He popped up several months ago wondering how one went about being Christian and homosexual, but there was no-where on the boards he could ask this.
I think this would be a useful discussion to have. One thing, though:
If you believe homosexuality to be wrong and cannot bring yourself to take part in a 'what if' discussion, then please do not post on this thread.
There's plenty of places to say what you think, but there's a further question to be discussed:
GIVEN THAT, or SUPPOSING THAT, homosexual acts are not sinful, how is one to live ones life? There is an absence of role-models to which to look, so how do we relate what is given in Christianity to being gay? How should we do relationships as marriage isn't an option? Basically, what is to be done if we accept that God made us this way and it's OK?
I've got fairly strong views on this, but this is a call to debate, so over to you.
Again, if you think the only thing gays can do is be celibate, either post as "well, IF it were OK then..." or please don't bother, I do NOT want 'yet another' homosexuality thread.
quote:
If you believe homosexuality to be wrong and cannot bring yourself to take part in a 'what if' discussion, then please do not post on this thread.
Joan -
This is a debate board and all threads are open to all points of view.
Enders Shadow was warned on Purgatory for doing exactly this - setting down preconditions for who could and who could not respond to his thread.
Unfortunately I can't find that thread to link to in Purgatory now - I suspect it's been deleted.
By all means, say what you would prefer to be discussed, but do not set stipulations as to who can or can't post.
Thank you.
Louise
PS. If you're not happy to do that please ask me and I will close this thread.
[edited to correct spelling]
host hat off
[ 29 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]
I guess also there's a fine line between defining the area of debate, and restricting debate.
Fine - as long as anyone is free to respond within the usual guidelines.
Louise
host off/
[adding tags]
[ 29 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]
I highly recommend Jeffrey John's booklet "Permanent, Faithful, Stable", in the "Affirming Catholicism" series which deals with this very issue.
So - while I believe that sexual expression is OK within the context of a permanent, faithful, committed "marriage-like" relationship, if I were single, I'd consider myself called to celibacy, the same as any other single Christian. I don't believe that promiscuity is right.
As I think came up over and over on the Big Long Thread in Purgatory, it's awfully hard living as a lesbian or gay Christian. Because you don't really fit in in either community.
Luckily my partner and I have plenty of supporting friends, and a great home church which is very affirming and supportive of our love.
Don't know if this is the sort of thing you were after Joan...
Courage Trust, who used to be part of Exodus and the ex-gay movement, have separated from them, saying that
quote:
"experience has proved this ["coming out" of homosexuality] to be a counter-productive approach. The result of seeking the mind of Christ for this area of ministry in the light of many years experience, together with further bible study, has been to see that God recognises and supports sincere committed relationship between gay people where there is no likelihood of the possibility of marriage."
They've also parted company from the Evangelical Alliance, because of this view that lesbians and gays have the same need for intimacy in relationships as anyone else.
And three cheers for them in my book, for finally being honest and admitting that for the vast majority of people, their sexual orientation cannot be altered, no matter how hard you pray.
Yes, God made you and He made no mistakes. However, the Christian life, for me, is a continual process of comparing myself to the standard Jesus set, and being honest when I realize that I am falling short. I am NOT saying that I know what is acceptable & what isn’t – especially for others. I am trying hard to discern what is Christ’s will for me, and what are old, sick patterns that He wants me to grow past, for my own benefit.
The way that God made me is indeed OK, but in response to the fallen world, and because I am fallen too, over years I have developed my own personal ways of coping, which are not optimally healthy for me. The best I can do is be honest with myself, & not pretend that because certain behaviors soothe me, that they are necessarily what God has in mind for me.
Next, I think that out of pain, scapegoated groups (like homosexuals) may withdraw into their own subculture. While totally understandable, a Christian homosexual should (IMHO) question whether that indeed is Christ’s plan for him or her. I know that it is only because of my exposure to “out” gays, that I have experienced that they are not exotics, just strugglers like all of us.
I am grateful to people like Innana who are honest and rigorous with themselves, despite plenty of reasons to retreat into “victimhood”. I know that the people in her congregation who know her & her partner, have been blessed, whether they realize it or not.
Basically, I just recognize & respond to love; and I recognize and respond to self-deception (as do we all). I am fortunate to have personally known gay couples who love and are committed to each other – in fact, I do suspect it may be easier to do this, than for couples who are of opposite genders (men and women are SO different).
Easier does not mean better, but love is always “the answer”.
I don't see why it would be different, the only difference is the sex of their partners.
Your sexuality shouldn't affect how you live as a Christian
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
If you believe homosexuality to be wrong and cannot bring yourself to take part in a 'what if' discussion, then please do not post on this thread.
Incidentally, I think what Joan was getting at that is that she wants a discussion on the topic she specified, not whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. I didn't liken it to ES at all, thought it clarified her OP. That's just how I saw it...
Ultraspike you've been warned about this and suspended before - for attacks on Chastmastr.
That is an unprovoked swipe at another Shipmate.
Apologise for it or I will turn this straight over to an admin.
Louise
host hat off.
[edited to clarify]
[ 30 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]
Louise has gone to bed, and asked me to take over.
Ultraspike, as an honest question, that's fine. Next time phrase it as a straightforward question and omit the rolling eyes smiley, and you won't get jumped on.
Host hat off
RuthW
sexhostess
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
RuthW
sexhostess
Oh dear.. the images!!
Sieg
the hostly descriptions and admin revelations have more chance of causing me to stumble than any of the content of Tits and Testicles. Oh god. All they have to do now is put on a clerical collar and I'll be away.
Do we believe that, as Jesus said (to paraphrase for this occasion), if you have fantasized about committing a homosexual act, done everything short of actually doing it (a la CM), it is the same as actually having done it in God's eyes? So if you're fisting, having all the sensations (and more, probably, from what I've heard) of anal sex and then subsequently having an orgasm in private while flashing back on it, what's the diff? Might as well go for the real thing, IMHO. Unless, of course, you're practicing kundalini, where you retain all the sexual energy for a higher purpose. Guess that's possible. (Rolling eyes suppressed.)
quote:
Originally posted by Ultraspike:
if you have fantasized about committing a homosexual act, done everything short of actually doing it (a la CM)
quote:
So if you're fisting, having all the sensations (and more, probably, from what I've heard) of anal sex
quote:
and then subsequently having an orgasm in private while flashing back on it
quote:
Unless, of course, you're practicing kundalini, where you retain all the sexual energy for a higher purpose.
I believe that Biblical norms exclude homosexuals from having a sexual relationship. I admit that sexual relationship is hard to define.
Now many christians disagree with my traditional view of Bible and church tradition.
The reason there is no role models in the bible or in tradition is because that it was considered to be outside christian practice.
If it was considered to be inside Christian norms there would be role models.
Any way I simply wanted to say something as I was irritated by Joans OP.
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Any way I simply wanted to say something as I was irritated by Joans OP.
And I'm irritated by your post. We're square then.
Ah well - basically, love to Chastmastr, I know I'll never understand you but that doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother you.
Marriage? What IS i?
Which of these couples have sinned more?
The gay/hetero (us) who married and have split up after 18 years,
OR
the gay male couple (one of whom was our Best Man) who are still together after 18 years?
That should keep the hair-splitters busy!
The role models are there, the role they model is that of Invisible Gay Christian. Due to extenuating circumstances.
Wasn't always the case.
Marriage CAN only be what our society dictates, but I'm not sure that the gay couple above are any less married than I am. Especially once I'm divorced...
Clear? Good!!
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The reason Mid that we make a distinction between homosexuality and hetrosexuality is that as christians is that we should attempt to live by Biblical norms.I believe that Biblical norms exclude homosexuals from having a sexual relationship. I admit that sexual relationship is hard to define.
Now many christians disagree with my traditional view of Bible and church tradition.
The reason there is no role models in the bible or in tradition is because that it was considered to be outside christian practice.
If it was considered to be inside Christian norms there would be role models.
Any way I simply wanted to say something as I was irritated by Joans OP.
I took that post as quite condescending, I trust you didn't mean it that way?
I am surprised that there are still closed minded people who believe they are right about everything. IT's not up to ANY OF US to say that homosexuality is right or wrong, it is ONLY up to God. Until He tells each one of us, then we should love the person as they are, and as such it should not matter what sexual preference they are.
I really hope that there are no homosexual people/couples in your church, I pity any that are there.
Take a look at my signature - TAKE NOTE!
quote:
The mid said then we should love the person as they are, and as such it should not matter what sexual preference they are.
Please advise me where I said you shouldn't?
I believe though that main stream christian tradition holds that sex is for people who are inside a marriage relationship.
I am sorry if you disagree with that interpretation of Christian tradition but you may find re-reading your own signature helpful.
So accidental orgasms are okay? How very monastic.
Or is it you can't believe that any one can disagree with you? If that is true who does that make close minded?
Does that make any sense?
Nightlamp and The Mid: If you wish to continue your personal tit for tat (pun intended), please take it to Hell rather than derail this thread.
bunny ears off
RuthW
sexhostess
quote:
Originally posted by Ultraspike:
So accidental orgasms are okay? How very monastic.
(Yes, I consider being compared with monks a high compliment!) Seriously, I make a distinction between "deliberate stimulation to orgasm" and unintended, yes, because for one thing I'm not convinced (for example) that nocturnal emissions are intrinsically sinful. I think some have believed that "wet dreams" are a sign of sin (or even, in some periods, of spiritual attack), but I am not sure this is correct. Yes, these things can happen during "leather work" as well (heck, I'll say I've had spontaneous orgasms without anyone doing anything at all below the waist, or even without erection), but also wholly apart from it, and I am trying to be meticulously clear about what I believe to be forbidden and what I don't. If I say that all orgasm, apart from sex within male-female marriage, is sexual sin, then it pretty much means one is going to sin just from seminal fluid building up and overflowing. (Well, okay, this can happen without orgasm as well. If I don't have one then my body releases itself when I go to the bathroom about once a week or so, no orgasm, just emission -- barely conscious of it.) Intent and attitude seem to play a large role for me, interestingly. When I am primarily self-focused, and wanting the experience (usually when I am lonely and frustrated by life in general, by the way) -- rather than trying to learn and grow (or teach, heal, etc.) or explore with the person I am with -- then I am much more likely to have an unwanted orgasm. When I am focused the other way, I am much less likely. I've also found that being erect or flaccid has nothing to do with whether I will have an orgasm or not, which surprised me; I had thought that a man had to have an erection to do so. So attitude really does make a difference.
Within this board, however, there seems to have been a lot of good natured discussion about how we understand sexuality, and its expression, today. I haven't read every thread, so I can't be sure, but it seems to me people have been able to talk about the possibility of Christians having sex before marriage (for example) with honesty and mutual respect. Yet when the possibility of being actively homosexual and actively Christian is raised, noses seem to be out out of joint very quickly. Forgive me if I'm being unfair to anyone, but why does this area of sexuality seem to give more offence than any of the others?
quote:
Originally posted by Gracia:
RuthW:
Do you plan to take your bunny ears off after Easter?
Heck, no! You've got the wrong bunny -- think Playboy.
On a more serious note ...
It never surprises me that homosexuality arouses more animosity more quickly than just about any other topic on these boards. It's a hotly contested issue in our secular societies, and a lot of Christian churches are painfully divided over it - IMO the discussions here reflect what's going on in our societies and our churches. It would be a very good thing, though, and in keeping with the spirit of a magazine of Christian unrest, if we could buck the trend and have discussions about homosexuality that didn't generate more heat than light.
Yes, more light, less heat would be a Very Good Thing! 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The reason there is no role models in the bible or in tradition is because that it was considered to be outside christian practice.If it was considered to be inside Christian norms there would be role models.
No role models for Female Scientist or even Female Teacher in the Bible. Guess I should give up my calling then?
I was actually enjoying what was shaping up to be an interesting "how can we live with integrity" type discussion, and it's gotten all horribly derailed and personal and insulting (not to mention focusing on specific practices again...)
To get back on topic:
Seb, I agree with you totally about the gay subculture. I think an awful lot of the anger there comes out of feeling rejected by mainstream society. So, it's safer to retreat to a ghetto, develop one's own music styles, dress preferences, language/slang, have specific clubs to go to, certain festivals ... (and gosh, this is sounding ever so reminiscent of another subculture too...)
The outrageous behaviour that one sees, often on TV screens after gay pride marches, seems to me to be saying "OK, you want to reject me? Right! I'll go out and be everything you're terrified I wil be. You think I'm bad now? Watch how bad I can be."
It's this core of "I'm bad" - (I think it's more than internalised homophobia, because I know plenty of non-gay people who struggle with the same thing) - which so badly needs to be healed. And, unfortunately, it's exactly that core which the Church keeps wounding, intentionally or not.
Peace,
Kirsti
Inanna,
I can't find any post by Chastmastr which is in the wrong thread. He made a comment directly related to this thread and was then attacked over it leading to an exchange of views with Ultraspike.
You're right however, such an exchange of views seems to be personal and as such doesn't belong in the general discussion on this thread.
Chastmastr and Ultraspike - if you want to continue this exchange can you do so in Hell?
Thanks
Louise.
host hat off
On a different topic altogether:
IMHO, the big problem that homosexuals have to deal with is the verses in Scripture that pretty solidly condemn homosexual behavior, with Romans 1:26-27 being the most sticky, since one can't so easily say, "Well, that was Old Covenant." You can say that the Scripture's wrong, or try to exegete your way out of it, or say the Scripture is right and deal with the consequences, but one way or another, you have to wrestle with it because your fellow Christians are going to point to and point out those verses. You can't sidestep it. It must be met head on.
(although replying to JJ Ramsey's post is going to test my love and grace limits again )
JJ,
Joans OP asks
quote:
GIVEN THAT, or SUPPOSING THAT, homosexual acts are not sinful, how is one to live ones life? There is an absence of role-models to which to look, so how do we relate what is given in Christianity to being gay? How should we do relationships as marriage isn't an option? Basically, what is to be done if we accept that God made us this way and it's OK?
If you want to argue the rights or wrongs of homosexuality, you should do so on the thread on that subject already open on this board 'Homosexuality, are we all against it?'
And the same applies to anyone wanting to argue that point with JJ - we have another thread for that.
Louise
host hat off
[clarifying]
[ 31 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]
I was thinking that christian tradition says something about hetrosexual relationships but is quite silent about homosexual relationships. Hence the need for people to create models for todays society.
I thought we were talking about sexual relationships, not about life in general, my apologies for being wrong on that point.
All I can tell you is that I know one openly gay and openly Christian gentleman. He is the nicest person! I enjoy talking to him and he has been very kind to me, and everyone else I know of. He's thoughtful, intelligent, and generous. Today I was helping to serve communion, and as I passed the wine to him, saying, "The blood of Christ, shed for you," it seemed exactly the same as when I passed it to anyone else.
I also know several lesbians who were run out of their churches. They are now openly hostile to all things Christian. Three of them, however, are known to me to be just as articulate, kind, and generous as my gay male friend and brother in Christ. Too bad they were forced away from the church, and now do their good works in secular settings only. They also bad-mouth Christianity. Very, very sad, because they could have had a much different fate.
quote:
JJ,
Joans OP asksquote:
GIVEN THAT, or SUPPOSING THAT, homosexual acts are not sinful, how is one to live ones life? ... How should we do relationships as marriage isn't an option? Basically, what is to be done if we accept that God made us this way and it's OK?
Whoops. I missed the "SUPPOSING THAT" part.
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Please advise me where I said you shouldn't?
You implied it, and then changed what you said afterwards.
But don't anyone worry. I am not going to bother engaging this individual in any more posts.
He was irritated by Joan's OP? Well, I am irritated by all his so far on this thread.
Anyway, as I said. I'm done.
Intresting you thought I was lacking in love and I thought you were unable to hear other peoples opinions; amazing how wrong two people can be.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Chastmastr and Ultraspike - if you want to continue this exchange can you do so in Hell?
To Inanna, I think specific practices are relevant -- you even mention "outrageous behaviour" after Pride parades, yet I don't consider what I have encountered to be outrageous. I find the gay tribe/subculture/whatnot (or cultures -- there is more than one), while flawed as all groups are, to be very good, and it is one I am quite proudly a member of. The ghetto mentality, on the other hand, I don't think is so good -- and I think we can have the good parts of both being in the subculture, and in the larger, general culture, without the bad if we work at it. And, perhaps, find role-models within that subculture.
Either take it to Hell, as you were asked, or shut up about it. Completely. And don't bother pulling the "Jesus wouldn't like it" card out of your hat again. I think it's lovely that you can read Jesus' mind, but it isn't really a good way of debating.
I'll remember that you've said that.
What I need to get across to you is that you should leave CM alone.
Nightlamp has just summarised one of the difficulties with bulletin boards - how since we are only reading a message two people can interpret things very differently from how they should be.
That's ok, all is good now, it's a good reminder to check how we phrase thigns before we post!
quote:Well for a start, if it's a gay music director, they should be male and preferably an organist.(j/k)
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm gonna just come right out with it and admit I am writing a story about a church in which a gay music director figures prominantly. It is very important to me I do this character (Mary) justice, and my experience in this area is scant.
[excluding of course, that straight stud-muffin, tomb]
Serious bit: the reason ppl stay in non-inclusive churches is because churches are a subset of a non-inclusive society. And most people have learnt to live with it. Filtering who you tell what to becomes innate after a while.
Second bit: sometimes one's theology and churchmanship are so tied up in the core of one's being that it is too hard to make a final break. Your family may hate you, but they are still your family. Bit patho' but ya get that.
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Does anyone remember Mr Collins?He popped up several months ago wondering how one went about being Christian and homosexual, but there was no-where on the boards he could ask this.
I think this would be a useful discussion to have.
Well, I am new here, so I don't remember Mr. Collins, but I'd like to share some resources that have helped me do just what he is asking about. For me, it's about trying to be authentic both as a Christian, who really believes, and as a gay man. I find that often it is hard for gay Christians to fit nicely into either Christian or gay culture....and to be honest, I'm not sure if we are supposed to. I'm not saying we have to have a martyr complex, but perhaps we don't need to worry about posturing ourselves a certain way. If we go about the business of being a Christian we should be learning to practice love and a spiritual discipline that submits to God and to others in this love relationship. As gay people we can try to learn more about what it really means to love another person, in this case a person of the same sex. Not all Christian gays believe the same about sexual morality. That's O.K. for this discussion. Either way, they both feel a natural attraction to members of the same sex and can try to discover the best possible ways to love them. The key is letting God be a part of that process. For Christians Christ is our model of the divine lover. How can we learn from his example of love? I think too often we desire a feeling of resolution so bad, that we forget to experience everything that leads us to that point. I think we want to feel secure so we choose a 'side' of an issue instead of working through the issue itself.
I'll be the first to say I don't have all the answers. Also, I'll be the first to admit I've contradicted my own beliefs in my attempts to love. I think the first thing we all can do is give ourselves a break and not take ourselves so seriously.
Oh yeah, here are the resources. Thanks for waiting:
Andrew Sullivan His books VIRTUALLY NORMAL and LOV UNDETECTABLE are very helpful.
Hope these can help some, Bill
My partner is the assistant music director at our Catholic Church, so I can certainly give you some info on how she and we handle things - send me a Private Message if you want.
The main thing is the fear of "what if they find out?". They being the congregation as a whole. My partner was hired with the priest knowing that she was a lesbian, and all the church staff know, and treat us as a couple, as do the rest of the music group (She leads, sings and plays guitar, I play flute and sing though not both at the same time ). But we are still extremely careful during the mass not to give obvious signs of being a couple - a warm hug at the peace, no different from how we'd share it with anyone else; if we hold hands while sitting and listening to the sermon, we also each take the hand of the friends on either side of us, that sort of thing.
I could ramble on for ages, but hopefully this will be of some help.
Peace,
Kirsti
quote:Well for a start, if it's a gay music director, they should be male and preferably an organist.(j/k)
Originally posted by El Cooto:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm gonna just come right out with it and admit I am writing a story about a church in which a gay music director figures prominantly. It is very important to me I do this character (Mary) justice, and my experience in this area is scant.
[excluding of course, that straight stud-muffin, tomb]
Serious bit: the reason ppl stay in non-inclusive churches is because churches are a subset of a non-inclusive society. And most people have learnt to live with it. Filtering who you tell what to becomes innate after a while.
Second bit: sometimes one's theology and churchmanship are so tied up in the core of one's being that it is too hard to make a final break. Your family may hate you, but they are still your family. Bit patho' but ya get that.[/QUOTE]
....uh, that would be her uncle. (no kidding, That's the character I planned to be her uncle) Mary is a Children's Worship director..
Good insight about identity and theology. That's kind of where iI was going.
Anyway, i just wanted to thank all of the above for their insight. i have read some of the Dead Horses (hee!) thread on Homosexuality, and it is really helpful.
I am a lesbian (shock, horror). I have been with my partner for three years now, and I had two female partners before that, one for five years the other for less...
I have a healthy sex life and am not promiscuous, and never have been. I am also a Christian... I was ostricised (many years ago) from my church, much like a Witch Hunt, and felt no longer welcome... 'Dirty Lesbian ****' was one of the names I was called....
Why is it so wrong to spend your life loving and caring for your partner? Does it make me a sinner that I support her, love her, share my life and feelings with her? (and she with me)... I think not.... There are worse things happening in the world that would make me angry and sad if I were God... so why do people in glass houses throw stones? - and I am not meaning anyone on this thread...
(Back to my closet now)
quote:
Originally posted by Crying Dolphin:
Why is it so wrong to spend your life loving and caring for your partner? Does it make me a sinner that I support her, love her, share my life and feelings with her? (and she with me)... I think not....
It's not wrong at all, and I'm very sorry anyone would say such a thing. To me the long-term loving and committed relationships between lesbian and gay Christians prove that it just plain wrong to condemn homosexuality and homosexual sex as ungodly. Christ is in those relationships just as surely as he's in many marriages between straight people.
I'd say what I think about calling people dirty names in church, but then I'd have to send myself to Hell. 
RuthW
former TnT host
Thanks for posting. You've made me that much more determined to stick it out, writing- wise.
I'd rather see this sort of discussion ongoing in Dead Horses than some of the other threads (especially inane word games!)
But then, that's just a personal thing - DH is for everybody
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
)quote:This is sadly true. It has always been easy for me point out another’s sin that I can’t identify with, yet gloss over mine.
Originally posted by Gracia:
...out of pain, scapegoated groups (like homosexuals) may withdraw into their own subculture....
quote:Dear Kelly ....
Kelly wrote:
Which is why, when I started reading this thread, I looked forward to hearing the voices of gay Christians, so that I could understand their viewpoints and offer completely unconditional acceptance as a sister in Christ. I hope this thread continues to be a safe space for them to have their voices heard.
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
iGeek
Mum.quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I feel enormously privileged most days to be a lesbian member of the church, because, as my mother says, I have a call to help the church grow up.
quote:Yes, I've had some good conversations as a result of this also. I'm often asked how I manage to live out being a gay Christian in an environment that is so often hostile.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
In my work life I am probably in a better position than most church people to minister to my workmates, a group who have been turned off church because of its perceived judgementalism. They question how I, a lesbian, can stand it. Perfect evangelism opportunity - although I doubt many people would recognise what I do as evangelism!
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Thank God for the sharing of our stories and His love that penetrates the toughest places.![[Love]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Hmm, I know I don't know all the cicumstances but unless it is someone whose views you value I would simlply tell him/her to f**k off.
How on earth do I deal with this?
quote:My only comfort is that One Day these people will have to stand before God and explain why they excluded, persecuted, and made His gay children stumble.
"Please pray and seek God's guidance about this. God is very clear about it. Pursuing this sin will keep you from a lot of blessings and closeness to Him. As will other sins of course, but this will get a very stronghold on you. You were not created to desire women. It is not of and pleasing to God. All of us deal with strong temptations, but with His help we can overcome."
quote:Kelly, it's a very LONG read, but this guy IS a worship leader AND a Christian recording artist who struggled with all those issues. And, nicely, it has a happy ending.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm gonna just come right out with it and admit I am writing a story about a church in which a gay music director figures prominantly...
quote:Well, erm, there may be one or two folks around here who might disagree about that. But they seem like a lovely Christian™ couple.
Originally posted by Unkl Davy:
And, nicely, it has a happy ending.
quote:Gee, ya think?
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Well, erm, there may be one or two folks around here who might disagree about that..
J
quote:Dorothea,
Originally posted by dorothea:
Gay people sometimes become straight, straight people become gay. Sexuality isn't always fixed, you know. People struggle to find themselves. Sometimes they fall in love, sometimes they learn to love. Only God can judge our hearts.
quote:Maybe I'm saying it seems like a Dead Horse cos I don't know how the heck to do when the factions are such poles apart and even ++Williams is taking a careful line. When I stand in my own church with its links to Namibia and a combination of liberals and evangelicals, I don't want it all to fall apart.
IMO, Religious fundamentalism doesn't help anyone with it's emphasis on words such as 'perversion' and 'wickedness'. In fact, I am sure it may do great harm.
quote:Lovely. Still posting glowing testimonies about Mr Jernigan, 16 months (18 June 2002) after you originally promoted him (see approx a dozen posts previous on this thread) I see. It's fairly offensive to categorise people by their sexuality, viz. 'a gay' as opposed to 'a gay person'. But let's let that one go.
Originally posted by Unkl Davy:
quote:Gee, ya think?
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Well, erm, there may be one or two folks around here who might disagree about that..
However, it seems odd that what so many gays have wanted and prayed for to happen for them, would seem like an UNhappy ending ... when it actually happens to someone.
With all the tolerance that is demanded of us straights, why can't a former gay be tolerated for what he is? A FORMER gay. Is that so wrong?
quote:Watchergirl as you will have seen from the other homosexuality thread on this board, your friend is talking rot. The biblical verses are far from clear and many Christians in good conscience do not take this line. As for your so-called friend pretending to know the mind of God on this one and how it will cause God to withold blessings from you and reject you, that is poisonous and arrogant shit. It's effectively saying 'if you don't accept my view on this part of scripture, which is if course God's view, then God will smite you!'
"Please pray and seek God's guidance about this. God is very clear about it. Pursuing this sin will keep you from a lot of blessings and closeness to Him. As will other sins of course, but this will get a very stronghold on you. You were not created to desire women. It is not of and pleasing to God. All of us deal with strong temptations, but with His help we can overcome."
quote:Dear watchergirl
Originally posted by watchergirl:
I wish there were more Christian L/G/B people I could discuss approaches to this sort of thing with. To return to Joan the Outlaw Dwarf's original question, I suppose I'm partly asking - where do I find more support and guidance in all the areas where my Christian life and my sexuality cross over? I'm also partly just ranting.
quote:While I was slightly more polite than that, that is basically what I did. Hmm.
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:Hmm, I know I don't know all the cicumstances but unless it is someone whose views you value I would simlply tell him/her to f**k off.
How on earth do I deal with this?
quote:Maybe so. It's not my place to judge them. I need to work on forgiving, I think. I'm a member of LGCM, a Christian gay organisation, where I'm starting to get to know people. Thanks.
Originally posted by The Coot (Icarus):
My only comfort is that One Day these people will have to stand before God and explain why they excluded, persecuted, and made His gay children stumble.
Praps someone like Degs can tell you about organised support groups in Churches.
quote:Why would I be amazed by that? I haven't read your other posts (I'm still new here) but I assume that you're a Christian who cares about all sorts of people.
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
There are two UK organisations which may be able to help you. One is the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. In the light of my posts elsewhere on the ship, you may be amazed to hear that I know someone active in LGCM who was a consultant to the recent Manchester conference. She has a lesbian partner, too.
quote:Thanks. I have no wish to be involved with True Freedom Trust (sorry, but - *shudder*). I'm already involved with LGCM.
At the other end of the scale is True Freedom Trust. I have known the founder of this ministry since my teenage days. He has been celibate for many years, although he once wasn't. This group closely reflects my own views.
quote:Good point. It's not my sexuality I'm having issues with, though, but rather other people's responses to it. That's what's very painful at the moment.
I think it's quite normal to have all sorts of issues in the twenties about integrating one's faith and one's sexuality. I know I certainly did, even as a heterosexual.
quote:If you think that the attraction is real and mutual then go for it, and don't worry about his gender. You can tell off the conservatives that want to use you to score points against other LGBT people as easily as you told off the ones that told you you were going to Hell!
Originally posted by skielight:
I'm a 23 year old lesbian and had never experienced heterosexual attraction until very recently when a particular attraction appeared out of the blue. While I can't exactly call myself ex-gay I am more open to the idea heterosexuality than I used to be - I suppose I can no longer call myself 100% pure lesbian though I am *almost* exclusively attracted to women.
However I've had to consider what impact it would have if I did have a relationship with a man. It's especially sensitive because I've only become a Christian *very* recently and I could see people interpreting such a relationship in the wrong way. I don't want people looking at me and saying that Christ healed me of my homosexuality and then going off and stomping on other gay Christians in a "she changed - why can't you change?" kind of way. Though the heterosexual attraction began at almost exactly the same moment as my religious conversion I do think it's a coincidence. I certainly don't consider myself superior or herald it as a great virtue. I believe that God made me gay and I don't believe that God makes mistakes, so I would never ask to be made straight.
quote:Noooo nooo women. I like women.
Originally posted by paigeb:
Skielight---thank you for your post.
Can I give the other side of the situation? When I was 24, I married my best friend/soul mate. Like you, he was almost exclusively attracted to men-
quote:I was just offering my thoughts- you are the best judge of your situation.
Originally posted by skielight:
Try: it's not going to develop into a relationship for various complicated reasons which I'm not going to go into as it would take a long time and probably nobody's interested anyway.
quote:watchergirl - point noted and taken.
Originally posted by watchergirl:
Thanks. I have no wish to be involved with True Freedom Trust (sorry, but - *shudder*). I'm already involved with LGCM.
Good point. It's not my sexuality I'm having issues with, though, but rather other people's responses to it. That's what's very painful at the moment.
quote:Basically, Coot, I don't give a rip what you think or want me to do.
Originally posted by The Coot (Icarus):
quote:Lovely. Still posting glowing testimonies about Mr Jernigan, 16 months (18 June 2002) after you originally promoted him (see approx a dozen posts previous on this thread) I see. It's fairly offensive to categorise people by their sexuality, viz. 'a gay' as opposed to 'a gay person'. But let's let that one go.
Originally posted by Unkl Davy:
quote:Gee, ya think?
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Well, erm, there may be one or two folks around here who might disagree about that..
However, it seems odd that what so many gays have wanted and prayed for to happen for them, would seem like an UNhappy ending ... when it actually happens to someone.
With all the tolerance that is demanded of us straights, why can't a former gay be tolerated for what he is? A FORMER gay. Is that so wrong?
Of course it's not wrong Unkl Davey dear. You can touch yourself wherever you want. I'm very happy for Mr Jernigan, the 'FORMER gay'. I'll tolerate him as whatever he wants to be tolerated as. If he could make it something that would make me slap my thigh while guffawing, say... a spinet-playing klismaphiliac with a thing about card tables; even better. Shame though, 'cos he was quite a hottie.
But seeing as he is a 'FORMER gay', why don't you take your adulation of him elsewhere and not sully this thread which is about gay people living Christian lives?
quote:
Originally posted by Unkl Davy in response to my post of 28 Oct 2003:
Basically, Coot, I don't give a rip what you think or want me to do.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Laugh all you want, happy boy, but the reason I didn't see your reply for these last four months is I really don't bother with this site much anymore. It's not worth the effort. I originally thought this site had some merit to it, but have discovered differently. But for the sake of morbid curiosity, I check back in from time to time.
Originally posted by The Coot:
quote:
Originally posted by Unkl Davy in response to my post of 28 Oct 2003:
Basically, Coot, I don't give a rip what you think or want me to do.
Oh dear. I'm afraid you're past your use by date. Come on. Try and respond a bit sooner than 4 months after my post.
Next!
quote:Did I ever say YOU or any PERSON is free of merit? God values all persons. No matter how saintly or how twisted. But, IMHO – as I said – this “SITE” doesn't merit much effort. It seemed like a good idea when I first discovered it a few years ago. But I have come to find it’s mostly a bathhouse for liberal ideology and twisted theology. (At least in Purg and Hell.) The floors get so sticky with all the PC members stroking themselves, I just don't need/want to bother with it much anymore. You all are gonna convince yourselves of what you wanna convince yourselves of, whether or not it has any merit with historical Biblical theology. So I’m just not gonna bother with it any more.
Originally posted by Scot:
For the sake of my own morbid curiosity, what convinced you that we are free of all merit?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:It's a dead horse... what'dya care about topics? Besides, I'm finished. Bye for at least several months... if not longer.
Originally posted by TonyK:
Hmmmm ... I think we should return to the subject matter of the thread!
Discussions as to the merits of the Ship and personal posts belong on other boards.
Thank you
quote:Well, Unkl Davy ...
Originally posted by Unkl Davy:
quote:It's a dead horse... what'dya care about topics? Besides, I'm finished. Bye for at least several months... if not longer.
Originally posted by TonyK:
Hmmmm ... I think we should return to the subject matter of the thread!
Discussions as to the merits of the Ship and personal posts belong on other boards.
Thank you
quote:I hadn't heard of this. I found this reaction and this earlier report.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
So we just let the Archbishop of NZ spout forth his homophobic crap in sermons?
quote:Makes me wish I was Catholic, Ruth.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It might be a bit too much "I am Spartacus," but I wonder if anyone's thought of getting a whole lot of straight people to wear rainbow sashes to mass alongside the gays and lesbians.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Bestiality Pride Parades? You should be ashamed of yourself.
Statement on homosexuality [LINK DELETED]
quote:Er... straight people? Haven't you SEEN them? Out in the streets... touching each other... even kissing publicly? Why don't they just keep their sexulaity to themsleves, that's what I'd like to know.
Who else waves signs announcing to the world what ‘turns them on’?
quote:Early one Saturday morning in August 1983, two men driving to work noticed a young man, later identified as Bobby, on an overpass above a busy thoroughfare. As they described the next few moments, the boy walked to the railing, turned around, and did a sudden back flip into mid-air. He landed in the path of an eighteen-wheeler. He died instantly.
"I am evil and wicked. I am dirt," he wrote. "My voice is small and unheard, unnoticed, damned."
quote:Thanks for this, yf. You don't gossip, I take it. Or lie. Or slander. It is a big thing to accuse someone of a mortal sin, friend. For we will be judged as we judge others.
Originally posted by Young fogey:
TonyK,
Of course many shipmates and I don't agree - that's what Hell and Dead Horses are about! I re-read the offending bit last night to be fair and do see your point about consenting adults and all that but really in our view, to paraphrase somebody well outside the Catholic faith, a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin, between consenting parties or not.
Now I happen to hold as an opinion - there are full-faith Catholics who disagree - that unnatural acts are worse that the wrong use of natural ones.
As for the 'oh, the displays of affection' mockery, my argument holds - who in his right mind marches in a parade waving flags and signs telling all his hetero kinks?
As I like to say, there's no such thing as the gay community. Maybe they're just people. I have friends who are homosexual (believe it or not), both practising and chaste, and none primarily define themselves by that aspect. They're better rounded as people.
Perhaps that could have been the answer for the poor boy who killed himself. You're more than an orientation.
As one online pundit recently wrote, the prob isn't orientation/temptation. An orientation never killed anybody. Anal sexual acts can.
Believe it or not I'm not particularly interested in the matter. But the matter is a non-negotiable as far as the faith is concerned.
quote:So can vaginal sexual acts. As far as AIDS is concerned the orifice is immaterial. Semen on a finger cut would be just as effective. I know that your objection rests on more than this ... it's just that your specific reference here is immaterial.
As one online pundit recently wrote, the prob isn't orientation/temptation. An orientation never killed anybody. Anal sexual acts can.
quote:I'm curious about the Orthodox view of this topic. Or have you explained it elsewhere?
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We need to consider how your average heterosexual male or female might react to the teaching that they could NEVER develop a close intimate relationship with the opposite sex and NEVER have sexual intercourse on pain of eternal damnation.
quote:But surely the story of Bobby Griffiths (above) shows precisely the opposite - that the orientation did kill him (in conjunction with the way his family etc reacted).
Originally posted by Young fogey:
As one online pundit recently wrote, the prob isn't orientation/temptation. An orientation never killed anybody. Anal sexual acts can.
quote:I understand. I'm sure that must be difficult, as you seem to be quite in accord with most of the doctrines of Orthodoxy.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
My personal understanding of homosexuality is a minority view in Orthodoxy (as it is in most churches).
quote:I have made my feelings on this issue clear somewhere - it could be earlier on this thread, but I resent the implication of this line of argument - namely that life without sex will always be incomplete. A vast number of godly saints (many of whom were obviosuly very sexual beings, and displayed no pious calling to singleness) have lived this way, and found that God was enough for them - even though it was hard.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We need to consider how your average heterosexual male or female might react to the teaching that they could NEVER develop a close intimate relationship with the opposite sex and NEVER have sexual intercourse on pain of eternal damnation.
quote:I don't know what you are talking about then. If celibacy is something positive and to be valued, what is wrong with saying this to people who are Christian and have a homosexual orientation? (apart from the vows of silence/sackloth stuff, which I assume you don't see as the only manifestation of celibacy) Often it boils down to "they have the right to have the sexual relationships that everyone else in the church has". Which is a peculiarly secular way of thinking.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It's the universality of the injunction that bothers me. Every gay person must become a de facto monk.
quote:Celibacy is positive and to be valued for those who have a calling to it .... which is not everyone. If I were to suggest that all Protestant ministers should be celibate you would very rapidly fall in line with my reasoning on celibacy I suspect.
If celibacy is something positive and to be valued, what is wrong with saying this to people who are Christian and have a homosexual orientation?
quote:That's what I thought TonyK was getting at.
Inflicting your desires on a creature incapable of signifying consent or biologically understanding the experience is a lot different than any act between consenting adults. Bestiality is not an "inclination," it is abuse.
quote:They're not going to get one.
Any gay person would have the right to be furious at your comments, Fogey, and to demand an apology.
quote:Of course there are other serious sins but ISTM the ones involving the wrong use of sex come second to killing and maiming people at the top of the list. The 'you're judgemental; shut up' tack won't work because they're not my standards personally but rather an objective one.
Thanks for this, yf. You don't gossip, I take it. Or lie. Or slander. It is a big thing to accuse someone of a mortal sin, friend. For we will be judged as we judge others.
quote:People's vanity and other silliness - thinking one's kinks are of all-consuming interest to anybody else - for one.
If you don't like gay pride marches, maybe you need to go and have lie down in a cold room and have a think why such things came about in the first place.
quote:And whose sins brought AIDS to the normal world, Father? It originally was called GRIDS - gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome - for a reason. The forces of proto-PCness put a stop to that right quick. But hey, I thought that 'censorship is, like, wrong'.
So can vaginal sexual acts. As far as AIDS is concerned the orifice is immaterial. Semen on a finger cut would be just as effective. I know that your objection rests on more than this ... it's just that your specific reference here is immaterial.
quote:Well, Father, that applies to the mad, the ugly and the just plain unlucky who can't or shouldn't marry, doesn't it?
As to "you are more than an orientation" this is certainly true but sexuality cannot be as easily cast aside as this (nor should it). We need to consider how your average heterosexual male or female might react to the teaching that they could NEVER develop a close intimate relationship with the opposite sex and NEVER have sexual intercourse on pain of eternal damnation.
quote:Uncharity killed him. I'm not saying be uncharitable to homosexuals - absolutely clear in my banned statement - but making excuses for the practice isn't charity.
But surely the story of Bobby Griffiths (above) shows precisely the opposite - that the orientation did kill him (in conjunction with the way his family etc reacted).
quote:Of course we're all sexual beings but sex is a privilege not a right and life is often difficult and unpleasant. Deal with it.
I have made my feelings on this issue clear somewhere - it could be earlier on this thread, but I resent the implication of this line of argument - namely that life without sex will always be incomplete. A vast number of godly saints (many of whom were obviousuly very sexual beings, and displayed no pious calling to singleness) have lived this way, and found that God was enough for them - even though it was hard.
It is merely a faulty societal assumption that you can't live without sex.
As a basis for advocating homosexual sex as a "release" for some, it is one of, if not the, weakest I have heard mooted. And very patronising to those of us who live without sex and lump it.
quote:Sorry to infer that you dissent from the universal church on the the subject of this thread, Father.
This is not what I am saying at all! Remember I represent a tradition that rejoices in monasticism, (although not all monks are virgins of course when they take vows). It's the universality of the injunction that bothers me. Every gay person must become a de facto monk. I was simply saying that this had the same impact as saying that every straight person must become a de facto monk.
quote:I inferred it from what you wrote. I thought that was the basis of your objection to comparing gay-pride parades to hypothetical bestiality-pride ones.
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Young Fogey - despite careful reading I am unable to find the words 'consenting adult' or anything similar in my warning above.
quote:Obviously not.
You are at liberty to argue your case - as, of course, are all others here.
quote:Condescending not to me but to the moral theology and theologians of the historic Catholic mainstream.
You are at liberty to define what you like as a 'mortal sin' - but you have already found some who disagree with you.
quote:Scratch a liberal and you get a fascist.
But my original warning still applies -the equating (actual or implied) of homosexuality with bestiality is unacceptable. But so long as you don't repeat the statement, there will be no problem.
quote:Only beautiful married people for whom the dice falls well qualify then? What kind of a creation theology is that?
Well, Father, that applies to the mad, the ugly and the just plain unlucky who can't or shouldn't marry, doesn't it?
quote:Indeed life is difficult and unpleasant (sometimes). How much more difficult it was made for Bobby Griffiths. How exactly do you tell someone that their desires are abominable without pushing them toward the edge ... literally or metaphorically? You see, what I pick up from your posting STYLE is anger. That's what kills.
Of course we're all sexual beings but sex is a privilege not a right and life is often difficult and unpleasant. Deal with it.
quote:"objective"
The 'you're judgemental; shut up' tack won't work because they're not my standards personally but rather an objective one...historic Catholic mainstream...Scratch a liberal and you get a fascist...
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:Can't let this pass. The 'reason' was because of the prejudice that AIDS was somehow a judgement on the homosexual community, despite the fact that AIDS can be passed on through either homosexual or heterosexual activity, or indeed via any sort of bodily-fluid contact, such as blood transfusions. This led to a long delay in recognising and doing something about the disease, which resulted in a more accurate, less judgemental term.
And whose sins brought AIDS to the normal world, Father? It originally was called GRIDS - gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome - for a reason. The forces of proto-PCness put a stop to that right quick. But hey, I thought that 'censorship is, like, wrong'.
quote:Blimey this takes the biscuit. AIDS first emerged in Africa in the Belgian Congo in the 1950s. It has been primarily spread in Africa by heterosexual intercourse. But of course er... that doesn't count, because according to Young Fogey that's not 'the normal world'.
And whose sins brought AIDS to the normal world, Father? It originally was called GRIDS - gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome - for a reason. The forces of proto-PCness put a stop to that right quick. But hey, I thought that 'censorship is, like, wrong'.
quote:Thank you.
I am astonished YF that you can pursue your case like a bulldozer...
quote:My posts refute that. For example, I mentioned I re-read the banned text last night, ready to rewrite it if necessary. I didn't think it needed it even though I think I get the objection to the bestiality comparison owing to the difference of consent.
with scarcely little respect for what others have said.
quote:You seem to be taking your cue on this issue, like mainline Protestantism, from secular society and not from the Catholic faith, including as received by the Orthodox obedience.
Since when did upholding the teaching of the Orthodox Church (but with strictly personal reservations) constitute disloyalty on my part?
quote:Oh, please. It's obvious that in the 1950s the world population was still worried about diseases like the soon-to-be-conquered polio and TB, not AIDS.
As to the genesis of AIDS ...
quote:That conundrum: there is an all-good God but innocent people suffer and die. Or, why do bad things happen to good people? I think this is a red herring here.
Presumably if God had meant to punish gays with AIDS (or if they were reaping their own sin) why didn't he impose a cordon sanitaire so that straights and children weren't infected. That seems to be a quite inefficient judgement process in my view.
quote:Basically the way the world really works.
Only beautiful married people for whom the dice falls well qualify then? What kind of a creation theology is that?
quote:Actually the daily prayers in your own rite say that a lot, dangerous if taken out of context and bordering on going overboard but right in keeping the passions in check and teaching that sex isn't something everybody's entitled to, no matter how much advertising and other aspects of pop culture tell you it is.
How exactly do you tell someone that their desires are abominable
quote:Ah, the psychologizing tactic. LOL. I'm far from the angriest person here, Dr Freud - what about the person who stamped her feet and f-bombed me in Hell over 19th-century history? - and being called a racist, as I have been in this thread, can cheese one off.
see, what I pick up from your posting STYLE is anger. That's what kills.
quote:Strawman. That was answered in the banned link - all are loved and welcome in God's house but the practice is wrong, just like heterosexual sins.
I'm curious - do you recognise that any sort of moral progress in the world is possible, such as the affirming of homosexual people as equal members in society and the body of Christ?
quote:The law of God is written in the heart of every man and most people have a God-given revulsion to those acts. Now because the natural order is fallen, that sadly results in uncharity to homosexuals (like the Matthew Shepherd murder), again in no way approved of by me. I don't wish suffering on gays but acts have consequences. The modern approach to sex, straight and gay (non serviam), is mostly about trying to dodge this reality, hence the contraceptive and abortion industries for straights, for example.
You may be confusing your visceral dislike of the homosexual act, which is shared by me and most other heterosexuals (I assume), with universal moral law.
quote:Do visit the blog. One of my heroes is the young Trevor Huddleston: the Catholic faith vs. apartheid.
Blimey this takes the biscuit. AIDS first emerged in Africa in the Belgian Congo in the 1950s. It has been primarily spread in Africa by heterosexual intercourse. But of course er... that doesn't count, because according to Young Fogey that's not 'the normal world'.
quote:Please go back and read my sentence again. I am required to uphold the teaching of the Church. I am not required to violate my own conscience in respect of those matters with which I disagree; indeed I am bidden by the Church to respect my informed conscience.
You seem to be taking your cue on this issue, like mainline Protestantism, from secular society and not from the Catholic faith, including as received by the Orthodox obedience.
quote:(grinding teeth)
And whose sins brought AIDS to the normal world, Father? It originally was called GRIDS - gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome - for a reason. The forces of proto-PCness put a stop to that right quick. But hey, I thought that 'censorship is, like, wrong'.
quote:Sorry - back to this, I can't let it lie.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Celibacy is positive and to be valued for those who have a calling to it .... which is not everyone. If I were to suggest that all Protestant ministers should be celibate you would very rapidly fall in line with my reasoning on celibacy I suspect.
quote:the same thing went on in Australia, the flipside I was just reading about was that people dependent on blood products were not protected from HIV, as these products remained unscreened in Australia for more than two years after the discovery that AIDS spread in blood. The labelling of the epidemic as some sort of retribution on gay people meant that it was easier for the authorities to ignore its effects - including its effects on children and the seriously ill.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Speaking for the US)People who did not understand (or care to learn) the dynamics of the disease also did not understand the impact that AIDS would have on the "normal world" (more teeth grinding)and therefore ignored it because the only people they heard about it infecting were "not normal" These people cut funding to the Centers for Disease Control ,stonewalled the delivery of importamt information that would help contain the disease because of the language needed to deliver said information, and stood on the floors of Congress gloating over the fate of the "not normal".
quote:Plenty of people can and do live without sexual relations whilst having a fully integrated and redirected sexuality. That is honourable and good ... if it is their calling and / or if it lies within them. St. Paul (marry not to burn) and Jesus (some becoming eunuchs) recognise this.
Thus, this argument (and I am not saying all arguments - I am only making a point for this one) that people just can't be expected to live without sex, so therefore homosexual sex is all right, is null and void.
quote:Hmmm, I'm not sure what you think I am advocating. Certainly not perpetrating evil things against "outcasts".
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
There may indeed be penalties in terms of church discipline but can't we take some of the heat out of this? There have been Christian gay people for centuries. The last time people started getting really hot under the collar about this was when some pretty nasty things were perpetrated by "Christians" against their favourite outcasts. None of us (surely) want to return to that era?
quote:Well, when did God give you (or Chedorlaomer) psychic powers? How do you know that "most people " have a "revulsion" to such acts (and which acts do you mean?)
Originally posted by Young Fogey:
The law of God is written in the heart of every man and most people have a God-given revulsion to those acts.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Of course there are other serious sins but ISTM the ones involving the wrong use of sex come second to killing and maiming people at the top of the list.
quote:And yet your own choice of language seems to deny objectivity. You use the abbreviation ISTM, or it seems to me. So things are "seeming" rather than being and they are seeming so to you rather than to everyone. These two features indicate a subjective position.
The 'you're judgemental; shut up' tack won't work because they're not my standards personally but rather an objective one.
quote:That's why it's much more rigorous and honest to be a socialist than a liberal. Have no truck with those namby-pamby liberals. Don't argue with bigots and fogies - kick them!
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Scratch a liberal and you get a fascist.
quote:Obviously he asked them.
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
How do you know that "most people " have a "revulsion" to such acts (and which acts do you mean?)
quote:ken,
Originally posted by ken:
quote:That's why it's much more rigorous and honest to be a socialist than a liberal. Have no truck with those namby-pamby liberals. Don't argue with bigots and fogies - kick them!
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Scratch a liberal and you get a fascist.
quote:He must have been very busy going round asking the thousand or so people it would take to get a statistically viable sample.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Obviously he asked them.
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
How do you know that "most people " have a "revulsion" to such acts (and which acts do you mean?)
quote:That's just a sexual fantasy thing. It's common in soft porn. Men imagining themselves into the scenario as either participant, as the other one is always a woman. Or imagining themselves with two women at the same time.
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I think there is some truth that many straight guys feels revulsion about male gay sexual acts. However, their feelings about lesbianism are somewhat different for some reason.
quote:Sorry but how does this make your statement about the 'normal world' any less inappropriate?
Do visit the blog. One of my heroes is the young Trevor Huddleston: the Catholic faith vs. apartheid.
quote:I thought the reason was that Queen Victoria refused to sign that part of the bill into law because she believed that no woman could behave in such a beastly way!
Concerning your straight male lesbian fantasy explanation ... I am sure this is one of the reasons why lesbianism was never defined let alone judged illegal in times past (in the UK anyway).
quote:There is a point when inaccuracy is so culpable as to become intellectual dishonesty and this crosses the line. AIDS was originally dubbed GRIDS in the US because it was intially diagnosed among gay people. As further data was gathered it became apparent that the syndrome was global and was also passed on by heterosexual sex, sharing infected needles and transfusions of infected blood. Of those four the vast majority of people with HIV/AIDS were infected by heterosexual sex. Hence the name was inaccurate - political correctness had nothing to do with it.
And whose sins brought AIDS to the normal world, Father? It originally was called GRIDS - gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome - for a reason. The forces of proto-PCness put a stop to that right quick. But hey, I thought that 'censorship is, like, wrong'.
Callan
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:What is needful in my opinion is a much better understanding in the general population of science, sociobiology and psychology. Many people still relate to their past-its-sell-by-date faith as an ersatz science. It's so much easier than really finding out about stuff. I'm not one though to reduce human identity and behaviour to mere chemicals. The historical inability of much of science to move off its dry, reductionist automatism is just as much a problem as any closed minded religious bigotry.
Maybe what western society needs is a wholesale deconstruction of organised religion.
quote:Bobby Griffiths was a person who was certainly more than his sexual orientation, as I see it he killed himself because people couldn't see beyond his sexuality to the person that he was. This wasn't his failing but that of those who couldn't show him acceptance and respect.
Originally posted by Young fogey:
As I like to say, there's no such thing as the gay community. Maybe they're just people. I have friends who are homosexual (believe it or not), both practising and chaste, and none primarily define themselves by that aspect. They're better rounded as people.
Perhaps that could have been the answer for the poor boy who killed himself. You're more than an orientation.
quote:I've often thought that certain scientists who promote this, by ridiculing any alternatives, are rather like the 'dogmatic Priests' they so readily despise. They come across to me as promoting their reductionist views as the New Religion, and woe betide anyone who disagrees.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The historical inability of much of science to move off its dry, reductionist automatism is just as much a problem as any closed minded religious bigotry.
quote:Young fogey, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the scepticism of a sceptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Young fogey, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Originally posted by Young fogey:
As I like to say, there's no such thing as the gay community.
quote:But they don't have an agenda.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
...
Yes, Young fogey, there is a gay community. ...
quote:Sure we do. And here it is!
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
But they don't have an agenda.
quote:
Young fogey, your little friends are wrong...
Yes, Young fogey, there is a gay community.
quote:I don't follow: surely you don't mean that because homosexuals are a much smaller part of the population that they can and should be pigeonholed as a 'community'?
Bad analogy, as women are just over half the population.
quote:Let's not even think about the lay people affected by the decision, or the parents of gay and lesbian people. The church line is that this is a good move since it means the debate which has been crippling the church will stop taking up so much space - it was even said that now the evangelical wing could start growing, having been put off by the notion that gay people were acceptable.
63 percent of those voting at Assembly ruled that the church would not accept for training, license, ordination or induction, anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside the faithful marriage between a man and woman; they voted to make the ruling effective immediately.
Assembly, however, declined to make the ruling retrospective, ensuring that ministers who are practicing homosexuals may continue in ministry in their current positions.
quote:This seems pretty unremarkable to me but I'm sorry it was relayed to you with hurtful rhetoric. Does this represent a change in the policy of the Presbyterian Church or merely a restatement of its traditional view and that of just about every single church in the world? In my view the church would cease to be a church if it allowed the ordination of those in non-marital sexual relationships against the clear teaching of the Bible.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Well, it is official - one may no longer be a Christian homosexual in the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand. From the Assembly press release this morning:
quote:
63 percent of those voting at Assembly ruled that the church would not accept for training, license, ordination or induction, anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside the faithful marriage between a man and woman; they voted to make the ruling effective immediately.
Assembly, however, declined to make the ruling retrospective, ensuring that ministers who are practicing homosexuals may continue in ministry in their current positions.
quote:I suppose the idea of your church saying somone's gifts and ministry aren't valued by it is only remarkable when it applies to you (generic you rather than you personally).
Originally posted by Spawn:
This seems pretty unremarkable to me but I'm sorry it was relayed to you with hurtful rhetoric. Does this represent a change in the policy of the Presbyterian Church or merely a restatement of its traditional view and that of just about every single church in the world?
quote:(stands up and cheers)
...is changing one's behavior going to save a person or is it a matter of trust and a personal relationship with God?
Man, people are blind, blind, blind.
quote:Donatist heresy.
Originally posted by Spawn:
In my view the church would cease to be a church if it allowed the ordination of those in non-marital sexual relationships against the clear teaching of the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It might have a little more credibility on that one if it would let people like Arabella marry their life partners.
Bravo, Karl.
quote:Given that the church has most certainly ordained any number of people in non-marital sexual relationships over the centuries, where would that leave it if Spawn were correct? Wouldn't it have ceased being a church when it first ordained a guy who was already in a sexual relationship who kept right on having sex with her/him?
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:Donatist heresy.
Originally posted by Spawn:
In my view the church would cease to be a church if it allowed the ordination of those in non-marital sexual relationships against the clear teaching of the Bible.
quote:Perhaps Wolfhart Pannenberg is guilty of the Donatist heresy as well. If so I'm in good company.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:Donatist heresy.
Originally posted by Spawn:
In my view the church would cease to be a church if it allowed the ordination of those in non-marital sexual relationships against the clear teaching of the Bible.
quote:This is not about individuals, it is not about making pastoral exceptions, it is when the Church changes its teaching and turns its back on the Word on which it is founded. The acquiescence of the Church under National Socialism and especially of the Dutch Reformed Church under Apartheid in which church teaching undergirded the system are examples of a church abandoning its vocation and failing to stand its ground as the Catholic and Apostolic Church. I agree that the latter two examples are far more heinous on one level than what might be seen purely as the extension of civil rights to homosexuals. You can't pick and choose. The acceptance of parity between homosexual sexual relationships and marriage involves the Church in disobedience - pure and simple.
Originally posted by Callan.:
The C of E is certainly stuffed. If the matter is as heinous as Spawn suggests then I cannot see how it is improved by the fact that clergy and bishops routinely fib about it.
I confess myself intrigued by this particular line of argument. The Church has certainly ordained and consecrated pluralists, simoniacs, nepotists, racists, anti-semites and persecutors to its orders. I would have thought that there was fairly clear Biblical warrant for deploring all of these particular sins. I am unable to see, for example, why the ordination of a pathological Jew-hater leaves the Church in the clear whilst the ordination of someone as patently decent, thoughtful and Christian as Arabella is an abomination not to be borne among Christian people.
quote:No they have not started calling themselves the 'Confessing Church'. I suggest you go to Simon Sarmiento's blog and scroll down to find links on the Archbishop of Canterbury's role in naming the network.
Roman Catholic moral theology defines some acts as being "intrinsically morally evil". Now, whatever one makes of RC moral theology, this seems to me to be a fairly useful category. Some things are, by definition, entirely wrong. It has never been made clear to me why homosexuality falls emphatically into this category, (outside RC theology, of course, which condemns all non-procreative sexual acts) except through reference to scripture or tradition. Now I hope I have a reasonably high view of scripture and tradition but this is, quite simply, not enough. It was reported in the Times last week that the dissident parishes in ECUSA have started calling themselves the Confessing Church. I confess to finding this incomprehensible. National Socialism clearly was an intrinsic moral evil. One could establish this by looking at it. I cannot, for the life of me, see that this is applicable to homosexuality.
quote:As a description this is pretty fair. I think fundamentally it comes down to two views of the Bible, as well as two views of ethics. Your use of the phrase 'conservatives are seeking to defend' I think is misleading. There is no need to defend. It might be more helpful to say that conservatives are seeking to interpret authority
I think that the schism in our ranks hinges on two differing views of ethics. Those of us who hold 'liberal' views think that the licitness or otherwise of an act inheres, as it were, within the act. To condemn an action it is necessary to point to the act and delineate those features within it which are inconsistent with the moral law. This is clearly an empiricist view of ethics, but not necessarily consequentialist. Bashing an old lady over the head and pinching her handbag, for example, cannot be justified by the intention of giving the loot to charity. The other, conservative, view sees morality as being extrinsic to the act. The love and commitment manifested in a same-sex relationship are, to the conservative, at worst, special pleading, at best, mitigation. Authority (i.e. scripture and tradition) has condemned the act and, therefore, it is wrong. It's wrongness is established not through reference to the act but to the authority.
This I think, accounts for the vehemence of our differences. Like Sidney Smith's fishwives, we are arguing from different premises. The frustration is engendered because we are talking about different things. This is, the old empiricist-rationalist divide in philosophy writ large. The conservatives are seeking to defend an authority, in abstracto, the liberals are seeking to reinterpret authority in the light of experience. Hence, I think, Spawn's comments. (He will doubtless correct me!) Hence, too, I think the conservative belief that liberals are unprincipled and the liberal belief that conservatives are heartless.
quote:At least the Church can say it hasn't announced simony is okay. More to the point would be that the church has decided divorce is okay,* and in so doing, has officially turned its back on the very clear teaching of Jesus, the apostles and tradition in officially allowing divorced persons to become and/or remain priests and bishops. The church didn't end when this happened. I fail to see how "turning its back" on the clear teachings of ... well, not Jesus. Um, the clear teachings of ... the OT plus Paul (assuming the translations are correct) plus church tradition on homosexuality is going to topple the church.
Originally posted by Callan.:
I confess myself intrigued by this particular line of argument. The Church has certainly ordained and consecrated pluralists, simoniacs, nepotists, racists, anti-semites and persecutors to its orders. I would have thought that there was fairly clear Biblical warrant for deploring all of these particular sins. I am unable to see, for example, why the ordination of a pathological Jew-hater leaves the Church in the clear whilst the ordination of someone as patently decent, thoughtful and Christian as Arabella is an abomination not to be borne among Christian people.
quote:I think you are right that the Episcopal Church of the USA has come very close, if not gone the whole way to suggesting that divorce is okay. This letter from Bishop Frank Gray spells out clearly some of the concerns.
At least the Church can say it hasn't announced simony is okay. More to the point would be that the church has decided divorce is okay,* and in so doing, has officially turned its back on the very clear teaching of Jesus, the apostles and tradition in officially allowing divorced persons to become and/or remain priests and bishops. The church didn't end when this happened. I fail to see how "turning its back" on the clear teachings of ... well, not Jesus. Um, the clear teachings of ... the OT plus Paul (assuming the translations are correct) plus church tradition on homosexuality is going to topple the church.
(I know Spawn isn't advocating that divorce ought to have been allowed, but he hasn't pushed for schism on the issue either)
*I don't want to hear that the church doesn't think divorce is okay. If divorce were really being treated as the sin that Jesus is clear that it is, then no divorced person could ever be ordained -- it would set a very bad example to ordain a flagrant mortal sinner to such an elevated position.
quote:You mean like with the ordination of women? That, presumably, was OK. On what grounds can we have consistency here in the Anglican Communion today?
Finally, I'm not as you say, pushing for schism, but it is clear that a break in relationship occurs when one church pushes through a change (despite repeated warnings that the change would tear the fabric of the communion) against the will of other parts.
quote:Totally agree. The Anglican Church has to have a huge amount of humility about the ordination of women, after all, the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church still do not ordain women to the priesthood. The Anglican Church adopted the idea of reception on this issue, allowing some provinces to move ahead with the ordination of women. I happen to believe that women's ordination is warranted from the Bible, but I am not going to disenfranchise Anglicans who do not agree with me. The fact is that we didn't follow the counsel of the vast majority of Christians on this issue, which is why to some extent the guilt for the state of impaired communion that currently arises out of women's ordination must also lie with those who supported change.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Spawn
quote:You mean like with the ordination of women? That, presumably, was OK. On what grounds can we have consistency here in the Anglican Communion today?
Finally, I'm not as you say, pushing for schism, but it is clear that a break in relationship occurs when one church pushes through a change (despite repeated warnings that the change would tear the fabric of the communion) against the will of other parts.
quote:Were we seriously moving toward greater communion with the RC and Orthodox churches before that?
Originally posted by Spawn:
The fact is that we didn't follow the counsel of the vast majority of Christians on this issue, which is why to some extent the guilt for the state of impaired communion that currently arises out of women's ordination must also lie with those who supported change.
quote:The simple answer is yes. There were still obstacles and there was in particular a very negative response to the first Arcic report from the Vatican in 1991 (I believe) but it must be added that the Pope significantly gave ecumenism a huge boost with Ut Unum Sint later in the decade.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Were we seriously moving toward greater communion with the RC and Orthodox churches before that?
Originally posted by Spawn:
The fact is that we didn't follow the counsel of the vast majority of Christians on this issue, which is why to some extent the guilt for the state of impaired communion that currently arises out of women's ordination must also lie with those who supported change.
quote:So,does it make it better that the change in question was entirely contrary to scripture, yet everyone kind of went along with it? I find this the most extraordinary thing. What "strands" accept divorce -- are you referring to the OT acceptance thereof? Jesus explicitly rejected this. Our Lord Himself said that he who divorces and remarries (and only Matthew adds that bit about fornication) (and some people think he was garnishing Mark for liberalization purposes) is an adulterer and his new spouse is an adulteress. Wow! That's really clear. So Paul takes the edge off? How so?
Originally posted by Spawn:
The ordination of all manner of sinners does not of itself change the church's teaching. The ordination of practising homosexuals on 'don't ask, don't tell' policy doesn't either (although I don't approve of such policies). But the matter of the ordination of a male bishop who lives with a partner outside marriage does force the issue of the church's teaching, as does a Synodical decision on same sex blessings. I think the divorce and remarriage of bishops and clergy falls in the same category - although I would add to this that the church's pastoral response to remarried divorcees, as to homosexuals should err on the side of loving-kindness.
quote:I think you are right that the Episcopal Church of the USA has come very close, if not gone the whole way to suggesting that divorce is okay. This letter from Bishop Frank Gray spells out clearly some of the concerns.
At least the Church can say it hasn't announced simony is okay. More to the point would be that the church has decided divorce is okay,* and in so doing, has officially turned its back on the very clear teaching of Jesus, the apostles and tradition in officially allowing divorced persons to become and/or remain priests and bishops. The church didn't end when this happened. I fail to see how "turning its back" on the clear teachings of ... well, not Jesus. Um, the clear teachings of ... the OT plus Paul (assuming the translations are correct) plus church tradition on homosexuality is going to topple the church.
(I know Spawn isn't advocating that divorce ought to have been allowed, but he hasn't pushed for schism on the issue either)
*I don't want to hear that the church doesn't think divorce is okay. If divorce were really being treated as the sin that Jesus is clear that it is, then no divorced person could ever be ordained -- it would set a very bad example to ordain a flagrant mortal sinner to such an elevated position.
On the other hand, I don't know anyone in the Church who actually says that divorce is a good thing. It is justified sometimes on the level of the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, divorce doesn't normally tend to reoccur: for there to be a proper analogy divorce would have to be serial.
Many are divorced against their will and it is on these kinds of grounds that the blessing of remarriages in Church can be considered. On the issue of divorce, although Jesus is entirely clear, there is a strand within the Bible which allows a little more exploration. For example, Matthew and Paul both allow for exceptions. I simply can't see how any leeway or permission is given within the Bible for a re-exploration of the issue of homosexuality.
Finally, I'm not as you say, pushing for schism, but it is clear that a break in relationship occurs when one church pushes through a change (despite repeated warnings that the change would tear the fabric of the communion) against the will of other parts.
quote:Matthew allows for the exception of sexual immorality, Paul permitted divorce for believers married to unbelievers. Deuteronomy offers the option of divorce. (in contrast, I can't think of any contradiction in the Bible's account of homosexuality, can you?) One thing is absolutely clear that divorce is a wrong to be repented of, but given that it is in no way treated as the unforgiveable sin, the pastoral question of how the Church should respond to divorcees confronts the Church with the same urgency as its response to homosexual people. ECUSA has dealt with divorce and remarriage in exactly the same way that it has dealt with homosexuality by failing to confront the principle and decide on a way forward, but instead by allowing a range of lifestyles among the clergy and the House of Bishops. I find this unprincipled as does Bishop Frank Gray.
Originally posted by Laura:
So,does it make it better that the change in question was entirely contrary to scripture, yet everyone kind of went along with it? I find this the most extraordinary thing. What "strands" accept divorce -- are you referring to the OT acceptance thereof? Jesus explicitly rejected this. Our Lord Himself said that he who divorces and remarries (and only Matthew adds that bit about fornication) (and some people think he was garnishing Mark for liberalization purposes) is an adulterer and his new spouse is an adulteress. Wow! That's really clear. So Paul takes the edge off? How so?
quote:I am bothered by both the sundering of his marriage in this way, and by his current relationship but apart from that I think we're in agreement.
Originally posted by Laura:
Spawn:
I agree in part with what you say regarding divorce. (I'm discounting the permission of divorce in Deuteronomy as compelling because AISI Christ himself noted, then rejected, that acceptability)
I do feel the need to clarify that I am not militantly anti-divorce. But I think the Church made an enormous mistake in not addressing the principle before jettisoning the system. I cannot help but think that one of the major impetes (impetuses? impeti?) (can't remember which bloody declension impetus is) for this is simply that this allowed the men of the cloth (as they predominantly were at the time) to get on with trading up to their second wives without too much bother. I think it's a failure not only of doctrine, but of pre and intra-marriage counseling. And a failure of fellowship and brethrenly intervention. As I've said many times, it bothers me far more that +Robinson went through a church-sponsored "taking back" of his wedding vows than that he is gay.
quote:But the ECUSA started ordaining women in the 1970s. (Officially allowed it in 1976.) The US church had its first female bishop in 1988, New Zealand in 1989, and Canada in 1995, so if we'd had all those female bishops by then, why were they not so much of an obstacle?
Originally posted by Spawn:
the Pope significantly gave ecumenism a huge boost with Ut Unum Sint later in the decade.
quote:I'm being quite anglocentric here, but I don't think I'm wrong in saying that the Vatican's attitude at the time was that the significant change came when the Church of England began ordaining women.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:But the ECUSA started ordaining women in the 1970s. (Officially allowed it in 1976.) The US church had its first female bishop in 1988, New Zealand in 1989, and Canada in 1995, so if we'd had all those female bishops by then, why were they not so much of an obstacle?
Originally posted by Spawn:
the Pope significantly gave ecumenism a huge boost with Ut Unum Sint later in the decade.
Admittedly, "how will or should the ordination of women as priests/bishops affect ecumenism" should probably be its own topic, or fit into the Priestly Genitalia thread. (I started on the Ship not being convinced of its validity, and was so convinced later on, so I have been on both sides and I know how much of a struggle it can be.)
David
quote:Apologies, but my final incomplete sentence was superfluous. Thanks to Laura for pointing it out or I'd never have noticed.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:I'm being quite anglocentric here, but I don't think I'm wrong in saying that the Vatican's attitude at the time was that the significant change came when the Church of England began ordaining women.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:But the ECUSA started ordaining women in the 1970s. (Officially allowed it in 1976.) The US church had its first female bishop in 1988, New Zealand in 1989, and Canada in 1995, so if we'd had all those female bishops by then, why were they not so much of an obstacle?
Originally posted by Spawn:
the Pope significantly gave ecumenism a huge boost with Ut Unum Sint later in the decade.
Admittedly, "how will or should the ordination of women as priests/bishops affect ecumenism" should probably be its own topic, or fit into the Priestly Genitalia thread. (I started on the Ship not being convinced of its validity, and was so convinced later on, so I have been on both sides and I know how much of a struggle it can be.)
David
I'm afraid to say that the dialogue that counted as far as Rome was concerned
quote:Wow. That may be -- and a bit, well, odd, since the Communion (not that I have to tell you this, but in case some non-Anglican person doesn't know this and reads the thread) doesn't regard the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Anglican Pope -- but I wonder what would have happened if they'd all somehow reached communion, but only (I would think) between the C of E and Rome, not any other Anglican church and Rome...
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'm being quite anglocentric here, but I don't think I'm wrong in saying that the Vatican's attitude at the time was that the significant change came when the Church of England began ordaining women.
quote:I live my life astraddle two churches: one that is officially reconciling and one that's not. I've felt drawn to be mostly involved in the latter (perversely). It's been a faith journey, so far, of being willing to risk, to be vulnerable, to place myself "out there" and provide other people opportunity to meet and get to know another Christian who identifies as gay. I don't particularly enjoy the risk bits. I agonise over things like coming out to my men's life group and being constantly aware of what I say to certain people about my life and people that I care for. Are they ready for this? Am I just waiving the rainbow flag? Does this strengthen the bonds of affection or will it just confuse the person?
how is one to live ones life? There is an absence of role-models to which to look, so how do we relate what is given in Christianity to being gay? How should we do relationships as marriage isn't an option?
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek.:
As regards God, living as a gay Christian doesn't feel a whole lot different than living as a straight Christian. I sense acceptance from Him; that's not changed. I sense the same call to do justice, love mercy & walk humbly and to keep the same commandment to love God with all my heart, soul and mind and my neighbor as myself.
That's one of the most moving, challenging things I've read on these boards for a while. I pray God's richest blessings on you in your walk with Him, iGeek.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
As I've said many times, it bothers me far more that +Robinson went through a church-sponsored "taking back" of his wedding vows than that he is gay.
I assume that you are referring to the ceremony in which he and his wife promised to honour their vows to the fullest extent that their new circumstances would allow (raising their children together, etc.). So I'm a bit baffled as to why you would be "bothered".quote:I read the liturgy used. And it bothered me a whole lot. If, God forbid, I was in the business of appointing bishops, that alone would have persuaded me to vote against him.
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
So I'm a bit baffled as to why you would be "bothered".
quote:Shurely shome mishtake?
Dr Williams told the synod yesterday: "The public perception ... is that we are a church obsessed with sex. [And] this is what many in the church feel as well. It feels as though we are caught in a battle very few really want to be fighting."
quote:Clearly it's their hobby!
Participants will spend tomorrow debating serial motions on homosexuality.
quote:That sounds like something that should be fun but isn't.
Originally posted by Louise:
Participants will spend tomorrow debating serial motions on homosexuality.
quote:Shurely shome mishtake?
Originally posted by Louise:
It feels as though we are caught in a battle very few really want to be fighting."
quote:To quote Kipling "order the guns and shoot"!
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Nazi style eugenics is alive and well.
quote:Do you suppose if they find a gene that causes people to be narrow minded bigots preoccupied with others sex lives they could fix that too?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Evidently a prominent Southern Baptist leader says that if a gay gene is found, it should be "fixed" in utero through genetic manipulation in order to stop us from existing.
Beliefnet: Gay gene if found should be manipulated
Nazi style eugenics is alive and well.
quote:I'll bet it's the same gene.
Originally posted by RainbowKate:
Do you suppose if they find a gene that causes people to be narrow minded bigots preoccupied with others sex lives they could fix that too?
quote:If that were the case, I'd have to feel grateful to have gotten 'gay' in the genetic coin toss.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:I'll bet it's the same gene.
Originally posted by RainbowKate:
Do you suppose if they find a gene that causes people to be narrow minded bigots preoccupied with others sex lives they could fix that too?
(in other words if the gene is flipped one way, and if the gene is flipped the other way -- I'm not saying that homosexuals are narrow-minded bigots, because I don't believe that)
quote:Over at Pinknews (Ads may be NSFW, depending on your rules) I saw this
Originally posted by RainbowKate:
...I wonder what that does that do to the "Christian Right's" argument that homosexuality "is not natural."
quote:Which indicates something other than genetic determinism, or maternal environmental determinism. I think overall the probability that a gay male's male sibling is gay is about 22%, well above chance, but well below any obvious single-gene statistic.
Studies of identical twin brothers show that in 52% of cases where one twin is gay the other twin is also gay.
quote:Does anybody believe in genetic determinism any more? So many things are spoken of as having a genetic "tendency" which nurture can either bring out or cover over, depending on the nurture. Especially in the realm of behaviour. Do you have any studies or articles that suggest single-gene behavioural traits have a certain statistical probability in families, twins, etc, or is this kind of a "it feels too low to me" thing?
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Which indicates something other than genetic determinism, or maternal environmental determinism. I think overall the probability that a gay male's male sibling is gay is about 22%, well above chance, but well below any obvious single-gene statistic.
quote:The stats on single-gene recessive diseases, like Tay-Sachs, Huntingdon's, and hemophilia are all quite uniform. (And colour blindness if you factor in the X/Y stuff.) It's exactly 25% for a single gene recessive where both parents are heterozygous (carry the gene). So the identical twin cases there are 100% - if one twin has the double recessive, both do. And the sibling cases are similarly simple power-of-two stats.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Do you have any studies or articles that suggest single-gene behavioural traits have a certain statistical probability in families, twins, etc, or is this kind of a "it feels too low to me" thing?
quote:I'm beginning to think so.
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
"Living as a Christian Homosexual"...getting harder and harder all the time with ++Rowan waffling and ++Peter Abuja getting stronger.
Makes me wonder after 59 years in the Church whether it's been a waste of time.
quote:I don't know. I suspect that a lot of very similar-looking behavioural tics (for lack of a better word) have quite different underlaying causes. Trying to match one behaviour to one gene, therefore seems like an exercise in frustration at best. But there are behavioural traits that do seem to "run in families" (ADHD, Asperger's Syndrome, Depression, etc -- or are those not behavioural at all?). Perhaps someday we'll know where on the genome the markers for these things lie. We seem to be a long way from there now.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Are there any proven genetic behavoural traits?
quote:It's been observed that, were this to happen, the only parents who would be producing gay children would be devout Catholics who were unable to countenance abortion - a very peculiar outcome, to say the least!
Originally posted by RainbowKate:
There are a lot of 'what if's' with the idea of a gay gene, and I think the possibility that it eventually gets screened for like Down's Syndrome and parents are encouraged to abort is one real possibility. There is a movie, The Twighlight of the Golds that deals with that possibility. The majority of the family wants the couple to abort a child they find out will be gay.
quote:Actually, I think this is a perfectly good and reasonable outcome. The Catholics are right on the issue of abortion, and the rest of the world is wrong.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:It's been observed that, were this to happen, the only parents who would be producing gay children would be devout Catholics who were unable to countenance abortion - a very peculiar outcome, to say the least!
Originally posted by RainbowKate:
There are a lot of 'what if's' with the idea of a gay gene, and I think the possibility that it eventually gets screened for like Down's Syndrome and parents are encouraged to abort is one real possibility. There is a movie, The Twighlight of the Golds that deals with that possibility. The majority of the family wants the couple to abort a child they find out will be gay.
quote:But you can more or less rigorously define the pheonotype. There is no one thing that is "homosexuality". It is a term for a whole load of different kinds of behaviour. Some things we call homosexuality may be quite simply inherited, others might not be.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
The stats on single-gene recessive diseases, like Tay-Sachs, Huntingdon's, and hemophilia are all quite uniform. (And colour blindness if you factor in the X/Y stuff.) It's exactly 25% for a single gene recessive where both parents are heterozygous (carry the gene). So the identical twin cases there are 100% - if one twin has the double recessive, both do. And the sibling cases are similarly simple power-of-two stats.
quote:Because behaviour is affected by thousands of genes. And because, again, we have no rigorous definition of different kinds of behaviour.
Are there any proven genetic behavoural traits? I can't think of a solidly documented one. Musical, mathematical, and/or chess ability would be good candidates, but I haven't seen any hard numbers there.
quote:All I have read is that it is familial. That doesn't necessitate a genetic component.
Originally posted by mdijon:
There's quite good evidence for a genetic component in determining depression - and I recall evidence (can't find it now) of an interaction between the genetic components and life events.
quote:Sure as hell suggests one, though.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
All I have read is that it is familial. That doesn't necessitate a genetic component.
quote:I dunno. Do I have MH problems because my parents passed their genes onto me, or because I was raised in an unstable enviroment, or both?
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:Sure as hell suggests one, though.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
All I have read is that it is familial. That doesn't necessitate a genetic component.
quote:I must confess that I have never heard of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. The answer both seems quite helpful, though. I'm off to look them up on wikipeadia.
Originally posted by mdijon:
If you accept that SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) are a reasonable way to tease out heritability from environment, and trust the guys that did it, then the answer, Papio, is both.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:I wouldn't try to counter any of that. There is, so far as I have heard, no scientific consensus on why homosexual behavior exists. It is, of course, observed in animal populations too.
Originally posted by Flubb:
Unless if they've found something recently, there never was a gay gene to begin with.
...snip...
So, there is no scientific reason for homosexuality, so you can't blame the genes or biology just yet because there's no evidence. Nobody knows 'why' homosexuality exists (scientifically speaking). If anyone has anything more recent than 2003 that counteracts this view, I'll be interested
quote:ANy evidence (not just "I beliveve" or "I think") for this opinion?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Much, even most, of what we find sexually stimulating relates directly to our environment, and therefore can be altered and controlled.
quote:I find that to be a bizarre argument, quite honestly.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I do not agree that all sexual attractions are biologically mandated: ergo, I dismiss the popular claims of the "homosexual community", that they have no choice in what they find sexually attractive.
quote:Except that that North American indigenous people "Indians"/"First Nations" had a high acceptance of "two-souled persons" or "berdache" and a relatively low population pressure.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...In a nutshell, what I advocate as the truth is: homosexuality (that is, "same-sex" attraction ONLY) is very rare. Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, can increase and decrease according to population pressures. When the population is not too big, "nature's" imperative is to increase population: homosexual behavior decreases. ...
quote:I find it bizarre too. And I'm curious about the implications of it. What if someone is asexual - if they don't have sexual attractions at all? Do you think they can choose to find someone sexually attractive - and if so, how? I have never before heard an argument that people can choose what they find attractive.
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:I find that to be a bizarre argument, quite honestly.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I do not agree that all sexual attractions are biologically mandated: ergo, I dismiss the popular claims of the "homosexual community", that they have no choice in what they find sexually attractive.
quote:Bollocks.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
When the population is not too big, "nature's" imperative is to increase population: homosexual behavior decreases. When, as now, population is seen as too high, homosexual behavior increases, evidently as a natural contribution toward birth control. Therefore, bisexualism is far more common than biological homosexualism.
.
quote:You want a research paper or summat? I am not here to get peer review. So if you doubt what I said enough to post sources that disprove it, go ahead.
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:ANy evidence (not just "I beliveve" or "I think") for this opinion?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Much, even most, of what we find sexually stimulating relates directly to our environment, and therefore can be altered and controlled.
Is it sort of like saying the hetero guys in prison who get involved with gay sex really are choosing to be turned on by other guys, not just getting off in the only available way?
And if not, I have this horse I think you'll realy, really like getting to know. You can do it, you know you can, if you really decide you want to want to.
John
quote:So, according to your objections, I should be allowed to kill you when I get into one of my uncontrollable (biologically predisposed) rages. It isn't my fault.
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:I find that to be a bizarre argument, quite honestly.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I do not agree that all sexual attractions are biologically mandated: ergo, I dismiss the popular claims of the "homosexual community", that they have no choice in what they find sexually attractive.
We know that from birth until the age of five, a child's enviroment forms a very major component of who they are. That doesn't mean they are free to change it.
I am sure my love of heavy metal is not biological, but as i found out the hard way, I can choose not to listen to it, but I can't choose not to like it.
Sure a gay man can choose not to have sex, as a straight man can. That doesn't mean he can choose not to be gay. Can a straight man choose not to be straight???
I find your argument both morally and intellectually objectionable.
quote:What does "plenty of gays" mean? I know very few personally. My high schoolers observe that a lot of kids openly claim to be gay, and "act" that way. It seems a faddish thing of late, because of the popularizing of the homosexual community into martyrs similar to how Black Americans were portrayed in the 60's and since. Look at what a huge cultural change is still taking place because of Black American influences due to that popularizing.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:Except that that North American indigenous people "Indians"/"First Nations" had a high acceptance of "two-souled persons" or "berdache" and a relatively low population pressure.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...In a nutshell, what I advocate as the truth is: homosexuality (that is, "same-sex" attraction ONLY) is very rare. Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, can increase and decrease according to population pressures. When the population is not too big, "nature's" imperative is to increase population: homosexual behavior decreases. ...
Furthermore, let's look at at how "nature" detects "population pressure" - usually from famine. There aren't many hungry people in North America, but there are plenty of gays.
quote:I am not suggesting that once you are aware of what is sexually attractive, that you can just decide to change it. But, as I mentioned in a response just above, prison psychs conduct sexual "rehabilitation" all the time on (especially) child sex offenders, in order to cure them of their sexual attraction. If such was not deemed even possible or practical, would we be spending millions of bucks on such programs? (I am not an advocate of their methods, from what little I have heard of them: I have a friend who was sent up for child sex abuse charges, and refused to enter the sex offender program, because he claimed that he was afraid of letting the crap they expose the patients to into his mind. On the other hand, that, I am told, is a stock excuse of offenders who fear being "cured" of the sex that they like.)
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:I find it bizarre too. And I'm curious about the implications of it. What if someone is asexual - if they don't have sexual attractions at all? Do you think they can choose to find someone sexually attractive - and if so, how? I have never before heard an argument that people can choose what they find attractive.
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:I find that to be a bizarre argument, quite honestly.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I do not agree that all sexual attractions are biologically mandated: ergo, I dismiss the popular claims of the "homosexual community", that they have no choice in what they find sexually attractive.
quote:Why am I not surprised?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I know very few personally..
quote:Nonsense. What is natural is not neccesarily good. We are inherently sinful. Its a fallen world.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So, according to your objections, I should be allowed to kill you when I get into one of my uncontrollable (biologically predisposed) rages. It isn't my fault.
quote:Okay, then find some evidence to prove me wrong. I don't make it a hobby of mine, to do the geeky thing and read research papers. But a very savvy friend of mine does. I refer (defer) to him as my walking encyclopedia, and current affairs news source. (Yeah, as I said before, I am lazy that way.) I get confirmation of all that I have said in the posts I have made on this Dead Horse today, from him, just this week in fact. To whit: homosexual men almost never have sex with women, but lesbians (as I recall, up to half) swing both ways, particularly during their fertile periods; research is showing that homosexual behavior (not limited to same-sex attraction only) increases when population increases.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Bollocks.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
When the population is not too big, "nature's" imperative is to increase population: homosexual behavior decreases. When, as now, population is seen as too high, homosexual behavior increases, evidently as a natural contribution toward birth control. Therefore, bisexualism is far more common than biological homosexualism.
.
That's rubbish. Nonsense. Simply untrue. Provably, demonstrably untrue.
For a start, if it were true, homosexuality would be more common in areas of high population density and less in low. That is not the case.
How on earth is "nature" supposed to put pressure on people, or any other animals, to reduce the population? There is no way.
People might choose to have fewer children to reduce the population, that's quire different. But the "natural" thing to do is to try and have as many offspring as possible.
quote:You are merely making the distinction, that people see things differently according to what they choose, and their time and place. Different periods and cultures would value my rages, e.g Viking bersarks, Huns, Mongols, in fact many earlier, less civilized cultures. So you can't say it's wrong, only that our current society does not value or allow for it.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Nonsense. What is natural is not neccesarily good. We are inherently sinful. Its a fallen world.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So, according to your objections, I should be allowed to kill you when I get into one of my uncontrollable (biologically predisposed) rages. It isn't my fault.
In fact if you did have uncontrollable biologically predisposed rages in which you were liable to kill people you woudl be loced up in a very unpleasant hosp[ital for the e of your life and force-fed drugs to make you into little more than a vegetable between electric shocks.
quote:Why am I not surprised that you mistake my position? It seems the natural reaction to people who discuss this topic from a pro-homosexuality postion, that anyone who gets on "here" is either pro or con. And I have been judged con. Actually, if you read dispassionately (haha) the sum of what I have said, you will see that I am neutral: I only judge immorality on the case by case basis of whether or not a person is being just or unjust. Sex, to me, is utterly neutral by itself (as I expect research to show eventually, by proving that babies in the high nintieth percintile are predisposed biologically bisexual).
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Why am I not surprised?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I know very few personally..
quote:What on earth does any of that mean? The 'nintieth percintile' of what? What research?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Why am I not surprised that you mistake my position? It seems the natural reaction to people who discuss this topic from a pro-homosexuality postion, that anyone who gets on "here" is either pro or con. And I have been judged con. Actually, if you read dispassionately (haha) the sum of what I have said, you will see that I am neutral: I only judge immorality on the case by case basis of whether or not a person is being just or unjust. Sex, to me, is utterly neutral by itself (as I expect research to show eventually, by proving that babies in the high nintieth percintile are predisposed biologically bisexual).
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Why am I not surprised?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I know very few personally..
quote:Most of my social interaction isn't predicated on people's sexuality. What sort of life do you lead where it is?
As I am very heterosexual, and have naturally mixed with similar company, it should be no surprise on that basis alone, that I know few homosexuals. But I do know some. I don't avoid them....
quote:Freud et al would say that all our interactions are based on sexuality.
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
...Most of my social interaction isn't predicated on people's sexuality. What sort of life do you lead where it is?...
quote:Apologies and thank-you, Louise. I have transferred my question to Merlin onto the appropriate thread.
Originally posted by Louise:
The gay gene tangent started on the previous page but has suddenly racked up a lot of posts today taking this thread a bit too far off topic. It would probably be better on the general Homosexuality and Christianity thread, rather than on this thread about how to live as a gay christian.
Would people move the nature/nurture discussion there, quoting from posts on this thread as need be?
Shipmates should also be aware that there is an open Hell thread, which now has posts relating to this tangent.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
quote:Research into the "sex gene". You know, the biological chimera to prove that everyone homosexual has no choice, 'cause they are born that way. I expect the final verdict to be, "Nope, everyone (excepting a few aberations of Nature) is born bisexual, folks."
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
quote:What on earth does any of that mean? The 'nintieth percintile' of what? What research?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
.... I expect research to show eventually, by proving that babies in the high nintieth percintile are predisposed biologically bisexual).
quote:Most of my social interaction isn't predicated on people's sexuality. What sort of life do you lead where it is?
As I am very heterosexual, and have naturally mixed with similar company, it should be no surprise on that basis alone, that I know few homosexuals. But I do know some. I don't avoid them....
R
quote:I am a bit miffed, that after all I have said, you could ask such a question.
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Merlin, one question which is really bugging me as I read your posts on this thread: do you understand that there is a difference between experiencing feelings inside yourself and choosing to act on those feelings? Do you realise that experiencing a particular feeling is one thing, but then deciding what course of action to take as a result of the feeling is, by and large, a process which can be distinguished as being separate to the feeling from which it originated?
eta - fiddling with the phrasing, might still not be as clear as I want it though
quote:You must fair. This is a DEAD HORSE. I was told to go "here" if I had anything further to say on the topic of homosexuality. You cannot start threads on Dead Horse topics; only comment on already existing threads. I didn't see any thread that started on the same premise that we were discussing, which originated on the thread in Purg about "pastor" Ingham's sermon on a new theology on sex. It morphed (my fault mainly, I suppose), and we got our fingers slapped by the Purg moderator, and told to take it "here."
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can anyone unpack for me exactly how any of Merlin's rambling is related to the OP?
quote:I give up. You can't start threads here, and ANY thread that goes on for half a dozen or more pages is going to wander on, off and back on, topic. The last thing I am going to do, dear Mod, is go to Hell to comment on a thread started there by some chick who is pissed off at me and making personal attacks. I am not on the Ship to defend myself; I am discussing the topic at hand, and ignoring personal attacks.
Originally posted by Louise:
The gay gene tangent started on the previous page but has suddenly racked up a lot of posts today taking this thread a bit too far off topic. It would probably be better on the general Homosexuality and Christianity thread, rather than on this thread about how to live as a gay christian.
Would people move the nature/nurture discussion there, quoting from posts on this thread as need be?
Shipmates should also be aware that there is an open Hell thread, which now has posts relating to this tangent.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
quote:You are in Utah - possibly engagement and marriage announcements in newspapers are unknown there.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... announce their sexual preferences in public; heteros don't do that either, for some reason. Could be old fashioned social decorum?
quote:hosting
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:I give up. You can't start threads here, and ANY thread that goes on for half a dozen or more pages is going to wander on, off and back on, topic. The last thing I am going to do, dear Mod, is go to Hell to comment on a thread started there by some chick who is pissed off at me and making personal attacks. I am not on the Ship to defend myself; I am discussing the topic at hand, and ignoring personal attacks.
Originally posted by Louise:
The gay gene tangent started on the previous page but has suddenly racked up a lot of posts today taking this thread a bit too far off topic. It would probably be better on the general Homosexuality and Christianity thread, rather than on this thread about how to live as a gay christian.
Would people move the nature/nurture discussion there, quoting from posts on this thread as need be?
Shipmates should also be aware that there is an open Hell thread, which now has posts relating to this tangent.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
quote:Wedding rings also unknown? Nobody holding hands?
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:You are in Utah - possibly engagement and marriage announcements in newspapers are unknown there.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... announce their sexual preferences in public; heteros don't do that either, for some reason. Could be old fashioned social decorum?
quote:No pictures of the husband or wife and family on desks at work?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Wedding rings also unknown? Nobody holding hands?
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:You are in Utah - possibly engagement and marriage announcements in newspapers are unknown there.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... announce their sexual preferences in public; heteros don't do that either, for some reason. Could be old fashioned social decorum?
quote:I EXPLICITLY drew a distinction between an attarction, and a act (not that Ifeel such a distinction is a good one, but i was pandering to your prejudices).
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So, according to your objections, I should be allowed to kill you when I get into one of my uncontrollable (biologically predisposed) rages. It isn't my fault.
How are you going to tell what is acceptable biological predispostion and what is not? If it comes down to the argument: "I am not responsible for my needs and have a right to fulfil myself", then we are playing with Pandora's box.
quote:And telling people that their love isn't valid because your stupid and ignorant interpretation of some religious books written thousands of years ago says so is, pretty genreally, called ugly, hate-filled bigotry of which you should be ashamed.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That's called self-sacrifice as an act of love.
quote:I honestly missed that. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by Louise:
Papio, I've specifically asked twice now that the general debate about nature/nurture which includes Merlin's post which you quote about biological dispositions be taken to the homosexuality and Christianity thread where others are responding.
quote:The Royal College of Psychaitrists 'Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.' concludes: 'Although there is now a number of therapists and organisation in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:Dorothea,
Originally posted by dorothea:
Gay people sometimes become straight, straight people become gay. Sexuality isn't always fixed, you know. People struggle to find themselves. Sometimes they fall in love, sometimes they learn to love. Only God can judge our hearts.
While I agree that sexuality isn't always fixed and is more fluid then our label-loving society like yo give it credit for, there is the very real problem of the Ex-gay movement (organizations like Exodus) which has caused much suffering to gay people out of a very real agenda.
quote:Well, this is all that matters, in my estimation: acceptance and an easy heart, that is.
Originally posted by Eru the Elf - Wolf:
I am accepting myself and my heart is at more ease about it after reading this 7+ year old thread. Some people can change, not all can. I'd like to believe that because I am gay I am able to love more than before. After all, Jesus suffered more than any of us ever will.
quote:I, for one, am pessimistic about the remainder of "some". I think it's minuscule.
Originally posted by Eru the Elf - Wolf:
Some people can change, not all can.
quote:I like that. I believe it is very, very important to realise that Christianity, and certainly the NT, do not privilege the family in any way, and indeed critique it.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
As far as role models in the Church -- apart from the realization that there have been faithful gay Christians throughout history, I think one useful thing to remember is that early Christians were often condemned for what was considered their "immoral" practice of celibacy; so being a Christian in a sexual minority is nothing new.
quote:This may be relevant.
Originally posted by iGeek:
quote:I, for one, am pessimistic about the remainder of "some". I think it's minuscule.
Originally posted by Eru the Elf - Wolf:
Some people can change, not all can.
quote:There seems to be nothing behind those who claim to be able to turn gay people straight other than a bunch of wishful thinking that they can do so.
Former Ex-Gay Leader Smid Can No Longer Condemn Gays
John Smid, who resigned as Executive Director of Love in Action in 2008, has made his strongest statements yet disavowing the message he preached for years as the head of a ministry that promised gays they could change. Writing on the website of his new ministry, Grace Rivers, Smid says being homosexual (he generally uses this rather clinical term rather than “gay”) is an intrinsic part of a person’s being, not a behaviour he can repent from:
quote:He also makes a confession you won’t hear from Exodus (except Exodus President Alan Chambers in an off-guarded moment, although he later backtracked) — he’s never met a real ex-gay person:
One cannot repent of something that is unchangeable. I have gone through a tremendous amount of grief over the many years that I spoke of change, repentance, reorientation and such, when, barring some kind of miracle, none of this can occur with homosexuality.
quote:
I also want to reiterate here that the transformation for the vast majority of homosexuals will not include a change of sexual orientation. Actually I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual.
quote:Probably because he wasn't saying so as part of a very profitable scam playing to people's fears and desperation.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Funny. When I heard a gay man boasting he could 'turn' a straight one, nobody batted an eyelid.
quote:Classic gay fantasy. Partly based on the notion that a lot of 'straight' guys are in truth closeted homosexuals or bisexuals.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Funny. When I heard a gay man boasting he could 'turn' a straight one, nobody batted an eyelid.
quote:Amen to this.
Originally posted by Donne, Donne, Donne.:
Something that must be a common experience to those who post here. When discussing homosexuality with those of differing viewpoints, there seems to be confusion about what it is. A close relation of mine is a Jehovah's Witness and cannot seem to believe that homosexuality is not a choice (as I believe). It seems as though there is a fixation with the sexual act, instead of any acknowledgement of emotional attraction, union and even love between two people of the same sex. Recalling earlier posts having sexual relations with a member of the same sex does not make one a homosexual or indeed vice versa. I think as Christians we over emphasise a great deal about physical sexuality, when a lot of the time that is not the most important part of the issue at hand.
quote:I'm not sure she's wrong. But that's because I think almost any woman (or man for that matter) can be taught to enjoy sex with their own right hand. But if you need to think of your partner as a substitute for your right hand, the relationship's going to go screwy fast.
Originally posted by Gee D:
There used be a very silly woman at Sydney Uni - she called herself an academic, but it was in only in something like sociology - who said that any woman could be taught to enjoy sex with another woman. She must have had tenure to carry on as she did, and I suspect that she wanted to do the teaching herself. But if she were correct, surely the opposite could be achieved???????
quote:Funny, because I brought that up this morning on the fast-and-freewheeling Youtube comments for the new Australian marriage equality campaign.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Justinian, you raise the appalling possibility of yet another form of abomination splitting people asunder. Left handers.
quote:Yes - my husband was forced to use his right hand as a child, and whacked with a ruler if he tried to use his left.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I did it precisely because handedness WAS seen, for a very long time, as some kind of moral issue. People were expected to be right handed, regardless of their natural inclination. They were forced to perform activities with their right hand against their brain's own desire to use the left hand.
quote:I'm sure a bisexual woman can choose whether to be with a woman or be with a man. I don't think the gender of your current partner equates with 'being a lesbian'.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I can hardly imagine a man's calling his homosexuality a choice. But some women do say that they chose to be Lesbians. Are we supposed to doubt their word?
It seems to me that male and female homosexuality are two different phenomena. We must at least bear the possibility in mind. There is no reason to think otherwise, beyond the fact that we use the same word for both.
quote:Not any of the lesbians I've ever known or dated.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I can hardly imagine a man's calling his homosexuality a choice. But some women do say that they chose to be Lesbians.
quote:If you hadn't chosen it, you couldn't be blamed, and blame has to be assessed when sin happens. Q.E.D.
Frankly, the people who usually suggest that I chose to be gay are the ones who think that this was a wrong choice.
quote:If she didn't want sex and was willing to do a good share of the housework, she WOULD be a good woman!
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Orfeo, I'm just going to say "God told me to tell you that you need the love of a good woman*" and run!
* this may not necessarily reflect the views of the writer....
quote:When you find one, let me know. There must be a good one out there some where....
Originally posted by orfeo:
...or someone who is at good at organising ME into doing the housework is also acceptable.
Sorry, I've just spent a day discussing my personality and work preferences, so it's on my mind. Highly relevant to explaining why my desire for organisation usually doesn't translate into action to produce it. I should take this discussion to a decent gay dating site, but I'm not sure one exists.
quote:It was supposed to be ironic.
Originally posted by the Pookah:
Oy the irony of what you've written! We can have gay liberation but it goes hand in hand with male privilege....
quote:the Pookah, I was aiming at a slightly mischievous comment to the effect that the terrible affliction of male homosexuality could magically find its cure at the same time as Orfeo's difficulties with domestic chores. If the out and out sarcasm of this (bearing mind that I have made little secret of my own homosexuality and indeed of the fact that I am indeed male) fails to come across, some adjustment of detectors may be required.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well actually, there are plenty of men who can do those things. I'm just not one of them.
EDIT: Well actually I do the dishes. Most days, anyway. I'm not eating off dirty crockery or out of cardbox boxes. I also manage to cook most of the time and don't run out of clothes. But maintenance of the cleanliness of the house, as opposed to myself, is not one of my skills.
I don't attribute that to my gender, but you appear to have missed what I thought was reasonable clarification after the initial joke.
quote:I had no problem with my gender identity. My relationship with my father was and is good and loving. I was never sexually molested by a man as a child. So that was no problem.
"attaining abstinence from homosexual behaviors, lessening of homosexual temptations, strengthening their sense of masculine or feminine identity, correcting distorted styles of relating with members of the same and opposite gender."[
quote:Amen.
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
And lastly - I had a great sense of shame and guilt. Not for being gay, but while I was repressing everything it made me feel bad about being me. It messed up how I thought about myself, and God, and impacted on my relationship with everyone else. The day the shame went was the day I had the honesty to acknowledge that I was gay and that was all there was to say.
I may not be a very good Christian yet, but at least I know that whatever I am, I am really me now.
quote:www.whosoever.org would be a big help to you, I think. The main minister on there is a woman I know named Candace Chellew-Hodge. She is a really cool, knowledgeable woman. Oh, and she's a lesbian. There's a lot of good and helpful reading on this site.
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I've just had a horrendous evening arguing with my church group, who refuse to acknowledge that - however much they are 'loving the sinner, and not rejecting anyone' that to believe that living in a loving relationship with another person who is of the same gender is intrinsicly sinful, is perhaps, perchance, a bit damaging to the people in a relationship. Because where is their happy outcome?
We move the goalposts ALL THE TIME so why not for this one? Anyway, on here, somewhere, long ago I think I found a link to a website that made me feel better. Can anyone please help me find it again because I might have to jack in the whole church concept if I can't believe again that the real church - the one Jesus founded - isn't overly concerned with who one has a loving relationship with, so long as they are fighting injustice, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and sick at heart, working for the community and loving the lord their god, being a light in the world and salty and so forth, at the same time.
cheers.
quote:As far as I know, it started, hot and heavy in the 1970's. It was all the rage of writers like Rita Mae Brown, Jill Johnston, Judy Grahn, etc. And what kills me is that these writers made this big deal about how women wouldn't oppress other women or exploit them. Right. Tell that to my three abusive girlfriends, one of whom tried to kill me! It always made me mad that women "chose" to be lesbian for awhile as some sort of political statement about the evils of inequality and then "chose" to be heterosexual. Just admit you're a damn bisexual and shut up, already. I certainly didn't wake up one morning and say to myself, "Gee, today I feel like wearing that green striped shirt, my favorite blue jeans and oh, yeah, I think I'll be a lesbian!".
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Back in the 80s I had a friend who chose to be a lesbian as a political statement, and she said many other women were doing the same. I've never asked her about her experience, but she's been happily partnered with a man for a long time now. Equally, I haven't heard of anyone doing that in recent years. Was it a part of 80s feminism, does anyone know?
quote:
"Gee, today I feel like wearing that green striped shirt, my favorite blue jeans and oh, yeah, I think I'll be a lesbian!".
They were together for five years. Where she went after that, I'm not sure, but I hope she continued in happiness which ever way she swung. She was a good 'un.quote:I'm a damn bisexual. Where's the t-shirt?
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
It always made me mad that women "chose" to be lesbian for awhile as some sort of political statement about the evils of inequality and then "chose" to be heterosexual. Just admit you're a damn bisexual and shut up, already.
