Thread: Dead Horses: The Pilling Report Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001349

---

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :
 
I just looked at the BBC news of the Pilling report.

It makes interesting reading.

See: Report here

However, it doesn't seem to say a great deal more than we know is thought. Perhaps its official nature encourages better quality debate than the rather loud debates we've heard (from both sides).

Now I guess there will be all sorts of reaction.

What's yours?

[ 08. April 2017, 01:37: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
Far too much "compromise" for the conservative evangelicals, who will campaign ferociously to oppose any hint of change and then start to claim the alternative "oversight" of African bishops.

Far too little change for the majority of the population in the UK, who will simply see this as "far too little, far too late". Bishops will be left in the middle, trying to defend the indefensible.

(Supporters of LGBT rights in the C of E will simply sigh, roll their eyes and keep on working for better times in the future.)
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
What Oscar the Grouch said. Conservative evangelicals are just not interested in anything beyond an incredibly narrow 'Biblical' framing. They certainly won't be interested in repenting for the church's historic (and unfortunately current) homophobia.

And as usual, transgender people are ignored.
 

---

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :
 

quote:

---

The recommendations do not propose any change in the church’s teaching on sexual conduct. They do propose that clergy, with the agreement of their Church Council, should be able to offer appropriate services to mark a faithful same sex relationship. The group does not propose an authorised liturgy for this purpose but understands the proposed provision to be a pastoral accommodation which does not entail any change to what the church teaches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
I thought Andrew Brown's response to Peter Ould's challenge was rather on point. In many areas, I think we have to be very careful of an argument that boils down to "Well, I had to go through it, why shouldn't they?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
Peter Ould's response is available on his blog

I thought Andrew Brown's response to Peter Ould's challenge was rather on point. In many areas, I think we have to be very careful of an argument that boils down to "Well, I had to go through it, why shouldn't they?"

---

quote:

---

As for the terminology, it's an area where the terminology is fraught but it's therefore surprising not to see explicit consideration of the choice of terms with a rationale.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Re Peter Ould: 'But I wouldn't have done this if I didn't think I had to' is, in fact, a legitimate form of complaint. But it's a legitimate form of complaint to the people who told you you had to do it. It is not a legitimate reason to forbid other people, later on, from being told 'we now realise you don't have to do that'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I've looked at Andrew Brown's summary. On the one hand, it's not changing any of the rules or any of the facts on the ground. On the other hand, it's acknowledging that the facts on the ground are what the facts on the ground are. For the CofE that's progress.

Lots of monks and nuns and priests over the past two thousand years have adopted celibacy because they believed God wished it of them and that it was a better way. Is it a slap in their faces to get married?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
But whether or not he "had" to surely is between him and God, not between him and the CofE? He could have stayed single.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Exactly. And watching someone promoting the idea of marrying a woman even when primarily attracted to men (Sean and Gaby) on Living Out website is worrying. Are they storing up heart break?

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Exactly. And watching someone promoting the idea of marrying a woman even when primarily attracted to men (Sean and Gaby) on Living Out website is worrying. Are they storing up heart break?

Carys

---

If you listen carefully to what was said you would have heard a rather strong point: if you are thinking about marriage it doesn't matter one jot if you are also capable of experiencing sexual attraction to other people, what matters is that you are sexually attracted to the person you are planning to marry. According to the video that is the case for this married couple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
At least some gay people are unhappy with the use of "same sex attraction" frequently in the report because of the provenance of the term, used by those who object.

---

quote:

---

No-one should be accused of homophobia solely for articulating traditional Christian teaching on same-sex relationships

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I didn't read the report, just the article summarizing it but I enjoyed the recommendation:

quote:

---

No-one should be accused of homophobia solely for articulating traditional Christian teaching on same-sex relationships

---

Do they really think anyone is going to defer to them to define the meaning of the word homophobia?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Personally, I don't tend to throw the word 'homophobia' at people who sincerely believe homosexuality is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

I tend to reserve it for the ones who do things like accuse homosexuals of being hedonistic disease-spreading moral scum and argue against secular law giving us equal rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I didn't read the report, just the article summarizing it but I enjoyed the recommendation:

quote:

---

No-one should be accused of homophobia solely for articulating traditional Christian teaching on same-sex relationships

---

Do they really think anyone is going to defer to them to define the meaning of the word homophobia?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
The problem is simply ignorance - these Christians are almost uniformly massively ignorant of the huge amount of damage they have been inflicting on LGBT people. I think that possibly every single one of them would be utterly horrified if they ever were forced to face up to the full consequences of hurt, suffering, depression, suicide etc that their 'just articulating traditional values' has had upon people.

---

quote:

---

"Only ignorance! only ignorance! how can you talk about only ignorance? Don't you know that it is the worst thing in the world, next to wickedness?-- and which does the most mischief heaven only knows. If people can say, 'Oh! I did not know, I did not mean any harm,' they think it is all right.

---

quote:

---

posted by starlight
... a lot of Christians who advocate 'traditional' Christian teaching on this subject are sincere and well-meaning religious zealots, and aren't doing it out of hatred or malice. The problem is simply ignorance...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

What do the people advocating that gay men should get married to women think about what is due to the women concerned? (I seem to have heard less about lesbians marrying straight men, but a similar argument applies. Except that I have a faint suspicion that there's a trace of the surrendered wife attitude in the expectation of a woman being happy to accept second best status.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

What do the people advocating that gay men should get married to women think about what is due to the women concerned? (I seem to have heard less about lesbians marrying straight men, but a similar argument applies. Except that I have a faint suspicion that there's a trace of the surrendered wife attitude in the expectation of a woman being happy to accept second best status.)

---

I'm curious about this as well. The "post-gay" movement seems to exclusively involve gay men being persuaded to marry women, and it strikes me as borderline misogynistic. Strikes me as the same old "women don't need sex like men do" attitude, so a woman married to a man who isn't attracted to her perhaps is not such a burden. (Not my opinion - this is my view of how these "post-gay" people view women).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Yeah lets just turn it around and think about it. A lesbian married to a straight man is hardly an ideal situation either. Putting aside the (IMO false) idea that "women don't need sex like men do" how do the post gays think this scenario would be helpful for the man in the marriage - to be married to someone who felt no sexual attraction to them? Perhaps these people are just a bit blind to the lesbian aspect?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You are forgetting the two year period of facilitated conversation. It wasn't clear to me what the product of this two year process is supposed to be. Will it be a proposal for another multi year facilitated conversation?

---

The facilitated conversation seems to be the main element of the report, and it is interesting that people (both on this thread and in the various societies who have issued press releases about the report) have largely ignored it. I guess everyone wants to classify the bits of the report into good and bad categories, and it's hard to do that with a conversation whose outcome would be uncertain.

To some extent, we may as well ignore the rest of the report; if the conversation is a success, it'll come up with recommendations that carry more weight than those in the report (even if they happen to be identical). I suspect the point of saying anything else might be to threaten a middle ground that everyone will want to oppose, in the hope of dragging people to the table.

I do actually think that some sort of conversation is the only way forward, but despite the recent stunning success of conversation in resolving women bishops, I'm not hopeful here; I think it'll be a very long time before any sort of resolution shapes up, whereas with women bishops, the only debate was over a fairly minor point. (The conversation assumed there would be women bishops and only discussed support for opponents). I suspect that with homosexuality, both sides would currently prefer it if we just kept having 'shall we drive the gays or the traditionalists out' votes until the liberals win.

Another issue which I think needs to be discussed here but isn't being (and isn't directly related to homosexuality) is what counts as an issue on which we all have to agree. Since everyone claims to like the fact that Anglicanism is a broad church (or at least agree that it is), surely we should agree to disagree by default, and only bother having arguments if absolutely necessary. There's a fair logic that since all parties share one church leadership, we need to agree about who's involved in the leadership.

I'm not so clear why homosexuality is an issue on which agreement is needed. In fact, many conservative evos seem to argue that it isn't, but it's a useful canary for 'veering too far from the bible', and the important issue is really 'ignoring the bible'. If that really is the fundamental issue then there may be a lot of scope for a facilitated conversation, since both conservatives and liberals do truly believe that they seriously follow the bible while the other side pick and chose the bits that suit them. However, I don't see why homosexuality is a good canary here; most of these same conservative evos truly believe that liberal parishes are full of priests who deny the literal resurrection which would seem like a more serious issue if we're really talking about the bible.

[ 06. December 2013, 14:26: Message edited by: *Leon* ]
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
Deckchairs on the Titanic. Until the Church of England ceases to be an institution supporting bigotry its moral authority, even for going after institutions such as wonga.com is going to be pathetic. And while it has no moral authority, it is going to continue its slide into irrelevance.

This wasn't a step forward. Merely an acknowledgement that some priests are not onboard with the Church's homophobia and a removal of the most ridiculous restraint on their actions. And Orfeo, you might not want to throw the word homophobia at them - but I get the impression that that's a matter of approach because you believe they are reachable?
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Justinian

Nailed it.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
To me it comes across as an entirely male-focused trend. Where are all of the straight Christian men who are ready and willing to marry "ex-lesbians?" Honestly I'm guessing that they don't exist - at least, not in the evangelical wing of the church that believes in conversion therapy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Translating it to theological terms" leaves them free to say "well, my theology is different then yours and I'm the expert and it's not evil in my theology".

---

quote:

---

Why let the opponents of gay rights define the terminology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
If you want to convince anyone of anything you've got to communicate with them in language they can understand. Calling them names that they don't really understand like 'homphobe' repeatedly doesn't help and simply innoculates them against those names and stops them from listening to what you have to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

Their motivations are often not homophobic, it's only the consequences of their advocating those values that is monstrous and life-destroying and evil. The Church's ongoing genocide against gay people has been at least as much a result of ignorance as intention, so homophobic isn't really the right word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I find that saying "you're a homophobic bigot" gives them incentive to learn what the word means.

---

quote:

---

Comments like

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

Their motivations are often not homophobic, it's only the consequences of their advocating those values that is monstrous and life-destroying and evil. The Church's ongoing genocide against gay people has been at least as much a result of ignorance as intention, so homophobic isn't really the right word.

---

gives them the out that as long as they have sincere motivations it's not so bad to keep doing those monstrous actions. If you do evil actions, you're an evil doer. Fine intentions are not a valid excuse and praising the fineness of their intentions is enabling their abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I find that saying "you're a homophobic bigot" gives them incentive to learn what the word means.

---

Okay, but that surprises me somewhat as I would expect most religious conservatives to think they know what those words mean and ignore them because they think you are using them wrongly.

---

• The very insular
• Those who actually know but have been sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "lalalala I can't hear you lalalala" at the top of their lungs for years

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
There was a book out recently, by Kwame Appiah, about moral change, called The Honour Code. From the reviews it argues that moral change happens when the losing side can come up with a story about the change that doesn't forfeit their self-respect. (It needn't be true - e.g. the post Civil-War south discovered that they'd always been going to abolish slavery really, etc.)

Describing people as evil doesn't help at all - unless you can convince someone that their change of mind is part of a religious conversion. ('I once was lost and now am found; was blind but now I see.') Describing positions as evil born out of ignorance of the harm they cause works, especially if you can convince people that the ignorance wasn't their fault - that they're just applying the same old principles to a new situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
BTW I am due, in March, to give a talk/lead a discussion to our local LGCM group (which meets in my church) and to the wider diocese (even our evangelical bishop has expressed an interest) who will be invite and I am going to use some of your comments, with acknowledgement, if that is OK with you.

---

quote:

---

The bit about the dangers and shortfalls of reparative therapy being 'not proven' is entirely due to Prof. Glynn Harrison who frequently asserts this in lectures and conferences. He is the psychologist whom I mentioned as going against his own professional association. He is plain wrong - there has been a lot of research that shows he is wrong. Bur for Glynn, any research that 'contradicts the Bible' can only be wrong.

---

quote:

---

National Geographic
Wild Sex documentary series (2005)
Episode 6 (of 6): “Deviants?”

“In reality, the animal kingdom has a greater and more extreme sexual repertoire than any human culture.”

“It appears that if it [any imaginable kind of sexual act] is physically possible, there is an animal that will do it.”

“Humans are by no means the only lifeform to have found same-sex sex. <Extended quote cut>

[QUOTE]Joint submission from:
The American Psychological Association
The California Psychological Association
The American Psychiatric Association
The American Association For Marriage And Family Therapy
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

“For decades the consensus of mental health professionals and researchers has been that homosexuality and bisexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality and pose no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.”

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact causes <Extended quote cut>

---

quote:

---

Joint submission from:
The American Anthropological Association
The American Psychoanalytic Association
The National Association Of Social Workers
The National Association Of Social Workers, California Chapter
The American Sociological Association,
The American Academy Of Pediatrics, California,
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus39.pdf

“Throughout history, state interference with the ability to marry has been a means of oppression and stigmatization of disfavored groups, serving to degrade whole classes of people by depriving them of the full ability to exercise a fundamental right.”

“Research demonstrates <Extended quote cut>

---

quote:

---

American Psychological Association, website (2014)

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
“All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.”

“The widespread prejudice, discrimination and violence to which <Extended quote cut>

http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/brochures/sex-abuse.aspx
“Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf (written 2005)
“the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents”

“offspring of lesbian mothers were no more likely than those of heterosexual mothers to describe themselves as feeling attracted to same-sex sexual partners. If they were attracted in this way, however, young adults with lesbian mothers were more likely to report that they would consider entering into a same-sex sexual relationship, and they were more likely to have actually participated in such a relationship. They were not, however, more likely to identify themselves as nonheterosexual (i.e., as lesbian, gay, or bisexual).”

---

quote:

---

Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submission to UK government, 13 June 2012
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/RCPSYCH%20submission%20to%20Equal%20Civil%20Marriage-a%20consultation.pdf

“Many health associations around the world support marriage equality on health grounds.”

“The ‘minority stress’ experienced by LGB people is an important factor in their health disadvantage. Stigma and discrimination against sexual minorities has been well studied. It is likely that social hostility, stigma and discrimination is at least part of the reason for the higher rates of psychological morbidity observed as well as elevated rates of suicide. Discriminatory policies specifically with regard to marriage equality have been shown to have negative health effects. “

“The ‘minority stress’ experienced by LGB people is an important factor in their health disadvantage. Social hostility, stigma and discrimination contribute to the higher rates ...<Extended quote cut>

“A body of research has established the relative health disadvantage borne by LGB people. This has been acknowledged... <Extended quote cut>

“Chakraborty et al., (2011) concluded that, “This study corroborates international findings that people of non-heterosexual ... <Extended quote cut>

“A 2008 report ‘Suicide Risk and Prevention for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth’ (defined as aged 15 to 24) by the Suicide Prevention Resource Center... reviewed the available literature and concluded that, “Research indicates... <Extended quote cut>
The report goes on to say that, “It would be difficult to overstate the impact of stigma and discrimination against LGBT individuals in the United States. Stigma and discrimination... <Extended quote cut>

“Although the introduction of civil partnerships in the UK was a positive step forward, marriage equality will further reduce the discrimination experienced by LGB... <Extended quote cut>

“12 months after the introduction of marriage equality in Massachusetts, gay men recorded significantly fewer visits... <Extended quote cut>

“In the Drug and Alcohol Review, Ritter, Matthew-Simmons and Carragher (2012), from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, argue the case from the substance dependence perspective: “Over and above these [other factors], however, is the prominence of discrimination and stigma. Stigma and discrimination against sexual minorities has been extensively documented... <Extended quote cut>

“[There exist] campaigns to continue to deny [LGB youth] the choice of marriage. This marriage denial again reinforces stigma associated with sexual identity and undermines well-being, an effect to which adolescents and young adults are particularly sensitive.”

“A number of health associations support marriage equality on health grounds. A non-exhaustive list includes the: American Medical Association, Indiana State Medical Association... <Extended quote cut>

“LGB persons make up a population that suffers from worse health (in particular mental health and substance dependence) than heterosexual people. To withhold marriage equality is to treat this minority differently... <Extended quote cut>

“[Quoting an Australian study approvingly:] “The best public-policy interventions are those which target a significant problem, have a clear rationale, are supported by research evidence, are least costly to implement and have strong community support. Legalising gay marriage... <Extended quote cut>

---

[Edited to delete extended quotes]

[ 22. January 2014, 17:13: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
OK guys - my eyes are crossed having to read all this stuff you're providing for each other.

Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

We are not supposed to post great chunks of text on the Ship (to avoid possible copyright infringements). It is acceptable to provide web links to this material however.

If you really need to pass such large quantities of textual material, could I suggest you do it by email.

Please cease and desist forthwith...

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
TonyK,
It's almost all public documents (court and government submissions) so they're not subject to copyright, and believe it or not they are just selected pieces and only a small fragment of the original. But I'll cease and desist anyway.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
It's almost all public documents (court and government submissions) so they're not subject to copyright

---

Statement retracted! Let me eat my words. Orfeo has pointed out to me that I am wrong about this. It appears that some countries do indeed sometimes place a limited copyright of some form or another on court or government documents.

 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

Thanks Starlight

For safety's sake I'll trim down the quotes, leaving introductions and web links only.

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Another damning indictment of this reports dodgy statistics, dodgy science and weak theology here.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Another damning indictment of this reports dodgy statistics, dodgy science and weak theology here.

---

Thanks Leo, there's some good stuff in there, as well as some links to some studies I hadn't seen.


Having spent a few more days mulling over the Pilling report in my own mind, things that I am still thinking about days later from the report are:

1) The report evidences a lack of honesty and lack of willingness to accept responsibility for the full range of harm that the Church has caused to LGBT people. There is an explicit refusal to accept the scientific consensus that discrimination and prejudice against LGB people is the primary cause of their greater rates of anxiety disorders, substance abuse, and suicide. The report observes that society considers the church "wicked" for the harms it has caused to LGBT people, but the report responds by defending the Church's stance as “counter-cultural”. The report later asserts that anti-gay theologies and ex-gay ministries shouldn't be termed homophobic.

I would have been interested to see what the report writers think the church is actually achieving, in a positive sense, by its opposition to gays. It is repeatedly stated that the they see the church as following scripture, however there is little to no elaboration on what they think is actually gained from this. ie Do they think they're:
- Making God happier with the Church?
- Making God happier with gay people?
- Saving gay people from going to hell?
- Reducing the total amount of sin in the world?
In general I didn't think the report was very clear about what those in the Church who oppose homosexuality actually hope to achieve by their opposition. Perhaps they hope that the Church's opposition will result in less homosexual acts and relationships occurring? But then it would be interesting to see if they could produce any research measuring how many less homosexual acts actually occur due to Christian opposition... I suspect these days that a massive proportion of gay people simply leave the Church and that most Christian attempts to force gay people to choose between gay relationships and Christianity cause them to reject Christianity and not gay acts (I personally know of multiple instances of this). That is an interesting consequence, depending on your theology, because it could then be argued that Christian opposition to gay rights has caused these people to lose their salvation! So the idea of "saving" gay people by opposing their acts seems a bit dubious unless you can actually show that you end up helping more than you're harming them.

An honest approach would boldly confront the fact that Christian discrimination against gays and opposition to gay rights continues to have negative consequences. In some ways I would feel a lot better about it if they had done the math and said something like "Research suggests that an estimated X additional teenagers commit suicide per year as a result of the Church's continued opposition to homosexuality, and that Y additional people reject Christianity per year. However we believe that our continued opposition is justified because... (pick an explanation) (a) we believe it makes God happy, and that's more important to us than human lives; (b) it leads to Z number of people not acting upon their homosexual desires, thus saving them from hell; (c) ..."

In general there just seems an unwillingness to honestly confront the ongoing and serious consequences of their opposition to gay people, and equally unwillingness to provide any sort of balancing justification beyond "the Bible says so".


2) I am still slightly shocked and baffled by the sheer weakness of the biblical case that Keith Sinclair tries to make against homosexuality. I guess what puzzles me is: Given the biblical case against homosexuality is so abysmally weak, why have conservatives opposed it so extensively and vigorously? The answer, as best I can piece it together, seems to be: An over-surety about the translation and interpretation of a few particular biblical passages. (Something which I have encountered a lot in conservative biblical interpretation: A translation which one person mistakenly thinks on the balance of probability is probably the most likely one, is often taken in turn as literally the Word of God by the reader)

While Sinclair gives a lot of handwaving about overall biblical concepts, the majority of his case seems to lie in his apparent certainty in particular translations and interpretations of Rom 1:27 and 1 Cor 6:9. Even his own words make his view seem absurdly underevidenced: “The first word, malakos, is a specific and well-known use (though only here in the New Testament) of a more general word meaning ‘soft’.” So a word that means 'soft' everywhere else in the NT, we should believe means 'homosexual' when Paul condemns it? Totally convincing... He also amuses me with the phrase “well-known use” of the word malakos, since I don't regard it as one of the meanings of that Greek word. But, of course, there's no doubt about the rightness of his interepretation: “And if the meaning of malakos as ‘passive male homosexual partner’ were in any doubt, its immediate coupling with arsenokoitai removes that doubt.” I am amused by how he proves his conservative credentials by having no doubt at all about his position. It's also intriguiging how the addition of arsenokoitai to anything can lessen doubt, since arsenokoitai is infamous for being so rare a word that it's almost impossible to tell what it means from surviving documents. I also am amused by how he embraces the strangely popular idea that malakos and arsenokoitai go together as a pair of words referring to the “active” and “passive” partners in homosexual acts (aka top and bottom). I regard this view as a non-starter because a basic test of whether two words really form a pair (like active/passive, top/bottom) is whether they actually occur together regularly (they don't), and whether they occur with approximately the same frequency (they don't).

Anyway since I don't share his mistranslations & misinterpretations of those words and passages, I subsequently found his entire essay utterly unconvincing. As a result, I was fairly surprised by the level of certainty that he seems to have in his own position, and left wondering why he is himself so certain about the subject.


3) The section of the Pilling report on scripture opens with the claim "almost everyone is agreed: the Bible contains no positive depictions of, or [positive] statements about, sexual activity between people of the same sex".

That seems a very strange statement, given David and Jonathan's clearly depicted homosexual relationship. Over the last couple of days I've browsed the internet on the subject, and it seems that conservatives have managed to successfully whitewash the story of David and Jonathan on a rather massive scale. I guess if a person is not familiar at all with classical works or how homosexual couples were depicted in the ancient world, then it's possible to miss the obvious when reading the story of David and Jonathan. Also, it appears that a couple of strongly-motivated, anti-gay, Christians (Gagnon and Zehnder) have made extensive attempts to peddle the view that David and Jonathan were 'just friends'. The widespread logic among conservatives regarding this passage appears to be that David and Jonathan can't have been gay lovers because God likes David, and God would never like a gay person... (it's interesting how they can reach a conclusion about that the David and Jonathan story must say, without even needing to read the story)

What I, personally, think is far more interesting about the story, is the author's apparent intent to indicate a marriage between Jonathan and David. The author appears concerned about the illegitimacy of David's ascension to the throne, since David is not of royal blood. To emphasise that David has a right to the throne, the writer includes, among other things, (1) that the prophet Samuel secretly anoints David, saying it is God's will that he be king, (2) that David gets married to Jonathan, the heir to the throne, and thus has a claim to it through that marriage, (3) that Jonathan, who is in love with David, explicitly wills his throne to David.

The status and frequency of same-sex marriages or pseudo-marriages in the ancient world is still a very open topic of active research. While we know that most cultures in the Ancient Near East accepted homosexuality, we don't really have a very good idea of what level of legal or social recognition same-sex unions had. For example, while we know that same sex marriages occurred in the Roman Empire, with several of the Roman emperors engaging in them, it's unclear that they would be recognized as real marriages in Roman law. I find the Jonathan and David story particularly interesting because of its apparent attempt to indicate something that appears to amount to a same sex marriage between the two men that is apparently socially or legally binding - at least to the extent that it validates David's claim to the throne.
 

---

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :
 
Starlight writes
"Perhaps they hope that the Church's opposition will result in less homosexual acts and relationships occurring?"

Fewer, not less.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I would have been interested to see what the report writers think the church is actually achieving, in a positive sense, by its opposition to gays.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
People who are attracted to people of the same sex will inevitably want to get married to them. This will of course Undermine Marriage through some unspecified causal process, resulting in thousands of otherwise upstanding straight men giving up their jobs to look after children, becoming interested in home decoration, learning to cook, practicing witchcraft, and becoming lesbians. It is also a well-known fact, backed up by numerous apocryphal stories, that same-sex marriage causes it to rain. Where will gay people go on their honeymoons? Hot countries. If it rains in the hot countries, it will spoil the holidays for everybody else. Furthermore, the people living in hot countries (cough Arabs cough Muslims cough) will have an easier time farming, thereby reducing food shortages and preventing fine upstanding capitalist businesspeople from making obscene profits by selling off food.
Which would be a disaster.

---

Like I said, if that sort of thing had been in the report, it would have been much more interesting! (or of 'much greater interest' Aeired?) Your post reminds me of the @UkipWeather twitter account (set up in parody of this), which I've been enjoying reading recently...
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Your post reminds me of the UkipWeather twitter account which I've been enjoying reading recently...

---

quote:

---

What I, personally, think is far more interesting about the story, is the author's apparent intent to indicate a marriage between Jonathan and David. The author appears concerned about the illegitimacy of David's ascension to the throne, since David is not of royal blood. To emphasise that David has a right to the throne, the writer includes, among other things, (1) that the prophet Samuel secretly anoints David, saying it is God's will that he be king, (2) that David gets married to Jonathan, the heir to the throne, and thus has a claim to it through that marriage, (3) that Jonathan, who is in love with David, explicitly wills his throne to David.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
it is seriously pushing it to claim that the people who brought you the Book of Leviticus (ta-da!) intended us to believe that David and Jonathan were married

---

The book of Samuel is part of the Deuteronomistic history, whereas Leviticus is not. While I'm not committed to endorsing any particular theoretical reconstruction of the authorship of the JEPD sources, one thing nearly everyone seems to agree about is that D wasn't produced by "the people who brought you the Book of Leviticus". D seems to be usually regarded as independent of P, or deliberately written in opposition to it.

Leviticus, in the traditional reading, is against male homosexual activity. But the other sources that constitute the Old Testament don't show any animosity toward homosexuality (except maybe J with regards to Sodom, interpretation depending), which is not particularly surprising given that Ancient Near Eastern cultures more generally seem to have been pretty accepting of homosexual acts. In particular, despite being rather loooooong, the D source seems to have nothing at all negative to say or imply about homosexual relationships.

The biblical record itself make very clear that Israel's level of 'obedience' to God (as perceived by any particular biblical author) changed over time, with the people often following various other customs at many different times. A particularly famous example of religious change is when, during the renovations of the Temple under Josiah, the High Priest 'discovers' ancient religious texts which contain laws no one alive seems to have heard of or know about (2 Kings 22; 2 Chron 34).

In short, there is no reason to think that the author of the book of Samuel (or his original intended readers) knew of, or cared about, or agreed with, the Levitical prohibition against male homosexual acts. The Deuteronomist's positive portrayal of the homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan is simply yet another reason to agree with what seems to be the standard scholarly view: that the Deuteronomaic history was written at a time in Israel's history when the Levitical laws as we currently have them were either not known or not followed.

[ 28. January 2014, 19:48: Message edited by: Starlight ]
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
P.S. I guess I should add, for the sake of completeness and accuracy, that the Levitical prohibitions on homosexuality occur in the Holiness Code (Lev 17-26) which is often regarded as a separate source from P. Thus it is possible to regard P (the rest of Leviticus) as not endorsing the laws contained in H - although in most theories, P used H deliberately (and thus endorsed it).

But the point I really want to make is that the books of the law, as we have them now, contain three different ancient law codes, each of which appears to be complete in and of themselves. Thus, presumably, each of the three was followed by itself at some point in Israel's history. In particular the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 12-26) is an extensive and complete legal code, which was obviously the one endorsed by the Deuteronomist (who wrote both it and the David and Jonathan story), and it notably doesn't prohibit homosexuality. Whereas the Holiness code in Lev 17-26 presumably originates from some other strand of Israel's history or traditions.
 

---

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
And somebody put all this stuff together and called it The Canon Of Scripture. I know that Judaism is more of an argument than a body of doctrine but are you really telling me that the ancient rabbis who were generally au fait with this stuff, much more than you and I are, managed to put a law code prohibiting homosexuality, along with a history declaring that David was Israel's ideal king and a load of prophecies claiming that David was Israel's one true king and that his descendants would inherit the earth, and then some whilst simultaneously telling us that David was married to Jonathan, and that his Kingship, and presumably that of his messianic heirs depended on this?

We all know that those bits of antiquity that were fairly relaxed about gay relationships would not have been relaxed about gay marriage - insert Peter Brown quote about population grazed thin by death here - I suspect that we are on the same side on the inclusion issue but the idea that a set of texts that regard David as the Lord's Anointed do so by virtue of his marital rights as Mrs Jonathan? Really? Is there nothing in the books of Samuel about Saul being set aside and David called as his replacement? For that matter is there nothing about David marrying Michal and then being dumped for a Saul friendly protege and then dumping Michal when she mocked his boogying prowess? As far as the people who put the OT together were concerned David was DA MAN because God called him. It's highly unlikely that they thought he was married to Jonathan and bogglingly unlikely that they thought his Kingship depended on being married to Jonathan.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
And somebody put all this stuff together and called it The Canon Of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
And somebody put all this stuff together and called it The Canon Of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

I know that Judaism is more of an argument than a body of doctrine but are you really telling me that the ancient rabbis who were generally au fait with this stuff,

---

quote:

---

managed to put a law code prohibiting homosexuality, along with a history declaring that David was Israel's ideal king and a load of prophecies claiming that David was Israel's one true king and that his descendants would inherit the earth, and then some whilst simultaneously telling us that David was married to Jonathan, and that his Kingship, and presumably that of his messianic heirs depended on this?

---

quote:

---

We all know that those bits of antiquity that were fairly relaxed about gay relationships would not have been relaxed about gay marriage

---

quote:

---

but the idea that a set of texts that regard David as the Lord's Anointed do so by virtue of his marital rights as Mrs Jonathan? Really? Is there nothing in the books of Samuel about Saul being set aside and David called as his replacement?

---

quote:

---

As far as the people who put the OT together were concerned David was DA MAN because God called him. It's highly unlikely that they thought he was married to Jonathan and bogglingly unlikely that they thought his Kingship depended on being married to Jonathan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
OK, brass tacks time.

Point me to a culture in antiquity that accepted gay marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The peniltimate paragraph lists 35.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that any source which confidently states that the Emperor Constantine abolished gay marriage in the Roman Empire can be filed under "lack of scholarly credentials".

---

quote:

---

There are also some glaring errors, e.g. the Great Schism in Fourteenth Century?

---

quote:

---

It was still necessary, in the Fourteenth Century, for Pierre de la Palude to write a compelling justification as to why priests should STOP blessing gay relationships

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
Point me to a culture in antiquity that accepted gay marriage.

---

quote:

---

Point me to a verse, or verses, in Samuel that indicate that David's claim to the throne of Israel is contingent on his being married to Jonathan.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I think that if you hop in your time machine and explain your theory to the authors and redactors of the Book of Samuel they would...

---

quote:

---

To paraphrase the Blessed Leszek Kolakowski there are better arguments for respect for GLBT people than that the Old Testament is not so implacably opposed to their predicament as it may at first appear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I feel the basic problem with reading gay marriage into the David and Jonathan story is the same as that of reading straight marriage into the David and Michal or the David and Bathsheba story - the ideals of marriage in the culture we're talking about are rather different from our own. In the world depicted in Samuel if two people get married one of them becomes the exclusive sexual property of the other, without reciprocation. Companionate marriage doesn't enter into it.

---

I completely agree. I'd actually written a couple of paragraphs about that in the draft of the previous post, but I deleted them before posting because I felt it was too long!

But yes, in a culture with extreme gender inequality (eg which treats women as property, and treats marriages as an arranged sale of a woman from one family to another without permission from the woman or even her meeting the husband), any kind of homosexual relationship is going to have a different social dynamic to heterosexual relationships because the power imbalance of gender inequality won't be present. Same-sex marriage would then be a relationship between equals instead of the master-slave relationship of heterosexual marriage, and so it's not clear that the people of such a culture would regard them as equivalent. So if a culture views "marriage" as being about a man owning a female sex slave, then a serious same-sex relationship between two men is going to look a lot more like a modern marriage than it looks anything like what their culture at the time would think of as a marriage. In fact, in such a culture, the true same-sex marriage equivalent of their normal "marriages" would be for a man to own a male slave that he used for sexual purposes (which certainly seems to have been common in Greek/Roman times, and which presumably happened in other cultures). The question can then be asked, to what extent ought anyone to label a same-sex master-slave relationship a 'marriage' and what is the point of doing so either for the people at that time, or us now? I think the answer is probably that there was no motivation for people in those cultures to call such a relationship a marriage, and in today's world we get a bit squeamish at the thought of such serious power imbalances in a relationship anyway, so it's not really the kind of idea of a same-sex marriage that anyone today has any interest in.

So in a sense the relationship between David and Jonathan was probably much "better" (to put a modern moral judgement on it) than the relationship between David and Michal because it was inherently more equal, and was therefore quite different to what their culture thought of as "marriage". I'm guessing that probably why the author of Samuel uses the word "covenant" and not their word for "marriage" to refer to David and Jonathan's commitment to each other - two equals are perfectly capable of pledging themselves to each other out of love (hence the 'covenant') but are not capable of selling one to the other as property (hence not 'marriage'), so it's like our kind of marriage but not like their kind.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
The most commonly cited example is the Roman Empire

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Although that wiki page makes it appear otherwise, I'd understood that the homosexual relationships common in the Roman Empire were not at all partnerships as we would understand them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
answers some of your questions.

---

quote:

---

The most commonly cited example is the Roman Empire, since we know from surviving documents that several of the Roman Emperors married same-sex partners in lavish wedding ceremonies.

---

quote:

---

One of the things that the author of the Deuteronomic history appears to want to make abundantly clear is that David's descendents are the rightful rulers of Israel. I could speculate that maybe at the time of writing there were non-Davidic claimants to the throne – the text suggests to me that they probably claimed descent from Jonathan. For whatever reason, the writer goes out of his way to depict things that seemingly validate David's kingship and that of David's descendants. He does this initially by having the prophet Samuel annoint David in secret. Later the author takes pains to demonstrate David's prowess in battle, showing him a suitable ruler. The depiction of Jonathan and David's relationship ends with Jonathan willing David to take the throne – those are final words Jonathan utters in the story. The heir to the throne wills the throne to David, then dies... which is very convenient for the author.

---

quote:

---

But yes, in a culture with extreme gender inequality (eg which treats women as property, and treats marriages as an arranged sale of a woman from one family to another without permission from the woman or even her meeting the husband), any kind of homosexual relationship is going to have a different social dynamic to heterosexual relationships because the power imbalance of gender inequality won't be present.

---

quote:

---

First of all I am not convinced from the text that David and Jonathan are lovers. For the record neither am I convinced that Achilles and Patrocles are lovers, nor am I convinced that Gilgamesh and Enkidu are lovers. My view is that this is basically shipping. It is based on the same evidence that Kirk and Spock, Starsky and Hutch, Bodie and Doyle and Blake and Avon or, indeed, Sam and Dean Winchester are in a gay relationship.

---

quote:

---

This is part of the reason that some of us are sceptical of claims that some heroes were involved sexually with one another. One of the partners would have had to play the passive role,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
First of all I am not convinced from the text that David and Jonathan are lovers. For the record neither am I convinced that Achilles and Patrocles are lovers, nor am I convinced that Gilgamesh and Enkidu are lovers. My view is that this is basically shipping. It is based on the same evidence that Kirk and Spock, Starsky and Hutch, Bodie and Doyle and Blake and Avon or, indeed, Sam and Dean Winchester are in a gay relationship.

---

quote:

---

But homosexual relationships were no more egalitarian than heterosexual relationships. The obvious example is Nero and Sporus mentioned above but no one thinks that Bagoas was the equal of Alexander or Antinous the equal of Hadrian. This is part of the reason that some of us are sceptical of claims that some heroes were involved sexually with one another. One of the partners would have had to play the passive role, to be Sporus, Bagoas or Antinous, if you like. Now that's clearly not how Jonathan, or indeed, Patroclus or Enkidu are depicted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
So it is not a matter of approaching the text and deciding on a whim that we as the reader would like the idea of two of the characters hooking up (ie shipping), but rather a matter of being attuned to the signals that the writer is deliberately sending about whether the characters are in fact hooked up (ie reading comprehension).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I dunno why, but you seem to be getting my near certainty that the text is depicting them as lovers confused with my speculative theories about a marriage, or something similar to one, being depicted between them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
So we have no particular reason to think that the writer of Samuel (or David himself), or the culture he lived in, had any negative views of homosexual acts, and everything we know about the various other cultures of the area tells us that homosexuality was widely accepted and positively regarded, especially among warriors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What has the Roman Empire got to do with a story that was set a thousand years earlier, and written at least for or five hundred years earlier?

---

quote:

---

But either way, the opinions of classical Ionians on the sexual habits of their Achaian predecessors haven't got anything to do with whatever the writers of the book of Samuel meant to imply about David and Johnathan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that any source which confidently states that the Emperor Constantine abolished gay marriage in the Roman Empire can be filed under "lack of scholarly credentials".

---

I went straight for the penultimate paragraph and missed that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you don't accept the writings about Jonathan and David as indicative of a same sex marriage, then the question you have to answer is, what written description would satisfy you that it was a same sex marriage?

---

• Got married;
• Had sex;
• Shared a home;
• Shared a bed;
• Used 'marriage' words to describe their relationship;
• Were seen by others as a romantic couple;
• Were jealous (or at least one of them was) of the other's extra-marital sexual interests;
• Took on a parental role to one another's children;
• Were accepted as members of one another's families;
• Shared their property as a single household.

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Because not all your posts, or even parts of your posts, make that clear a distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
It's not clear to me whether you are advocating a historical position or a literary one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you don't accept the writings about Jonathan and David as indicative of a same sex marriage, then the question you have to answer is, what written description would satisfy you that it was a same sex marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What has the Roman Empire got to do with a story that was set a thousand years earlier, and written at least for or five hundred years earlier

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Regarding the code of Theodosios (or whoever - the Latin text attributes that particular section to Constans and Constantius), the key phrase is "cum vir nubit in femina", which does literally mean "when a man marries as a woman". Some Googling would suggest it's rather questionable whether it should actually be taken literally, as opposed to being a euphemism for homosexual sex. I think it is rather unlikely to be intended literally, as that would suggest Constans and Constantius were fine with gay sex as long as the couple weren't married, and evidence for gay marriage as a regular Roman institution is otherwise lacking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Some indication in the text that they:
[*]Got married;

---

quote:

---

[*]Had sex;

---

quote:

---

[*]Shared a home;

---

quote:

---

[*]Shared a bed;

---

quote:

---

[*]Used 'marriage' words to describe their relationship;

---

quote:

---

[*]Were seen by others as a romantic couple;

---

quote:

---

[*]Were jealous (or at least one of them was) of the other's extra-marital sexual interests;

---

quote:

---

[*]Took on a parental role to one another's children;

---

quote:

---

[*]Were accepted as members of one another's families;

---

quote:

---

[*]Shared their property as a single household.

---

quote:

---

Even one of those would be a good start, and none of them appear in Samuel.

---

quote:

---

David and Jonathan don't behave like a married couple.

---

quote:

---

"My partner and I tend to adjust our PDA according to the environment we are in... But it's funny, those who would tend to have a problem with gay couples tend to view us as brothers or fellow employees or room mates. Those who would tend to be more accepting tend to notice right away that we are a couple.” - Charles H.

Reply: “I think many people see what they want to see. A waitress at a diner where we have eaten regularly for over ten years asked one morning which of us was older. I said "I am by 6 months" to that she replied "wow, it must have been tough on your mother to have two babies so close together" .... duh?” - Michael C.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I think "thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Sam 1:26) implies sex, as do the various other statements about how much they loved one another,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
To be honest I find the tactic of finding implied homosexual relationships in various places to be quite misconceived as a means of securing rights for homosexual couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I think in 100 years time when everyone in the western world takes the existence of same-sex relationships completely for granted

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
[*]Had sex;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The argument that it's not same sex marriage because modern definitions don't map onto the understanding of marriage in antiquity seems an evasion. No one seems to have any problem with Abraham and Sara as models of heterosexual marriage. Still, it's routinely cited despite complications such as concubines and polygamy.

---

quote:

---

If you don't accept the writings about Jonathan and David as indicative of a same sex marriage, then the question you have to answer is, what written description would satisfy you that it was a same sex marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I would also like to hear some views of what exactly people think the covenants depicted in 1 Sam 18:1-3 and 1 Sam 23:16-18 are doing/achieving/about. In these passages, the talk of a "covenant" makes it look to me as if the two men are formally pledging themselves to one another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Roman wedding ceremonies had significantly more gender differences than ours do, and therefore same-sex couples getting married were to some extent forced to have one of them take the role of the female if they wanted it to be anything like a normal marriage ceremony. Multiple sources attest that this did happen reasonably often, and various sources take offence at the fact that during the marriage ceremony a man is acting out the part of a woman - an affront to their ideals of masculinity (no Roman sources have a problem at all with the idea of same-sex acts in and of themselves though - they are taken for granted as likely and acceptable).

---

quote:

---

However there is a steady flow of vitriol in Roman sources against wedding ceremonies in which one of the men publicly takes the role of the woman (to the point of dressing up and wearing a veil etc), and a man dressing up as a woman during a same-sex marriage ceremony seems to be what is explicitly being banned by the Theodosian code.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think this is actually evidence that the ceremonies performed did not amount to marriage.

Without the legal consequence, a ceremony is empty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

b) This was a socially well-known and tolerated practice, even if disapproved of by some.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:


The argument that it's not same sex marriage because modern definitions don't map onto the understanding of marriage in antiquity seems an evasion. No one seems to have any problem with Abraham and Sara as models of heterosexual marriage. Still, it's routinely cited despite complications such as concubines and polygamy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think this is actually evidence that the ceremonies performed did not amount to marriage.

Without the legal consequence, a ceremony is empty.

---

I think I'm prepared to simply say "the Roman Empire had gay marriage" because:
a) Gay couples had weddings, and considered themselves 'married' afterwards.

---

quote:

---

b) This was a socially well-known and tolerated practice, even if disapproved of by some.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I would also like to hear some views of what exactly people think the covenants depicted in 1 Sam 18:1-3 and 1 Sam 23:16-18 are doing/achieving/about. In these passages, the talk of a "covenant" makes it look to me as if the two men are formally pledging themselves to one another.

---

For example, in an appropriate society a knight might pledge himself to his liege and vice versa. (Or a mafioso might pledge himself to the new boss.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
They made a covenant to seal their love for each other (1 Sam 18:1-3).

---

quote:

---

I think "thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Sam 1:26) implies sex, as do the various other statements about how much they loved one another

---

quote:

---

They both lived in the palace, so yeah they shared a home.

---

quote:

---

Saul yells at Jonathan at one point: "do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?" (1 Sam 20:30) The way Saul critiques Jonathan for his relationship with David in this passage doesn't make any cultural sense unless Saul is assuming the relationship is sexual.

---

quote:

---

You'd expect this even if they were Just Good Friends (TM). As you point out, David is indeed nice to Jonathan's child once he becomes aware one exists.

---

quote:

---

There are sentiments of a united family expressed: "The LORD shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants forever" (1 Sam 20:42)

---

quote:

---

Jonathan seems to have envisioned them jointly ruling over Israel: "You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you" (1 Sam 23:17) If the kingdom can be regarded as the household of the king (as various ancient sources do regard it), then joint rule would constitute sharing household and property.

---

quote:

---

Because the David and Jonathan story is not written like how a conservative Christian in the modern Western world would write an account of a same-sex couple, conservative Christians have difficulty believing that's what the writer was intending to portray.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, in an appropriate society a knight might pledge himself to his liege and vice versa. (Or a mafioso might pledge himself to the new boss.)

---

That's what's happening in the first one. Jonathan gives David his weapons. David is now his man, his warrior, his military servant. As well as being Saul's - Saul and Jonathan take David into their household. The very next thing that happens is David starts getting sent out on military missions.

If we read it through mediaeval eyes rather than modern ones (just as anachronistic) this would clearly be a ritual arming. I recently re-read Malory's Morte D'Arthur. There are many, probably hundreds of examples of a lord arming his followers. It's what you did to show who was who's man. Clothes too. Later on in the bastard feudalism era the weapons got less important but the clothes became more important, and turned into elaborate liveries. The same happens now with the runaway fashion of employers making workers wear uniforms - its a ritual sign of subjection and inferiority. Literally shows who's boss.

In the Middle Ages and Early Modern period such clothes were one of the perks of the job. Servants of powerful lords derived status from their lord and being a kings man was a very hig status. Most people would be proud of it.

Also the poor might not have decent clothes. They'd be thankful for a rich robe. Even a hand-me-down. Especially a hand-me-down from a king or prince.

And there is a practical point too. We've just been told in the previous chapter that David has no arms or armour. Saul and Jonathan have taken him into their household as a warrior. So they give him weapons. What else would you expect?


As for the second covenant, that's Jonathan telling David that he will be on his side if he rebels against Saul. They are plotting a coup, not getting hitched.

---

Thanks for that! That's a really good explanation, and I've been thinking about it over the last day, and you've convinced me.

So yeah, I'm now convinced it's more likely that the author didn't intend the text to depict them as 'married' than that he did. Thanks guys for the thoughtful responses!
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, I still think you're falling into the basic error, much beloved of tabloid gossip, of assuming that if two people are close there's gotta be sex happening. Which I know from personal experience is not true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
However, I think the situation is quite a bit different when we are dealing with a text. Because the author of the text, unlike people in real life, generally does know fully what the relationship status of the characters is, and that is almost always reflected in the writing in terms of the portrayal of the characters.

---

quote:

---

My friend, tongue in cheek, pointed out amusingly that they can't have been a romance in Tolkien's mind because that would be an interracial couple and an interracial couple would have been considered scandelous the 1940s!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That's true of a fictional text. But if David and Jonathan are fictional then I understand the point of this conversation even less than I did before.

---

quote:

---

I hope you can see that there is no sensible way to argue that the Anglican church ought to change its attitude because of a couple of characters in Middle Earth.

---

quote:

---

Bessie Earp: We are your wives. Don't we ever count more than the damn brothers?

Wyatt Earp: No, Bessie, you don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That's true of a fictional text. But if David and Jonathan are fictional then I understand the point of this conversation even less than I did before.

---

Any account involves some level of creative control on the part of the author. A journalist writing a news story has to decide what facts to include, what to leave out, what to emphasize and what to play down. Equally if I were to ask a friend "what did you do yesterday", they'd respond giving me only a tiny fraction of the total information about what occurred during the day based on what they felt would interest me and what they were prepared to share - what I would be told would not be an unfiltered factual account of every single event but rather a highly filtered selective account with various biases and editorial choices.

The author of this account of David and Jonathan equally had to make decisions about what to include and what not to, and how to portray the characters. In that sense, the text itself portrays to us the author's conception of the characters. A person might ask "did the events depicted in the text really happen?", but we have no way of knowing (apart from either simply believing the bible), so that's not a particularly interesting or useful question. But we can definitely ask questions about the author's portrayal of the characters and about what the text as we have it says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
while studiously avoiding asking authors what they were actually going for.

---

quote:

---

I honestly don't understand why you're doing all this discussing of texts. Now that you're saying it's NOT about reasons for the Anglican church to change its attitude... then why dominate the thread with it. You're allowed too, yes, because Ship threads wander off onto all sorts of tangents. But I honestly don't see why you would have bothered.

---

quote:

---

I think this is going nowhere of practical value

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy1:
I'd like make a comment about your use of the word 'just'. You have repeatedly said that some people claim David and Jonathan were 'just really really good friends' or that it was 'just a bromance'.

Your use of the word 'just' implies that you assume that sexual relationships will be assumed to be more emotionally significant than non sexual ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy1:
I'd like make a comment about your use of the word 'just'. You have repeatedly said that some people claim David and Jonathan were 'just really really good friends' or that it was 'just a bromance'.

Your use of the word 'just' implies that you assume that sexual relationships will be assumed to be more emotionally significant than non sexual ones.

---

You're over-reading my terminology. One view is saying there's emotional + sexual content to the relationship, the other view is that there is "only" / "just" emotional content and not sexual content in addition to that emotional content.

---

quote:

---

I do however, consider it beyond reasonable doubt that the text of Samuel depicts Jonathan and David as lovers. It's made pretty crystal clear by the various statements of how much they love one another, David comparing his love for Jonathan with that for women etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So to skip a few centuries forward. Has anyone written a response challenging the Report?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy1:

Indeed when comparing love David doesn't say his love was 'the same as' the love of a woman, he says it was 'greater'. If someone is living in a society where, like Costner's Wyatt Earp, men would be assumed to love their brothers more than their sexual partners then saying the love was 'greater' than the love of a woman would imply it was brotherly and not sexual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy1:
Indeed when comparing love David doesn't say his love was 'the same as' the love of a woman, he says it was 'greater'. If someone is living in a society where, like Costner's Wyatt Earp, men would be assumed to love their brothers more than their sexual partners then saying the love was 'greater' than the love of a woman would imply it was brotherly and not sexual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
In contrast to that type of reading, I'm not at all willing to agree that the David and Jonathan story falls under that sort of "a romance would be inconceivable in that culture" exception.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The point I'm trying to make is that a queer reading of a text which shows potential affirming models of queerness is important, regardless of whether or not there is any actual canonical queerness there. The writer's intention doesn't affect this at all - any purpose to a text is meaningless unless someone is there to receive the text and interpret it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
And thus to persuade anyone to change their reading I would have to convey quite a large amount of information about homosexuality in the ancient world, which isn't going to happen in the context of a forum thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
If you are reading the Bible for authority, intention makes a difference. An interpretation which I take from the text, however true or helpful it might be, is not an authoritative statement about the ethics which God expects me to live by, unless someone with authority (either God, or the original writer as inspired by him) intended it to be there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, (if I understand correctly) the interpretivist arguments of the legal scholar Ronald Dworkin (wikipedia page here) would have it that the authority of the law is the law as interpreted in accordance with the best moral commitments of the judges. For example, even those parts of the Constitution of the United States that were written by slaveowners with the intention of permitting slavery should be interpreted as enjoining racial equality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

One of the things I've learned from Williams' book, which I wasn't previously aware of, is that it was extremely common for Roman masters to make sexual use of slaves they owned (both male and female).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Which is why scholars like Adrian Thatcher and Elizabeth Stuart see Jesus's approval of same-sex love in the story of the Centurion whose servant was ill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I do think subjective intention is important for the point about which David and Jonathan are used as a supposed endorsement of same-sex relationships. The argument on the other side is “the Bible contains no positive portrayals of same-sex couples”, as a reasons for concluding “and therefore God does not approve of them”.*

For the answer “What about David and Jonathan, then?” to work, it's not enough for someone of Jade's opinion to say that for them “a queer reading of a text which shows potential affirming models of queerness is important”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Which is why scholars like Adrian Thatcher and Elizabeth Stuart see Jesus's approval of same-sex love in the story of the Centurion whose servant was ill.

---

Yes, that certainly looks to me like a very legitimate reading of that passage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

One of the things I've learned from Williams' book, which I wasn't previously aware of, is that it was extremely common for Roman masters to make sexual use of slaves they owned (both male and female).

---

Which is why scholars like Adrian Thatcher and Elizabeth Stuart see Jesus's approval of same-sex love in the story of the Centurion whose servant was ill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

One of the things I've learned from Williams' book, which I wasn't previously aware of, is that it was extremely common for Roman masters to make sexual use of slaves they owned (both male and female).

---

Which is why scholars like Adrian Thatcher and Elizabeth Stuart see Jesus's approval of same-sex love in the story of the Centurion whose servant was ill.

---

It's a reading of the story limited to a few scholars, hardly mainstream and it does look rather like a reading into the story as opposed to anything else.

FWIW, my daughter, who studied ancient history at a reputable university reckons that the evidence for same sex relationships amongst greeks and romans is rather overplayed in the literature above primary sources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Certainly, the romantic idea of ancient Greece and Rome being a haven for gay men (and it was just men) is a fiction. Relationships between men were to show the power of the dominant partner, and consisted of sexual slavery, sex with minors and people trafficking and only benefited a minority of rich, socially powerful and otherwise generally straight men. The relationships that existed that were more in line with modern romantic relationships between consenting adults were actually not tolerated, unless you were an emperor and had the power to make people tolerate it (eg Hadrian and his lover whose name I have forgotten).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Certainly, the romantic idea of ancient Greece and Rome being a haven for gay men (and it was just men) is a fiction. Relationships between men were to show the power of the dominant partner, and consisted of sexual slavery, sex with minors and people trafficking and only benefited a minority of rich, socially powerful and otherwise generally straight men. The relationships that existed that were more in line with modern romantic relationships between consenting adults were actually not tolerated, unless you were an emperor and had the power to make people tolerate it (eg Hadrian and his lover whose name I have forgotten).

---

I'm not sure Hadrian and Antinous were in line with modern romantic relationships. Antinous was only 19 years old when he drowned in the Nile during an Imperial visit to Egypt. Hadrian was 54 at the time. Given the gap of age and power between the two one has to wonder how 'modern' the relationship was and whether Antinous drowned himself because he couldn't see any other way of escape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
FWIW, my daughter, who studied ancient history at a reputable university reckons that the evidence for same sex relationships amongst greeks and romans is rather overplayed in the literature above primary sources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In your determination to read this as His "approval of same-sex love" - which I think is a stretch beyond the ordinarily elastic - are you prepared to accept that it would actually be Jesus approving of (in leo's words) "the sexual use of slaves"? Because leo's whole argument seems to be premised on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
FWIW, my daughter, who studied ancient history at a reputable university reckons that the evidence for same sex relationships amongst greeks and romans is rather overplayed in the literature above primary sources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:


(*) And the Holy Spirit came upon Jonathan and he prophesied that there shall be a woman. And she shall sing a song of a rainbow, and there shall be somewhere over the rainbow, and that somewhere shall be a land that the woman shall dream of; and the birds shall fly over the rainbow, saith the Lord. And David and Jonathan did admire that woman greatly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE]If Jesus was particularly anti same sex relationships, he would potentially have acted a bit differently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
FWIW, my daughter, who studied ancient history at a reputable university reckons that the evidence for same sex relationships amongst greeks and romans is rather overplayed in the literature above primary sources.

---

I'm not entirely sure what you're meaning. Hubbard's publication of the most relevant primary sources runs to 500 pages. Williams' book on homosexuality in the Roman Empire, which I'm reading at the moment, cites ~1500 passages in ancient sources (going by the 17-page index at the end of the ancient sources cited). Basically there are a looooot of primary sources that mention same sex activity, and those sources pretty consistently suggest it was happening a lot.

Of course, there is certainly scope for conjecture about what percentage of the population in Greece or Rome engaged in same-sex acts, and it's obviously possible to guess too high or too low regarding that. For example, same-sex relationships were institutionalised in various Greek city-states during some periods, as standard practice for the mentoring and development of young men, and there is debate over whether these applied only to the aristocracy or to all citizens of those states. So claiming a 100% same-sex act participation rate could well be too high.

Or equally, in the case of Rome, it's not very easy to tell from the surviving literature just what proportion of people were actually engaging in same-sex acts. The Romans appear to have conceived of all men as bisexual, and been largely indifferent to any man's own personal preferences regarding the gender or age of the sexual partner. I guess the question is: Given they could try out various partners, did they in fact commonly try out all their available options? And, after trying them out, what proportion continued to regularly have same-sex relations vs opposite sex relations? I guess it might be possible to estimate a percentage of same/opposite sex acts based on a particular sample (eg the surviving graffiti from Pompeii) but I haven't seen it done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Which is why scholars like Adrian Thatcher and Elizabeth Stuart see Jesus's approval of same-sex love in the story of the Centurion whose servant was ill.

---

Yes, that certainly looks to me like a very legitimate reading of that passage.

---

In your determination to read this as His "approval of same-sex love" - which I think is a stretch beyond the ordinarily elastic - are you prepared to accept that it would actually be Jesus approving of (in leo's words) "the sexual use of slaves"? Because leo's whole argument seems to be premised on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]

1. But a hermeneutic of suspicion might lead one to be wary of what white, male scholars read into texts.

2. Challenges from Queer theology, womanist theology etc. keep us on our toes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
FWIW, my daughter, who studied ancient history at a reputable university reckons that the evidence for same sex relationships amongst greeks and romans is rather overplayed in the literature above primary sources.

---

I'm not entirely sure what you're meaning. Hubbard's publication of the most relevant primary sources runs to 500 pages. Williams' book on homosexuality in the Roman Empire, which I'm reading at the moment, cites ~1500 passages in ancient sources (going by the 17-page index at the end of the ancient sources cited). Basically there are a looooot of primary sources that mention same sex activity, and those sources pretty consistently suggest it was happening a lot.

Of course, there is certainly scope for conjecture about what percentage of the population in Greece or Rome engaged in same-sex acts, and it's obviously possible to guess too high or too low regarding that. For example, same-sex relationships were institutionalised in various Greek city-states during some periods, as standard practice for the mentoring and development of young men, and there is debate over whether these applied only to the aristocracy or to all citizens of those states. So claiming a 100% same-sex act participation rate could well be too high.

Or equally, in the case of Rome, it's not very easy to tell from the surviving literature just what proportion of people were actually engaging in same-sex acts. The Romans appear to have conceived of all men as bisexual, and been largely indifferent to any man's own personal preferences regarding the gender or age of the sexual partner. I guess the question is: Given they could try out various partners, did they in fact commonly try out all their available options? And, after trying them out, what proportion continued to regularly have same-sex relations vs opposite sex relations? I guess it might be possible to estimate a percentage of same/opposite sex acts based on a particular sample (eg the surviving graffiti from Pompeii) but I haven't seen it done.

---

It's impossible to tell for certain. We can't even be sure what the figures are today - in the UK ISTR that the figure quoted for those who are exclusively gay is about 3% of the male population with up to 15% bisexual. Having "tried" gay sex whether willingly or enforced doesn't make one gay: sometimes the stats are widened to this.

It means that 85% of people are heterosexual by inclination and presumably by activity. Many of those 85% are not antagonistic towards gays: some are including significant elements of the historic and new church denominations. How does that relate to Rome - who knows?


Equally toleration and acceptance aren't the same thing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]

1. But a hermeneutic of suspicion might lead one to be wary of what white, male scholars read into texts.

2. Challenges from Queer theology, womanist theology etc. keep us on our toes.

---

1. As one should be wary of anyone who seemingly reads into scripture which could well include gay readings or feminist ones.

2. On occasion they, like traditional interpretations, give us a good laugh too

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It means that 85% of people are heterosexual by inclination and presumably by activity... How does that relate to Rome - who knows?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
My general impression of antiquity is that, by and large, same sex relationships were what most people today would consider abusive

---

quote:

---

The main argument for revisionism wrt the church's teaching on homosexuality is that gay relationships are, or at least can be (like straight relationships), decent, ethical and loving. At their best they can represent Christ's relationship with His Church. Now the other lot, being bigots, (I say this in all Christian love) deny this. For them gay relationships are invariably trivial, sensual and degrading.

---

quote:

---

So I don't think, guys, we are really playing to our strengths here if we start claiming that King David was married to Michal but also banging her brother or that Jesus was quite OK about people forcing their slaves to have sex with them as long as, in some indeterminate sense, the slave owner loved his slave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It means that 85% of people are heterosexual by inclination and presumably by activity... How does that relate to Rome - who knows?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
If our definition of a "homosexual" male is a person who is sexually attracted to masculine features as opposed to feminine ones, no homosexual male is going to find anything much to be attracted to in pre-pubescent boys, and little to be attracted to in teenage boys until they near the age of 20 or so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:


[quote]I think you're wrong to limit that statement to same sex relationships - I think most people today would be unhappy about most heterosexual relationships in antiquity. The huge majority of ancient relationships involved a large age differential and a large power differential between the two partners.

---

quote:

---

I would say the main argument against the church's teachings on homosexuality is actually the massive amount of harm done to people by the Church's teachings, as compared to the happiness and benefits created by gay couples happily getting married. I don't think the bigots' biggest problem is their complete ignorance of the nature of homosexual relationships, I think the bigots' biggest problem is their complete ignorance of the amount of suffering that they and others like them have caused to gay people over the centuries.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't at all advocate trying to use the Bible to convince a bigot to take a more loving stance towards gay people! However, neither do I have the slightest interest in letting my own exegesis of the bible be affected by people telling me "but ignorant conservatives wouldn't believe that reading!" So I am completely fine with observing that it appears to me that David and Jonathan are being depicted in a sexual relationship, and that the centurion's servant seems reasonably likely to be being depicted as a same-sex lover. Is that going to convince conservatives? Of course not. But it's not any less true simply because it can't serve a rhetorical purpose of convincing conservatives to accept modern gay relationships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Homosexual culture in the first half of the twentieth century seems to me to have had a strong bias towards sexual relations with young men, judging by an anecdotal sample of memoirs from the period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]

1. But a hermeneutic of suspicion might lead one to be wary of what white, male scholars read into texts.

2. Challenges from Queer theology, womanist theology etc. keep us on our toes.

---

1. As one should be wary of anyone who seemingly reads into scripture which could well include gay readings or feminist ones.

2. On occasion they, like traditional interpretations, give us a good laugh too

---

Why are queer (not the same as gay, thanks) readings or feminist readings invalid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Homosexual culture in the first half of the twentieth century seems to me to have had a strong bias towards sexual relations with young men, judging by an anecdotal sample of memoirs from the period.

---

Like you said, that is anecdotal. And probably untrue if you look into the underground pornography, titillation stories and 'beefcake' photos, as documented .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that there is a fairly major difference inasmuch as you can weed out the undesirable features of heterosexual marriage and still end up with something that St. Paul would have recognised whereas a married man banging an adolescent, a slave or a male prostitute is going to be undesirable however you slice it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Homosexual culture in the first half of the twentieth century seems to me to have had a strong bias towards sexual relations with young men, judging by an anecdotal sample of memoirs from the period.

---

Like you said, that is anecdotal. And probably untrue if you look into the underground pornography, titillation stories and 'beefcake' photos, as documented .

---

Probably. But if you look at literary exemplars and representations, Oscar Wilde was 16 years older than Alfred Douglas (Douglas was 21 when they met), Auden 14 years older than Kallman (Kallman 18 when they met), Isherwood and Bachardy have a 30 year age difference (that raised eyebrows at the time). Britten and Pears are pretty equal at only three years apart. Edward Carpenter and George Merrill, inspirations for Forster's Maurice, are 22 years apart. Wikipedia doesn't say how old Forster's lover was (though he was married). Mann's Death in Venice is about an old man's infatuation with a teenage boy. I haven't looked up Gide or Proust.

This isn't a criticism of gay relationships as such - similar facts would be true of most heterosexual marriages throughout history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It means that 85% of people are heterosexual by inclination and presumably by activity... How does that relate to Rome - who knows?

---

After thinking about this some more, I think modern research on paedophilia gives the best explanation as to why same-sex activity was more pervasive in the ancient world than modern statistics on the prevalence of homosexual men can account for.

Scientists researching paedophilia in the modern world have noted that it's important to realise that masculine physical traits develop quite late in males. The development of fully masculine features in boys can be regarded to some extent as beginning at puberty and being complete with the onset of facial hair growth around the age of 20. Prior to that, and certainly prior to puberty, the physical features of boys are quite 'feminine' in appearance.

If our definition of a "homosexual" male is a person who is sexually attracted to masculine features as opposed to feminine ones, no homosexual male is going to find anything much to be attracted to in pre-pubescent boys, and little to be attracted to in teenage boys until they near the age of 20 or so. Likewise, if we define a "straight" male as a person who is sexually attracted to feminine features, then there is potential for such people to experience attraction to females of all ages plus younger males who have still not yet developed masculine features.

Scientists studying paedophilia in the modern world have found the above observations necessary to explain the observed data that paedophiles are virtually always "straight": They have opposite-sex relationships with adults, they identify as straight, they prefer to molest female children, and when they molest male children they cite feminine characteristics of those children when interviewed about what they found attractive. Once the observation that masculine traits are a late-developing feature in males is factored in, the scientific data that "homosexual" males show markedly less tendencies toward paedophilia than "straight" males becomes straightforward to explain - children of both sexes lack the masculine traits that attract homosexual men but have the feminine traits that attract straight men.

Basically, the science shows that man-boy paedophilia is a straight, not gay, act in the sense that it is an act that gets done by straight people and not gay people. (This can be contrasted with popular claims by the ignorant that "If your scout leader abused you as a boy, then he was a homosexual. Even if he was married with 10 kids he was gay.")

So, with a view to applying this back to the ancient world, how do we distinguish between straight paedophilia, and homosexuality? The answer is age - homosexual men will be attracted to the masculine qualities present in men of ~18 and above years of age, and straight men will be attracted to the feminine qualities present in females and of men less than ~20 years of age.

This gives us a testable hypothesis: Which of these kinds of things do we find in the ancient sources? The answer with regard to the Roman sources is very clear: The second. Those sources repeatedly depict the ideal sexual partners as being females of almost any age, and pre-adult males. The long-lasting beauty of women is compared by sources to the short-lived attractiveness of boys, who are generally regarded as no longer attractive as soon as they develop facial hair. The primary characteristic mentioned by sources with regard to the attractiveness of boys is them having smooth hairless bodies. Various sources do mention that some men found other adult males attractive but this almost always clearly indicated to be something that is unusual. Thus surviving documents from the Roman Empire depict a society where apparently the vast majority of the men were attracted to feminine bodily characteristics of the type found in women of most ages and in boys of a younger age, and by contrast comparatively few male adult Romans appear to have found the masculine characteristics present in adult males attractive. Thus, the pervasiveness of same-sex paedophilia in Roman society can be easily reconciled with the modern observation that a large majority of men are straight.

The ironic truth of the matter appears to be that nearly all those Romans who were doing same-sex acts regularly, were straight. (Of course, this might well simply highlight how problematic our modern categories of "gay" and "straight" are!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's also worth noting that the percentages of homosexual vary by culture and opportunity.
US LBGT demographics done a few years back show percentages varying from 1.7% to 10%. Oddly enough, people who respond to a census question are you gay, seems to correlate slightly with whether the state still has an anti-sodomy law.

Modern Gay people are much more prevalent in Big Cities than isolated rural states. Pompeii was a vacation spot for the rich of Rome, but one can assume there might be less homosexuality among slaves who weren't being sexually abused, just being made to work hard on the rural plantations.

It may or may not be that any particular biblical relationship was homosexual, but it's clear that there has been a relentless scrubbing of same sex relationships from the records, since the beginning of the Christian era. When Pompeii was first excavated, the sexually explicit material was carefully locked away in museums and made difficult to access. This continues to this day.
Many who study antiquity are re-assured that the blatantly obvious same-sex activity was "just not that important" and queer interpretation is just fanciful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Gay' is not all that helpful a term when it comes to demographics. Many people who engage in romantic or sexual relationships or experiences with the same gender would not self-describe as gay. MSM/WSM (men who have sex with men, women who have sex with women) is more accurate, especially in cultural/religious groups where an LGBTQ identity is taboo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I think most people today would be unhappy about most heterosexual relationships in antiquity. The huge majority of ancient relationships involved a large age differential and a large power differential between the two partners. Today we would want to reject nearly all of them as being either paedophilia or rape or both. But I think trying to separate out the same-sex relationships and say those were objectionable for the above reasons is disingenuous because the opposite-sex relationships of the period were also objectionable for the same reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
It's worth adding that the sexual molestation of slaves was considered a pretty grave sin, at least in Augustine's day.

---

quote:

---

Seneca, De Beneficiis, III.22
Benefits and wrongs are opposites; a slave can bestow a benefit upon his master, if he can receive a wrong from his master. Now an official has been appointed to hear complaints of the wrongs done by masters to their slaves, whose duty it is to restrain cruelty and lust, or avarice in providing them with the necessaries of life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]

1. But a hermeneutic of suspicion might lead one to be wary of what white, male scholars read into texts.

2. Challenges from Queer theology, womanist theology etc. keep us on our toes.

---

1. As one should be wary of anyone who seemingly reads into scripture which could well include gay readings or feminist ones.

2. On occasion they, like traditional interpretations, give us a good laugh too

---

Why are queer (not the same as gay, thanks) readings or feminist readings invalid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I read the report a second time, I became aware of nuances and admissions that the evidence on various issues was inconclusive. It is as if some of the authors wanted to be more liberal but were hijacked, much like the Anglican Communion in general, by the conservative evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think I agree with Gildas here. One of the main differences between homo- and heterosexual relations among Romans and Greeks was that, whereas you were generally supposed to be faithful to your wife, you were expected to give up your homosexual partner once you got married - in other words, abandonment was built into gay relationships.

---

quote:

---

You were supposed to stick with your wife into old age, but abandon your partner when they became too manly.

---

quote:

---

Similarly I am not entirely convinced that age gaps, or power differences, are inherently bad things. It depends on how the one with the power reacts to their position.

---

quote:

---

Also by the time of Seneca, who was more or less contemporary with St Paul, slaves did have the right to complain before a public official about ill treatment by their masters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]

1. But a hermeneutic of suspicion might lead one to be wary of what white, male scholars read into texts.

2. Challenges from Queer theology, womanist theology etc. keep us on our toes.

---

1. As one should be wary of anyone who seemingly reads into scripture which could well include gay readings or feminist ones.

2. On occasion they, like traditional interpretations, give us a good laugh too

---

Why are queer (not the same as gay, thanks) readings or feminist readings invalid?

---

Jade - "be wary of .." doesn't equate to invalid. Reading one's own view into things to get the result one wants is wrong whomever you are or whatever perspective you are coming at it from

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I read the report a second time, I became aware of nuances and admissions that the evidence on various issues was inconclusive. It is as if some of the authors wanted to be more liberal but were hijacked, much like the Anglican Communion in general, by the conservative evangelicals.

---

It's as if some of the authors wanted to be more evangelical but were hi jacked by the liberals, don't you mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]

1. But a hermeneutic of suspicion might lead one to be wary of what white, male scholars read into texts.

2. Challenges from Queer theology, womanist theology etc. keep us on our toes.

---

1. As one should be wary of anyone who seemingly reads into scripture which could well include gay readings or feminist ones.

2. On occasion they, like traditional interpretations, give us a good laugh too

---

Why are queer (not the same as gay, thanks) readings or feminist readings invalid?

---

Jade - "be wary of .." doesn't equate to invalid. Reading one's own view into things to get the result one wants is wrong whomever you are or whatever perspective you are coming at it from

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

I'm not sure I'd say that the Roman sources show nearly so much emphasis on faithfulness to one's wife, or abandonment of previous male lovers. There's plenty of mention of married men who still take boy lovers, and of wives who get jealous of them.

---

quote:

---

The existence of the power dynamic makes abuse possible to a greater degree than otherwise. So, it's dangerous and something to be suspicious of, I think.

---

quote:

---

Thanks for that quote. Although I'm not really sure how to reconcile it entirely with what I've read elsewhere about the master-slave relationship. I wonder how easily accessible and effective this official Seneca mentions was, and whether that same level of assistance was available for slaves outside of Rome. This summary seems to suggest that laws protecting slaves developed slowly over time, and that it took a while to get things like the ban on the castration of slaves to stick. The wiki article agrees with Williams' book that slaves could be sexually exploited and pimped out for prostitution if their master chose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Those are - generally - upper-class men, though. Upper-class relationships generally were not between equals, and the concept was alien to them - including gay upper-class men. Relationships between gay men from other classes (which are very under-reported, aside from some wartime diaries) were rather different.

---

quote:

---

Gay couples who get married will be able to ask for special prayers in the Church of England after their wedding, the bishops have agreed.

But priests who are themselves in same-sex relationships or even civil partnerships will be banned from getting married when it becomes legally possible next month.

The blanket prohibition opens up the prospect of an embarrassing rebellion from gay and lesbian clergy who choose to tie the knot.

It would force local bishops to bring lengthy disciplinary measures to effectively have them defrocked for getting married.

It is understood the Church is already bracing itself for “martyrs” prepared to challenge the rules.

The ban, contained in new “pastoral guidance” from the Church of England, comes despite rules which allow those in civil partnerships to become priests and even bishops – as long as they claim to be celibate [I think they mean "continent"].

But the guidelines, announced by the House of Bishops ahead of the coming into force of the Same-Sex Marriage Act next month, also state that non-clergy who get married to someone of the same sex will be free to continue to receive communion within the Church of England.

Although the Church will not be carrying out same-sex weddings, the new guidance also invites newlywed gay couples to ask their local priest for special prayers which will be seen as informal endorsements of their marriage.

The main stipulation is that the priest must not refer to it as a service of “blessing” – a term which is deeply divisive in the Church of England for theological reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
There are positions across the spectrum from Fred Phelps to Peter Tatchell that can be held with integrity but this ain't one of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The main stipulation is that the priest must not refer to it as a service of “blessing” – a term which is deeply divisive in the Church of England for theological reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
There are positions across the spectrum from Fred Phelps to Peter Tatchell that can be held with integrity but this ain't one of them.

---

You're assuming that the Church of England cares whether anyone can hold positions with integrity. The Church of England decides its positions on the basis that if everyone is equally unable to hold them with integrity they must therefore be fair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
There are positions across the spectrum from Fred Phelps to Peter Tatchell that can be held with integrity but this ain't one of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
There are positions across the spectrum from Fred Phelps to Peter Tatchell that can be held with integrity but this ain't one of them.

---

I actually disagree. I'm aware of a fair few people, including gay men in civil partnerships, who think that while gay relationships can and should be endorsed by the church, calling them marriage is inaccurate. I disagree, and find it a bit odd, but I can't really accuse them of a lack of integrity.

---

Civil Partnerships and Gay Marriage are actually the same thing. They are the recognition by the state that two people of the same sex are in a relatonship and extend to them pretty much the same benefits that a heterosexual married couple are entitled to. It's just that Tony Blair was being cautious when he introduced the former because he didn't want to tick of the churches. Now you can argue that neither is the blessed sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but saying that one is fully acceptable to our Lord and His Blessed Mother whilst the other is An Abomination Not To Be Borne By Christian People is, frankly, a load of wank.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
It's posts like the one reported by Gildas which make me wonder if anyone holds the trademark for the term "Anglican Fudge" or whether it could be used for a candy bar to be sold for fund raising.

Naturally the wrapper would contain a half bar.

There does appear to be a blog

[ 16. February 2014, 02:00: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The blanket prohibition opens up the prospect of an embarrassing rebellion from gay and lesbian clergy who choose to tie the knot.

It would force local bishops to bring lengthy disciplinary measures to effectively have them defrocked for getting married.

It is understood the Church is already bracing itself for “martyrs” prepared to challenge the rules.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
It isn't true that 'nothing has happened'.

One West Country bishop vetoed the election of a churchwarden who was in a lesbian partnership.

Another revoked the licenses of two women LLMs/Readers who entered a civil partnership.

Because they were not ordained, it was easier to get round employment rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
One West Country bishop vetoed the election of a churchwarden who was in a lesbian partnership.

Another revoked the licenses of two women LLMs/Readers who entered a civil partnership.

---

quote:

---

I hope my vote at General Synod last November will be a reassurance to those opposed to this development, that I want to be a figure of unity on this matter and will ensure there is an honoured place for both positions within the mainstream of the Church of England. Might Blackburn be a model for the rest of the Church of England!

---

Quite what he intends by calling in his gay clergy is, I agree, worrying but he seems to be conforming to that breed of fence-sitting bishop that makes the CofE such an easy target for satirists ...
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Spent much time speaking to gay clergy today - they all feel they are in for a time of persecution.

The bishops should be sacked en masse. They are not defenders of the faith. They are defenders of self righteousness and, ipso facto. enemies of the gospel. They turn good news into bad news.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by leo

quote:

---

The bishops should be sacked en masse. They are not defenders of the faith. They are defenders of self righteousness and, ipso facto. enemies of the gospel. They turn good news into bad news.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
Civil Partnerships and Gay Marriage are actually the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Now you can argue that neither is the blessed sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but saying that one is fully acceptable to our Lord and His Blessed Mother whilst the other is An Abomination Not To Be Borne By Christian People is, frankly, a load of wank.

---

Definitely agreed.

[URL code fixed]

[ 20. February 2014, 21:46: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 

---

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
I understand from the Bp of Buckingham's blog that members of the House of Bishops have been receiving anonymous gifts of humbugs. There will be a few more arriving in the post on Monday morning.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
What a brilliant idea - and may they break their teeth on them.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Brilliant - and thanks for passing on the information!

I've a medium-sized box with slightly bulging envelopes ready for the post tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
( )^2
 

---

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :
 
Some of the posts here have been a bit alarmist about the situation regarding clergy being "disciplined" for contracting legal civil same-sex marriages.

In other places there has been a good deal of discussion about the grounds upon which bishops could institute disciplinary action. It is not really very clear how they can do it even if they wanted to. The Clergy Discipline Measure is the obvious place to start. However, the Bishops have made this adundantly clear that submission to their instruction is about a matter of the doctrine of the Church of England (i.e. that that doctrine is that marriage is opposite sex); but the CDM is not designed to tackle infringements of doctrine. So it could be argued that contracting a same-sex marriage was an example of disbelieving the doctrine - and therefore so acting. In which case the CDM is irrelevant.

Again, the 32nd Article of the BCP is entitled Of the Marriage of Priests, and says

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

As same-sex marriage is legal, the article makes clear that it is within the discretion of the priest himself or herself to marry or not, and is not the business of other parties.

There is the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, but that would be expensive and heavy-handed.

It is also clear, from some of the diocesan responses, that some dioceses have absolutely no interest in pursuing a punitive route. Liverpool, for instance (via its suffragan) doesn't even mention the ban on SS clergy marriages, Manchester refers to the well-known bit in the person spec last time round where they wanted someone who could relate to the gay community, and several others are as wet as a haddock.

Even Blackburn, who is shown by several here to be a bit of a wally, has only asked his four CPed clergy in for a chat. None of them have said they are planning to marry or to convert (when that becomes legal later in the year). So preumably he will wag his finger a bit and express disapprobation. But there is nothing he can do, certainly not at the moment.

Wait and see what happens when there are some married clergy. I suspect there will be no appetite at all among the bishps to make martyrs. Nor to get excoriated in the press once more as horrible homophobes. Certainly, if they do act against people, the public stock of the Church of England will fall even further (if that were possible).

So the sabre-rattling Pastoral Statement (Pastoral in this case is like the word Democratic in the title of Nations - the more prominently they promote the words Pastoral and Democratic, then you know the less they are in reality) is there for the hardline Evos and Homophobes of the UK, US and Africa. Now the bishops have said it (and been criticised for not chasing out the pooves with flaming torches and stakes), they hope that they can get on with DADT as usual, and have the lovely post-Pilling "facilitated conversations".

The rest of us will get on with real life, which will now include getting married if we want to. By the way - I am queer, so I can use all the naughty slang words that you straights can't
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Well, that didn't take long.

First priest to defy Church ban on gay marriage for clergy

Church of England facing stand-off with its own clergy as first priest openly defies ban on gay clerics marrying
 

---

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :
 
Except he won't be the first.
Watch out for clergy getting married very shortly after the law changes....
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Except he won't be the first.
Watch out for clergy getting married very shortly after the law changes....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Except he won't be the first.
Watch out for clergy getting married very shortly after the law changes....

---

And despite the sabre rattling no one, as usual, will do anything. It's all old news (services for same sex couples have been offered by sympathetic priests since the 1970's, known then to the hierarchy) - and no one was censured.

A classic Anglican fudge and another nail in the coffin of the church in England. Thanks a bunch, state church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I guess a lot of lesbian and gay clergy are hoping that a letter from their bishop after they marry will happen to them too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
whilst Biggus Dickus' letter had it's thigh-slapping moments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
It is clear to me (from personal knowledge and other friends) that what the bishops are MOST worried about is other people making complaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 which they will be obliged to investigate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
The House collectively made this big noise, but now wants to run off and hide under a pile of coats until it is all over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
hosting

I don't want to correct Leo's link without knowing that this is what he means -

The Church in Wales and Same Sex partnerships

Leo, is this the right one?

thanks,
Louise
DH host

hosting off

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
I had lunch recently with someone who was involved in the making of Pilling. Apparently (though you hardly need inside information for this), they bent over backwards to keep the Bishop of Birkenhead on board, thus producing a report very few of them were happy with--and, of course, the Bp of Birkenhead would have nothing to do with it in the end anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Louise, thank you for that link. I've only skimmed the article so far, but do you know who was on the Committee that produced the Report? The only name I could see was the Chair, Canon Dr Peter Sedgwick.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0