that for centuries Christians have been failing to realise that such a difference is supposed to exist between church and world, and that which view you accept, and how you behave as a result, is supposed to be voluntary. Instead we have had the travesty of 'Christian countries' blurring the church/world distinction and imposing a wrongful conformity of belief and behaviour on all. The gay issues have been caught up in that and the arguments exaggerated and overheated as a result - especially in relation to the UK's established CofE in recent years.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Without wanting to junior-host, is there any way you can keep off your favourite hobby-horse, Steve? It's not really relevant to the questions being discussed.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was wondering when someone was going to notice that one/whether they were going to notice it before I posted about it.
In my mind the big problem we currently have is that for centuries Christians have been failing to realise that such a difference is supposed to exist between church and world, and that which view you accept, and how you behave as a result, is supposed to be voluntary. Instead we have had the travesty of 'Christian countries' blurring the church/world distinction and imposing a wrongful conformity of belief and behaviour on all. The gay issues have been caught up in that and the arguments exaggerated and overheated as a result - especially in relation to the UK's established CofE in recent years.
No difference is 'supposed' to exist. Just because one does it does not follow that it should or should not. 'The Church and the World' all too easily becomes a way of justifying Christian wrong-doing against those it seeks to oppress by allowing it to hide amongst some idea that because it's separated it's better.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
There is no divine command by God (although people tried to read one into the Bible) to develop and maintain racist systems and so Christians and the rest of the world are in agreement that racism cannot and should not be supported.
I firmly believe that in less than a hundred years pretty much everyone will be saying the same thing about homophobia. The trouble is that we're still in the "people try to read such prohibitions into the Bible" stage right now.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, the homophobia currently permitted to the churches in the UK is surely a temporary phenomenon, although I suppose a rump (!) of ardent fag-bashers may survive in some form or other. But I would think that they will be seen rather like British Israelites.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The Church cannot and will not ever change its teaching regarding this, otherwise it's just proof (probably just another one of a long list of proofs) that they're not the Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
There is no divine command by God (although people tried to read one into the Bible) to develop and maintain racist systems and so Christians and the rest of the world are in agreement that racism cannot and should not be supported.
I firmly believe that in less than a hundred years pretty much everyone will be saying the same thing about homophobia. The trouble is that we're still in the "people try to read such prohibitions into the Bible" stage right now.
I sincerely hope this is the case and that I might live to see it, extremely unlikely though this is.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Without wanting to junior-host, is there any way you can keep off your favourite hobby-horse, Steve? It's not really relevant to the questions being discussed.
Are you being serious??
by Macrina;
quote:
No difference is 'supposed' to exist.
Try telling that to Paul; that difference is a key point in almost all his epistles.
by Macrina;
quote:
'The Church and the World' all too easily becomes a way of justifying Christian wrong-doing against those it seeks to oppress by allowing it to hide amongst some idea that because it's separated it's better.
Even that - which I wouldn't say is necessarily true anyway - is a great deal better than the oppression that arises when the church has tried to actually run the world.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Ad Orientem - the Church has already changed its mind on racism, slavery and anti-Semitism - think Luther's descriptions of the Jews and the justifications for driving Jews out of Europe through the Middle Ages - often with a religious basis. Paul's writings (and those of Deuteronomy and Leviticus) take the existence of slavery as understood. These days we read the Bible with a different lens and don't see racism, slavery or anti-Semitism as acceptable.
Many churches have already changed their minds on sexism and the role of women, although not all churches. And again that's through reading the gospels, reading about the roles of Mary Magdalene, Lydia, Priscilla and others.
Many people believe that the religious proscriptions on homosexuality will change in the next few years as they are based on a few verses that are in a context where much of the surrounding text is now ignored (Leviticus - shellfish, mixed fibres, etc) or are unclear and could be interpreted in a different way (Paul in Romans, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Church cannot and will not ever change its teaching regarding this, otherwise it's just proof (probably just another one of a long list of proofs) that they're not the Church.
Nonsense - they'll just redefine the homophobic teachings as "not a core part of the faith" and use the age-old "we are only guaranteed to be correct about core parts of the faith" tactic. Just as they have every other time they've changed their mind about something.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There is also a de facto de-homophobization that is going on, surely? There are gay-affirmative churches which are Anglican, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are Catholic ones. Is an Anglican or Catholic priest really going to deny communion to somebody gay?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Ad Orientem - the Church has already changed its mind on racism, slavery and anti-Semitism - think Luther's descriptions of the Jews and the justifications for driving Jews out of Europe through the Middle Ages - often with a religious basis. Paul's writings (and those of Deuteronomy and Leviticus) take the existence of slavery as understood. These days we read the Bible with a different lens and don't see racism, slavery or anti-Semitism as acceptable.
Many churches have already changed their minds on sexism and the role of women, although not all churches. And again that's through reading the gospels, reading about the roles of Mary Magdalene, Lydia, Priscilla and others.
Many people believe that the religious proscriptions on homosexuality will change in the next few years as they are based on a few verses that are in a context where much of the surrounding text is now ignored (Leviticus - shellfish, mixed fibres, etc) or are unclear and could be interpreted in a different way (Paul in Romans, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah)
That at times Christians have acted in certain way, or that they have justified those acts using scripture, is not proof that that is what the Church has always taught. One would also have to define the Church, something that we will not agree on. So I don't accept that argument. neither do I accept the argument that the Christian prohibition of sexual immorality, which has always included same sex relations, is based on some arbitrary understanding of the Law, something which I argued earlier in this thread. The Law is dead. Christian understanding of sexuality is founded on the Gospel in which our Lord tells us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That at times Christians have acted in certain way, or that they have justified those acts using scripture, is not proof that that is what the Church has always taught.
Your handwaving away of historical evidence about what Christians have believed and done, simply shows your whole view of Christianity and Christian history is based on wishful thinking and not on the actual realities. Your concept of this magical church that always gets everything right, never gets anything wrong, never changes its mind, and teaches exactly what you happen to wish it teaches, is purely fictitious and does not exist anywhere except your imagination. It seems to basically be a way for you to bolster your personal views and prejudices with appeals to the (non-existent) authority of this imaginary, idealized, and self-aggrandizing Church of which you are apparently the sole prophet of, who seems self-appointed to communicate the true teachings of this "Church" (ie you) to the rest of the Christians here who keep pointing out all the ways you're blatantly wrong in almost everything you're saying.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
