|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: gay sex - being and doing
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of those interpretations makes my life a living hell as a result of an innate characteristic I have no control over. The other doesn't. I'll leave you to figure out which one I think is more likely to be the correct expression of the will of a loving Creator.
The Orthodox and Conservative Jews (who believe the Law is binding) would invoke the concept of Kevod HaBeriyot in situations like this. Kevod HaBeriyot means that the dignity of a human being comes first. If the application of a law leads to suffering or humiliation to God's people, it must not be interpreted or applied correctly.
quote:
If celibacy for homosexuals were merely considered unfeasible, then our topic would be amenable to individual dispensations rather than challenging the entire structure of the law. However, there is a second halakhic principle that is undermined by our current policy*: human dignity. The halakhic status quo is deeply degrading to gay and lesbian Jews. Quite apart from social and literary trends that have taught contempt for homosexuals, legal norms that either ignore them or cruelly demand the absolute suppression of their libido create an environment of humiliation. At this point it is impossible for responsible poskim to ignore this dynamic.
In Hilkhot Teshuvah (4:4), Maimonides lists five sins from which it is difficult to desist since they are treated casually by most people. Among them is dignifying oneself through the humiliation (even passive) of another. Because most people are indifferent to the humiliation of others, there is little social motivation for the offender to repent and restore respect to his neighbor. This description helps explain the great reluctance of many religious authorities to reconsider the dilemma of homosexuals.
Rabbinical Assembly: Homosexuality, Human Dignity and Halakhah (Warning PDF download!)
When Conservative Jews looked at the prohibitions on homosexuality, they invoked Kevod HaBeriyot and decided that while they couldn't override the Biblical prohibition found in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 the prohibitions could be reinterpreted (using the principle of "Dor dor v’doroshav" or "each generation demands its own interpretation of the law", based on Deuteronomy 17:9.) So they interpreted the law in the most literal way possible. Lesbian and gay couples are welcomed into Conservative Judaism, gays and lesbians could be ordained as rabbis, relationships can be blessed, but "to lie with a man as with a woman" (which is universally understood to be a euphemism for male-to-male anal sex) continued to be considered sinful. All other forms of intimacy, companionship and relationship-building were allowed and even celebrated.
Now I only wish more Christians who invoke Biblical (OT or NT) law were as compassionate, nuanced and solution-oriented as the Jews who wrestle with their law. But as the Conservatives said above "[M]ost people are indifferent to the humiliation of others, there is little social motivation for the offender to repent and restore respect to his neighbor" so these Christians quote away.
That document I linked to above is a good read. They put much more thought and struggle into understanding their law than we do with ours.
*mandatory celibacy for LGBT Conservative Jews
--------------------
"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
ToujoursDan;
the Conservative Jewish position you outline is actually quite close to my own.... I perhaps get there by a different route.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
ToujoursDan;
the Conservative Jewish position you outline is actually quite close to my own.... I perhaps get there by a different route.
That seems unlikely. I'm not sure believing gays owe you some kind of groveling apology is compatible with most notions of human dignity.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The Orthodox and Conservative Jews (who believe the Law is binding) would invoke the concept of Kevod HaBeriyot in situations like this. Kevod HaBeriyot means that the dignity of a human being comes first. If the application of a law leads to suffering or humiliation to God's people, it must not be interpreted or applied correctly.
Well then I have great respect for them.
It seems to me that the biggest problem with ideologically entrenched positions on this subject (or indeed any subject) is a lack of empirical testing. What are the fruits of the position, or interpretation? Does that theory actually work?
So I give a sincere round of applause to any bunch of people who actually do a bit of observation and go 'hang on, that can't be right, look what happens when you try to apply that'.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It seems to me that the biggest problem with ideologically entrenched positions on this subject (or indeed any subject) is a lack of empirical testing. What are the fruits of the position, or interpretation? Does that theory actually work?
Yeah, context. Does an interpretation fit with the overall message?
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Lesbian and gay couples are welcomed into Conservative Judaism, gays and lesbians could be ordained as rabbis, relationships can be blessed, but "to lie with a man as with a woman" (which is universally understood to be a euphemism for male-to-male anal sex) continued to be considered sinful. All other forms of intimacy, companionship and relationship-building were allowed and even celebrated.
That's... awesome. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) And it is essentially my own position and how I live my own life, as I have posted elsewhere (on a dedicated thread back in T&T, in fact, lo those many years ago).
Speaking of celebrating relationships, I have been dithering on the Ship too long so I need to go back and watch TV with Cubby. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
If it's not clear, one doesn't have to be celibate to be meet the halakah requirement in Conservative Judaism. Kissing, hugging, mutual masturbation, toys, whatever are all acceptable. Just the penis-in-anus act is prohibited. And they even recognize that that one prohibition may be difficult:
quote:
We are aware that the continued biblical ban on anal sex may be extremely difficult for some gay men to observe, and that this ban is in some ways more challenging than the ban on menstrual intimacy for heterosexual couples for 7-14 days per month. However, this responsum provides gay men with other options for sexual intimacy, with full social acceptance in the observant Jewish community, and with a feasible path to a life of Torah observance.
[ 06. August 2014, 05:42: 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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I do think that there is a huge amount to be said for the Conservative/Orthodox Jewish approach to Biblical law/ethics - I may not agree with all of it (and I do disagree with them here that somehow penetrative anal sex between men is somehow mysteriously forbidden but everything else is fine - smacks of straight 'saving sex for marriage' types who somehow see anything that's not penis in vagina sex as not real sex and therefore allowed) but I do appreciate the rigorous and compassionate amount of scrutiny and also Biblical context that is applied - and do wish that conservative Christians would do the same.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If it's not clear, one doesn't have to be celibate to be meet the halakah requirement in Conservative Judaism. Kissing, hugging, mutual masturbation, toys, whatever are all acceptable. Just the penis-in-anus act is prohibited.
My reaction to hearing that was to ask why the penis-in-anus act is so bad when the rest is fine... except I then realized we're dealing with Jews who follow the Levitical laws here, so I guess they're all about the following of reasonless rules, as that's their thing.
However, Christians tend to reject anything in the levitical law that can be called reasonless and instead insist that the only levitical laws that are still relevant are moral ones that have a clear rationale. Which brings us back to the fact that if Christians want to say certain levitical laws are still relevant they need a clear rationale for them. The anti-gay levitical laws just don't seem to have a good rationale.* No one seems to be able to come up with any sensible explanation as to what harm committed gay Christian marriages (with sex implied) do to anyone.
* They don't have a good rationale in the present day. I accept however that they were somewhat justified in ancient times for the following reasons: (1) Certain cultures the Israelites interacted with practiced sex-rituals as part of idolatrous worship, so severe limitations on sex are possibly justifiable to stamp out idolatory. (2) Economic realities in ancient times among the Israelites of certain periods meant that men needed to have children, and that meant having a wife, which meant that male-male sexual interactions would be extra-marital and hence non-monogamous, and could be potential sources of uncontrolled STD outbreaks in pre-condom pre-medicine times. However, in the present, where same-sex activity is not related to idolatry, where it is economically plausible to be in a committed same sex relationship due to the lack of an economic need for children and/or the ability to adopt children, where condoms exist and where medicine is decent, there is no longer any rationale for excluding same-sex activities as there is not a single harm that can be pointed to.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
The reasoning of Halacha may not be your reasoning, but that doesn't mean it's 'reasonless' Starlight. Generally speaking, Talmudic logic is pretty reasonable in comparison with most non-Thomist Christian theology.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
that doesn't mean it's 'reasonless' Starlight.
I'm more than happy to be corrected, so go for it: Supply me with a reason.
How can anyone justify on logical and/or evidential grounds the banning of anal sex between men, but allowing anal sex between a man and a woman and allowing all other forms of sex between men? They can't of course.
It is clear that from reading the supplied links that their line of argument is, "um, the bible has this rule in it, and we can find no reason or logical justification for it, so we'll do our best to interpret it in a way that is minimalist and reduces the impact on people of this reason-less rule."
It's nice of them to try and interpret the reasonless rules that are harmful to people out of existence as much as possible, but they are still ultimately following reasonless rules that they admit are harmful to people.
quote:
The reasoning of Halacha may not be your reasoning
Logic is objective. You don't get to have your own subjective version of it.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Do they permit anal sex between men and women ?
(Rationale being, just think about the practicalities in a desert society without running water or condoms. Not necessarily relevant now though.)
[ 06. August 2014, 22:34: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do they permit anal sex between men and women ?
Yes.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
As I understand it, given that they--and indeed most (many? Some?) Christians--believe that revelation is involved, it's more a matter of trying to make sense of the rules within the context of the rules being given by God. Trying to figure out the details of why the rules were given does not always mean we can find complete answers within this world.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do they permit anal sex between men and women ?
Yes.
As long as the woman is the "bottom" (the penetratee). What is not allowed is for a man to be penetrated.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Really, we're coming back to Ingo's position. If Revelation is about the revealing of rules, then the "why" questions are irrelevant. A Rule has been given and that's all we need to know. It doesn't have to make sense to us. We simply have to obey it,unthinkingly.
If, on the other hand, Revelation is about the revealing of God's nature and purpose, then we are in a very different position.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I don't think it means the "why" is irrelevant; as I said,
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Trying to figure out the details of why the rules were given does not always mean we can find complete answers within this world.
Words like "always" and "complete" are pretty critical here, I think. It doesn't have to be a binary thing of "absolutely unquestionable rules that don't seem to make sense but must be followed to the letter" vs "only those things that make immediate sense to us already." Indeed, it seems to me that the position of the Jewish group mentioned above involves a lot of wrestling with things within the context of revelation without just blindly nodding or pitching it out.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Really, we're coming back to Ingo's position.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) OMG IngoB and I slightly overlap on something?? This will not do!!! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I would hope that all of us here share some notions in common to some degree, after all. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 07. August 2014, 02:48: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Really, we're coming back to Ingo's position. If Revelation is about the revealing of rules, then the "why" questions are irrelevant. A Rule has been given and that's all we need to know. It doesn't have to make sense to us. We simply have to obey it,unthinkingly.
If, on the other hand, Revelation is about the revealing of God's nature and purpose, then we are in a very different position.
Perhaps my professional context is colouring my thinking, but does anyone really think 'the rules are the rules and I must follow them without understanding why they are the rules?'
The people I draft rules for have to provide explanatory material as to what the rules are trying to achieve. Even if they weren't legally required to, surely they should. Surely people are more likely to obey rules if they understand the purpose of those rules.
(And in fact they have to explain their thinking to me at great length, so that I can assess whether the rules are actually going to achieve the intended policy. Anyone who thinks that drafting is basically typing up of their instructions finds out very quickly that isn't how it works! I'm less interested in the words they've chosen, and far more interested in what they think those words are going to DO.)
I suppose it's possible to conceive of God as basically being capricious and creating rules because he feels like it and can, for no particular reason and with no particular goal in mind, but it's not a version of God I'm very comfortable in conceiving.
Nor, I would suggest, is it a version of God that most conservative Christians are comfortable with, because most of them frequently point out how wise and clever God is and how the commandments he's issued are for our own good. The notion that "it's just a rule we have to follow, we don't have to know why" generally only comes into play when someone is faced with a rule they CAN'T see the rationale for, or a rule that appears to have a negative effect.
Either the character of God is that of a good and careful planner who creates rules that are beneficial to our interests, or His character is that of a capricious Master who creates policies purely for Himself. It could be one or the other, but I don't see how it can change based on the particular rule under discussion.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I suppose it's possible to conceive of God as basically being capricious and creating rules because he feels like it and can, for no particular reason and with no particular goal in mind, but it's not a version of God I'm very comfortable in conceiving.
I definitely don't believe He's like that. Though I do like the version of that character in My Little Pony, voiced by the inimitable John DeLancie.
(Yes. Q was on My Little Pony, which is a great show by the way.)
quote:
The notion that "it's just a rule we have to follow, we don't have to know why" generally only comes into play when someone is faced with a rule they CAN'T see the rationale for, or a rule that appears to have a negative effect.
And I think sometimes it's hard to figure out. In my own case, it took me years of study and prayer and research to conclude circa 2003 that masturbation was not, in fact, in itself a sin. (And if I am wrong, then of course may God forgive me!)
quote:
Either the character of God is that of a good and careful planner who creates rules that are beneficial to our interests, or His character is that of a capricious Master who creates policies purely for Himself. It could be one or the other, but I don't see how it can change based on the particular rule under discussion.
Well, I believe that God is a good and careful planner and Master Who creates rules which are indeed benefical to us, and that stem from His essential nature as Love--but that doesn't mean absolutely everything has to make complete sense (I beg people to note the words "absolutely" and "complete" and such other critical qualifiers) for me to obey the rules that I understand to have come from Him. (And of course when it might free one up to do things that are enjoyable, etc., one has to be very careful to not let the desire for that sway one's reasoning, or so I also believe.)
Heh, maybe we do need the T & T board to come back.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Really, we're coming back to Ingo's position. If Revelation is about the revealing of rules, then the "why" questions are irrelevant. A Rule has been given and that's all we need to know. It doesn't have to make sense to us. We simply have to obey it,unthinkingly.
If, on the other hand, Revelation is about the revealing of God's nature and purpose, then we are in a very different position.
If the former is true, then most of the bible is completely unnecessary and certainly the incarnation was a waste of time.
--------------------
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
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The Orthodox and Conservative Jews (who believe the Law is binding) would invoke the concept of Kevod HaBeriyot in situations like this. Kevod HaBeriyot means that the dignity of a human being comes first. If the application of a law leads to suffering or humiliation to God's people, it must not be interpreted or applied correctly.
This is very much how I reached my current theological position on homosexuality.
I believe that following Jesus will, in all ways, cause me to be more loving towards those around me. Therefore, if I'm becoming less loving than I would be were I not trying to follow Jesus, then I am clearly interpreting how I should follow him incorrectly.
...and my actions in opposing homosexuality were clearly less loving than they could be. So I looked around to find out if there were plausible ways to interpret scripture that were more loving than the way I was interpreting it, and there were!
I'm not a great theologian, so I couldn't give nearly the detailed defence of my position that some people here can. But that position can be defended by Christians I respect, and it appears to be a very loving - and thereby very Christlike - position, so I'm happy.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Starlight wrote:
quote:
They don't have a good rationale in the present day. I accept however that they were somewhat justified in ancient times for the following reasons: (1) Certain cultures the Israelites interacted with practiced sex-rituals as part of idolatrous worship, so severe limitations on sex are possibly justifiable to stamp out idolatory. (2) Economic realities in ancient times among the Israelites of certain periods meant that men needed to have children, and that meant having a wife, which meant that male-male sexual interactions would be extra-marital and hence non-monogamous, and could be potential sources of uncontrolled STD outbreaks in pre-condom pre-medicine times. However, in the present, where same-sex activity is not related to idolatry, where it is economically plausible to be in a committed same sex relationship due to the lack of an economic need for children and/or the ability to adopt children, where condoms exist and where medicine is decent, there is no longer any rationale for excluding same-sex activities as there is not a single harm that can be pointed to.
This would definitely be the position of Reform and Reconstructionalist Jews. Male anal sex was banned primarily because it associated with paganism (as evidenced by Leviticus 18:3 which comes before the list of banned acts - "You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.") It no longer is so this law is no longer in effect.
Conservative Jews may acknowledge the context but believe that the law would remain binding anyway, though its interpretation and application can change as times change. Orthodox Jews tend to disregard the context altogether.
[ 07. August 2014, 14:22: 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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do they permit anal sex between men and women ?
Yes.
As long as the woman is the "bottom" (the penetratee). What is not allowed is for a man to be penetrated.
See, that just points to it being a misogynist and homophobic law. What they really object to is the idea of a man being treated as a woman.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
And also leaves the little side issue that, in the UK at least, while anal sex is OK between consenting male adults it is actually against the law between a man and a woman... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think that that was superceded by the 2003 sexual offences act, in that a lot of older legislation was repealed at the same time.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Yeah, definitely not illegal in the UK. I believe Northern Ireland has a separate age of consent for male/female anal sex.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink: I think that that was superceded by the 2003 sexual offences act
(Oops. Was that before or after March 2003?)
[ 07. August 2014, 20:28: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do they permit anal sex between men and women ?
Yes.
As long as the woman is the "bottom" (the penetratee). What is not allowed is for a man to be penetrated.
See, that just points to it being a misogynist and homophobic law. What they really object to is the idea of a man being treated as a woman.
Exactly so.
--------------------
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
This is the homophobia aisle. You'll find misogyny in aisle 3.
--------------------
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:
This is the homophobia aisle. You'll find misogyny in aisle 3.
I think they're closely related. Homophobes hate gay men because they're too much like women -- letting down the side, so to speak.
--------------------
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
Yeah, I know. Hence the slightly flippant form of my remark.
There are definitely links between perceiving the sexes as unequal and being against a coupling of two people of the same sex. I remember realising on a Dead Horses thread a few years ago (with, I think, some able assistance from our esteemed Host, Louise) that it was actually the change in a woman's role in marriage that had made same-sex marriage logical.
--------------------
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
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are definitely links between perceiving the sexes as unequal and being against a coupling of two people of the same sex. I remember realising on a Dead Horses thread a few years ago (with, I think, some able assistance from our esteemed Host, Louise) that it was actually the change in a woman's role in marriage that had made same-sex marriage logical.
Me too! Louise's posts was one of those that seemed so obvious when she pointed it out but I had not worked it out for myself (despite being in such an equal marriage).
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
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?
I thought you recited the Nicene Creed... One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
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?
I thought you recited the Nicene Creed... One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Indeed.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
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!
Interesting point! (Or, actually two interesting points.) However they do it, I understand that male-male partnerships are statistically more stable than heterosexual. I was pleasantly surprised by these findings, having grown up with the propaganda that they were inherently unstable. The latter was easy to believe years ago, because the main way to meet and begin relating to other gay men was the bar scene, populated largely by those in the market, many of them promiscuous. It's the same phenomenon whereby psychiatrists once quite plausibly thought that homosexuality was a mental illness. After all, every homosexual who came to see them was mentally ill, and they never kwowingly met any others.
The success stories existed even then but were low profile: not only did they have no need to frequent the bars, but tended to avoid them as a bad influence. The darkness... the noise... the exhibitionism and narcissism of disco dancing... None of these conditions existed by accident, of course. The operators, as well as the original legal constraints, subtly arranged everything they could to minimize the possibility that participants would actually find a long-term compatible mate. Gotta keep 'em coming back for more. A successful match = two satisfied former customers.
Disco was a gay art from the word go, having originated as lemonade creatively squeezed out of the lemons of ordinances forbidding men from touching each other on a dance floor, or even having identifiable partners. And what lemonade! By the late 70s, heterosexuals wanted a taste of it, too, and it became quite the rage with them. Thus of their own free will, they made their own pairing-off prospects just as unpropitious as those of gays (sweet revenge!).
It must have been about ten years ago that Public Radio's This American Life reported on a federally funded study which observed conversations and body language of a sample of married couples, to learn what clues might be given off as to the success of the relationship. They were also able to study a few same-sex couples, thanks to a bit of subterfuge in the grant application. This was during the Bush Jr. administration, you see: had it mentioned in so many words that the study would include gays as well as straights, the proposal would have been rejected immediately. (Mustn't give science the remotest chance of disturbing popular stereotypes.) What the researchers noticed surprised even them: the interactions of the same-sex couples were off the charts. Their ability to communicate with each other clearly and frankly augured better for a successful relationship than with the vast majority of husbands and wives.
Perhaps straight couples can learn something from gay couples. This possibility alone should persuade those truly interested in defense-of-marriage to acknowledge same-sex partnerships.
Other statistics: For a group that lays such stress upon marriage for life, the divorce rate of evangelicals is a dirty little secret. If you want to stay married, it's better to be a Catholic. Better still to be an atheist.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
However they do it, I understand that male-male partnerships are statistically more stable than heterosexual.
AIUI, the key statistic is that women are more likely to end a relationship than men are, so lesbian relationships are the least stable pairing and heterosexuals are in the middle.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Now I only wish more Christians who invoke Biblical (OT or NT) law were as compassionate, nuanced and solution-oriented as the Jews who wrestle with their law. But as the Conservatives said above "[M]ost people are indifferent to the humiliation of others, there is little social motivation for the offender to repent and restore respect to his neighbor" so these Christians quote away.
That document I linked to above is a good read. They put much more thought and struggle into understanding their law than we do with ours.
I daresay that this approach (as well as the Babylonian Talmud) is partly the almost inevitable result of thousands of years of experience in actually trying to live according to the Torah.
It may also flow from the Jewish precept that, even antedating the Torah, was the Noahchic Covenant, one of whose points was that God commanded mankind to establish courts of justice. This expectation implies considerable faith on God's part that man is able
to make a decent job of it by using his head. If God's ways are not man's ways, they are at least comprehensible enough that human judges can imitate the divine Judge by adminstering justice in a way that the people can appreciate as justice, not merely issue decisions and edicts out of an inscrutable black box.
By contrast, Christian reconstructionists would ignore all this experience, and apply the Old Testament law literally and with full rigor. They apparently assume that the Holy Spirit will enable them to wing it <groan>. How arrogant.
I'd add dangerous if I thought that they had a chance of gaining the upper hand politically.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
the interactions of the same-sex couples were off the charts. Their ability to communicate with each other clearly and frankly augured better for a successful relationship than with the vast majority of husbands and wives.
I don't think that really would be that surprising to most people. In the thinking of many people 'Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus' after all, and the profound differences between the sexes and how they (mis)communicate with each other are widely perceived as being a major factor making heterosexual marriages very difficult. Also, men and women are widely perceived as generally desiring different rates of sex, and this is often perceived as a common factor of contention within marriages.
As a result, I get the impression from some anti-gay people, that they perceive homosexual relationships as 'unfair' because they are 'too easy'. Heterosexual guys who are struggling to communicate with women and struggling to convince women to have sex with them, sometimes come across as envious of the assumed ease with which they think gay men can communicate with other guys and have sex at the rate they want. The idea then becomes that we have to ban gay relationships "otherwise everyone would be gay" since gay relationships are perceived as easier / less contention-filled. I tend to see this view expressed most among men who are really misogynistic - they're sexually attracted to females but they don't like females - so though they want a wife for sex, they would much prefer to hang out drinking beer with their male friends and never have to go near a nagging wife or deal with her endless emotional issues or let her spend all their money.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
However they do it, I understand that male-male partnerships are statistically more stable than heterosexual.
AIUI, the key statistic is that women are more likely to end a relationship than men are, so lesbian relationships are the least stable pairing and heterosexuals are in the middle.
This treats women as an undifferentiated lump. I would want to disaggregate the data. Perhaps lesbians leave their partners at a much lower rate than heterosexual women leave their men.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
However they do it, I understand that male-male partnerships are statistically more stable than heterosexual.
AIUI, the key statistic is that women are more likely to end a relationship than men are, so lesbian relationships are the least stable pairing and heterosexuals are in the middle.
This treats women as an undifferentiated lump. I would want to disaggregate the data. Perhaps lesbians leave their partners at a much lower rate than heterosexual women leave their men.
I'm sorry but I can't remember where or when I read that, so I can't go back and check but, IIRC, there was no major difference between the two groups of women. Obviously any study of 1,000s of relationships reduced to a single sentence is going to generalise massively but my original post was, I believe, as accurate as any such generalisation can be.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well, that was my question. If you just look at "women," since the vast majority of women are hetero, what happens between Lesbians would be obscured. But if they kept numbers separate so the two (or more, but it's probable they were working on a binary gender assumption) could be compared, then I withdraw my objection.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I had seen this statistic before and dug a bit (pdf):
quote:
The number of dissolutions granted varies by sex. Of all dissolutions granted in England and Wales up to the end of 2010, 62 per cent have been to female couples despite only 44 per cent of formations being to female couples. The proportion of dissolutions to female couples differs by year. In 2007, 70 per cent of dissolutions granted were to female couples whereas in 2010 this was only 60 per cent. Higher numbers of dissolutions among female than male partnerships are also seen in other countries with same-sex partnership laws, such as Norway and Sweden.
Office of National Statistics (ONS) considering civil partnerships 5 years on
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
There is a graph contained therein which tracks age difference. Of the SSM relationships tracked, women had a greater difference. This might be a factor.
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bumping up for housekeeping reasons
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
