Ship of Fools: Sexuality: what i wish Justin Welby had said.

Thread: Sexuality: what i wish Justin Welby had said. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028667

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I've been looking at Justin Welby's press statement , posted today. At first I found it impressive. I still do find most of it impressive. But then, utterly and depressingly predictably, when he starts talking about human sexuality, he's talking about it in terms of a problem. First he tells us that we have to consider the effect of what we do on the position of the Church in e.g. N Nigeria- as if Boko Haram would suddenly pack it in if the Anglican Communion as a whole adopted the attitude to homosexuality that seems to prevail in, er, the Church of Nigeria. Then he talks about making safe places to talk about it. This is bollocks. The kind of CofE and CinW churches that I've attended for the last 20 odd years don't see themselves as safe places to talk about homosexuality because we think that being a gay Christian is about as problematic as being a tall, or ginger, or fat one: there's simply nothing to talk about.
I am sick and tired of all this pussy-footing around, and seeing anything other than heterosexuality as something to be, at best, handled ever so carefully and tolerantly with kid gloves.
Some people- I'm not one of them, if it makes any difference- are gay. Quite a lot of them are Christians, and some of them are very good Christians, if such a label makes any sense. There should be nothing more to say.

[ 09. November 2012, 20:32: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

There are over 3000 mentions of the proper treatment of the poor, the widow, the orphan, the stranger - IOW the neighbour - in the Bible. There are over 600 statements about heterosexual behaviour, and only 6 about gayness (and even those are ambivalent or obscure)

So naturally, we talk about the 6 obscure ones, because, otherwise, we would have to give effort and money away. And money is shiny and buys us neat stuff, and we don't like using our energy.

Makes one wonder why we bother having churches at all.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

Agree totally with you there Albertus - he started off grand, but when it came to sexuality he, well, slid into the mire of 'lets keep it all in perspective and low key'!

I would much rather have him come out and say that ALL people are God's loved children, without distinction or any sense of error or wrongness due to differing DNA's.

The Church is called to be the contrast to the wrongs of society - to be the prophets, the healers, the challengers. Unless one is part of the extremes of society, these issues of sexuality are long past, forgotten, buried. Surely it is time that the church acknowledged this in word and action (not just be a safe place to talk about it)!

The Christian church, not just the CofE, should be challenging those who sseek to deny the legitimate place and role and opportunity of gays, etc in both society and the church, (including leadership roles) and to be the voracious opponent of all forms of stigmatisation, wherever it is found.

That is what I would have liked the AoB-designate to have enunciated loudly and clearly! Even if it did put him offside with Nigeria.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

One would think that the reults of the US election, particularly on the gay/SSM front, might affect some peoples' thinking a bit.

If not, try "How to Win a Culture War and Lose a Generation" to see the likely outcome.

If the Church is not seen as being able to welcome ALL, then the Church will lose all credibility.

Is Nigeria more important than the church where you are?

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
There are over 3000 mentions of the proper treatment of the poor, the widow, the orphan, the stranger - IOW the neighbour - in the Bible. There are over 600 statements about heterosexual behaviour, and only 6 about gayness (and even those are ambivalent or obscure)

So naturally, we talk about the 6 obscure ones, because, otherwise, we would have to give effort and money away. And money is shiny and buys us neat stuff, and we don't like using our energy.

Makes one wonder why we bother having churches at all.

Or maybe the real reason that we spend so much time talking about the "6 obscure ones" is that everyone already agrees that Christians should help the poor, so there's not much debate to be had. We certainly disagree on the best way to accomplish the goal, but there is no fundamental divide.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I share the frustration of the OP.

However, the mention of 'safe spaces' is relevant and important. My church belongs to the Inclusive Church movement and we have a trickle of people through out doors, grateful that they can come out for the first time.

Most churches in the C of E don't provide a safe space for LGBTs.

As for discussion, Lambeth 1988 committed us to a listening process. Yet this has not really happened because most LGBTs, especially amongst the clergy, are frightened of reprisals should they be part of a debating panel.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I wish he'd said not a mumblin' word about sexuality. I'm a little tired of everything being turned around to What You Do With Your Genitals And Why It's My Business.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I share the frustration of the OP.

However, the mention of 'safe spaces' is relevant and important. My church belongs to the Inclusive Church movement and we have a trickle of people through out doors, grateful that they can come out for the first time.

Most churches in the C of E don't provide a safe space for LGBTs.

As for discussion, Lambeth 1988 committed us to a listening process. Yet this has not really happened because most LGBTs, especially amongst the clergy, are frightened of reprisals should they be part of a debating panel.

Agreed. I was part of a church that wasn't a safe space for LGBTs and it was very painful. Said church is still not a safe space for LGBTs - this is unacceptable and things need to change. Part of the problem, IME, is that the churches that are the least safe spaces for LGBTs tend to be conservative evangelical ones where the culture has no space for acknowledging the sexuality of single adults - the emphasis is on marriage and families to the extent that even heterosexual single people get a raw deal. At least in trad Catholic churches, there's understanding that God doesn't intend everyone for heterosexual marriage with biological kids.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Albertus:

quote:
Some people- I'm not one of them, if it makes any difference- are gay. Quite a lot of them are Christians, and some of them are very good Christians, if such a label makes any sense. There should be nothing more to say.

Deeply agree. If only this statement could become the motto of the Anglican Communion!

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Or maybe the real reason that we spend so much time talking about the "6 obscure ones" is that everyone already agrees that Christians should help the poor, so there's not much debate to be had. We certainly disagree on the best way to accomplish the goal, but there is no fundamental divide.

Would that that were true. Rather than in America charitable giving correlating negatively with religion once you take out money given to the church, or the Prosperity Gospel being rampant - for example Rick Warren (pastor of the 8th largest church in America and writer of the Porpoise Driven Life) complaining about the 47%.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

1) Sexuality is a fraught and problem ridden area. We are all fallen in this area; the strength of desire that almost all feel makes this somewhere that our spiritual nature is most clearly at war with our bodies.

2) The church and the wider community affirm wildly different standards on this issue. The church is committed to the belief that sex should only occur with the context of a permanent relationship; the wider community finds this almost incomprehensible.

3) Homophobia - in the sense of the rejection of a person simply because they are tempted in one particular way - is unacceptable within the church; if anyone experiences that within the Church of England, please write to me and I will use my powers to ensure that the local church leaders who have failed to prevent it are strongly encouraged to work to remove that blight from the congregation concerned.

4) Homosexual practice - being defined as acts primarily performed to achieve sexual arousal between two persons of the same gender [we can nitpick here - let's try and resist the temptation please] - are always sinful. It is not right for the church to bless such behaviour, any more than we should bless greed, the oppression of human rights or racism. However as Pope Gregory the Great's 'Pastoral Rule' argues: at times it is better to allow some sin to continue to purge the more serious. It is on that basis that the approach of 'Issues' will be mine: gay relationships among the clergy will not be tolerated, but it will be for the local church leadership to determine when and how to help gay people move away from sexually expressing their love.

5) Bishops who have knowingly consecrated bishops in gay relationships, or who have endorsed liturgies blessing gay relationships will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference in 2018.

6) I strongly endorse the work of the True Freedom Trust and other organisations committed to providing mutual support and encouragement to gay people seeking to live celibately. I also regret the failure of many churches to provide effective space for single people, and invite my Evangelical friends to look at the way more Catholic parts of the church make a better fist of this.

May I end by repeating my condemnation of homophobia in the church, and take this opportunity to apologies unreservedly to those who have experienced rejection by the body of Christ merely because of the temptations to which they are subject.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Homophobia - in the sense of the rejection of a person simply because they are tempted in one particular way ...

There is your problem, the idea that same sex sex is a sin/temptation.

The whole problem lies right there imo - in the idea that being attracted to someone of the same sex is somehow wrong and to be resisted.

Try imagining being told that your very nature is a temptation and an evil to be resisted.

[Disappointed]

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

May I end by repeating my condemnation of homophobia in the church, and take this opportunity to apologies unreservedly to those who have experienced rejection by the body of Christ merely because of the temptations to which they are subject.

You can't do that and hold to what you said above. If you reject a person's sexuality and treat it as a temptation to be resisted, you reject them as a person too.

You may not call it homophobia, but it is total rejection of who they are just the same.

[ 12. November 2012, 08:22: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Homophobia - in the sense of the rejection of a person simply because they are tempted in one particular way ...
There is your problem, the idea that same sex sex is a sin/temptation.

The whole problem lies right there imo - in the idea that being attracted to someone of the same sex is somehow wrong and to be resisted.

Try imagining being told that your very nature is a temptation and an evil to be resisted.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

May I end by repeating my condemnation of homophobia in the church, and take this opportunity to apologies unreservedly to those who have experienced rejection by the body of Christ merely because of the temptations to which they are subject.
You can't do that and hold to what you said above. If you reject a person's sexuality and treat it as a temptation to be resisted, you reject them as a person too.

You may not call it homophobia, but it is total rejection of who they are just the same.

[Please resist the temptation to stop listening when you read the first sentence of this response; it's NOT saying what you feel it is]

Indeed, but given that we have no hesitation in saying this to paedophiles, it's clear that we have the right to do so. The ONLY debate is where the line is to be drawn, and what constitutes behaviour that is spiritually damaging to the participants. Now I have no hesitation in arguing that sexual activity by adults with children is harmful - despite that the fact that many other societies have affirmed it as normal and acceptable. And until very recently our society placed a similar condemnation on gay relationships; that is no longer the consensus of our society - but it's not legitimate to argue it's obviously wrong because it rejects who they are. Unless you are going to offer the same free pass to paedophiles...

[Yes, folks, the logic is impeccable. Don't get diverted into arguing that 'gay relationships have a record of being good for the participants'; that's setting experience against a bible based morality. This is about our affirmation - or otherwise - of what we believe about the bible as an accurate guide to what God regards as good. It's nice to be a dead fish and to go with the flow, but that doesn't make it right.]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Don't get diverted into arguing that 'gay relationships have a record of being good for the participants'; that's setting experience against a bible based morality.

I take it, from the context, that you're not being ironic. Remarkable- quite apart from the suggestion that we can read off a 'Bible-based morality' from, what is it, 6 often rather ambiguous references.

[ 12. November 2012, 08:54: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

[Yes, folks, the logic is impeccable. Don't get diverted into arguing that 'gay relationships have a record of being good for the participants'; that's setting experience against a bible based morality. This is about our affirmation - or otherwise - of what we believe about the bible as an accurate guide to what God regards as good. It's nice to be a dead fish and to go with the flow, but that doesn't make it right.]

Well for a start, there is no consistent vision of marriage in the bible which matches the current fascination with 'biblical family values'. If you're forcing me to affirm the biblical image of marriage, it involves many partners, it involves having sex with slaves if infertile, it involves women being unclean, it involves women being owned by their husbands. And so on.

Second, I'm not even sure that the parameters of the argument can simply be set as whether "what we believe about the bible as an accurate guide to what God regards as good" given that every Christian group has a slightly different understanding of what marriage is and is not, which is built on tradition and reason as well as a (very unclear) biblical narrative.

So then we're just down to 'marriage is good for people. Paedophilia is not good for people. Marriage should be encouraged, paedophilia should be discouraged.'

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
2) The church and the wider community affirm wildly different standards on this issue. The church is committed to the belief that sex should only occur with the context of a permanent relationship; the wider community finds this almost incomprehensible.

How do you get from this to it has to be marriage? And it has to be a specific form of marriage? Are the churches totally Biblical in this?

quote:
4) Homosexual practice - being defined as acts primarily performed to achieve sexual arousal between two persons of the same gender [we can nitpick here - let's try and resist the temptation please] - are always sinful. It is not right for the church to bless such behaviour, any more than we should bless greed, the oppression of human rights or racism. However as Pope Gregory the Great's 'Pastoral Rule' argues: at times it is better to allow some sin to continue to purge the more serious. It is on that basis that the approach of 'Issues' will be mine: gay relationships among the clergy will not be tolerated, but it will be for the local church leadership to determine when and how to help gay people move away from sexually expressing their love.

Ender's Shadow, I don't, and I'm not the only one, believe that homosexuality is as sinful as racism and greed. As has been discussed ad nauseam the Biblical argument that says this hangs on 6 verses that do not have to be interpreted in the way they are to make this assumption. Rather in the same way that we've changed our readings of verses on slavery.

quote:
5) Bishops who have knowingly consecrated bishops in gay relationships, or who have endorsed liturgies blessing gay relationships will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference in 2018.

Where do you get this one from? Is there a reference you can give?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's nice to be a dead fish and to go with the flow, but that doesn't make it right.]

I like your dead fish analogy. The 'flow' has been against same sex relationships and marriages for so long now, it's about time the tide turned - especially in the Church, which tends to lag behind. Jesus pointed this out to the religious of his day too, you can't pretend be inclusive and exclude huge sections of society - whatever your spurious grounds.

Your paedophile analogy doesn't work on 1000 levels.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The whole problem lies right there imo - in the idea that being attracted to someone of the same sex is somehow wrong and to be resisted.

Try imagining being told that your very nature is a temptation and an evil to be resisted...

You can't do that and hold to what you said above. If you reject a person's sexuality and treat it as a temptation to be resisted, you reject them as a person too.

You may not call it homophobia, but it is total rejection of who they are just the same.

Could I pick up on this point? I realise that in a discussion on homosexuality, it takes centre stage, but I am struck by how it often becomes equated with the totality of a person's nature, as you have expressed it here. You equate a person's sexual preference with their selfhood, their whole nature, their entire being.

People are multifaceted, rich and extraordinarily complex. To reduce a person to one single aspect, one single desire, as though the sexual drive is all-important, and the be-all and end-all of a person, is worrying, and harmful.

A gay person is not just gay, and if they never have a sexual relationship, by choice or by circumstance, does that mean they are denying themselves entirely, or just one small aspect of the whole? Surely a celibate man with homosexual desires is still a man with a full and fulfilling life, a well-rounded character, and a diverse and rich nature, despite him not expressing one of his desires - for whatever reason.

Perhaps a little perspective needs to be maintained?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Indeed, but given that we have no hesitation in saying this to paedophiles, it's clear that we have the right to do so. The ONLY debate is where the line is to be drawn, and what constitutes behaviour that is spiritually damaging to the participants. Now I have no hesitation in arguing that sexual activity by adults with children is harmful - despite that the fact that many other societies have affirmed it as normal and acceptable. And until very recently our society placed a similar condemnation on gay relationships; that is no longer the consensus of our society - but it's not legitimate to argue it's obviously wrong because it rejects who they are. Unless you are going to offer the same free pass to paedophiles...

There is a difference between paedophilia and homosexuality because

we know children do not have an adult understanding of sexuality and adults wanting to have sex with children is allowing an unequal relationship which tend to be unequal. How can you equate that inequality of power to a relationship between two consenting adults?
sexual acts between grown men and children are often physically damaging as well as psychologically - the relative sizes being an issue here. And before you suggest anal sex is physically damaging
1. not all homosexuality involves anal sex and
2. a whole lot of heterosexual sexual activity includes anal sex.
which means that anal sexual activity is not a marker to be used in considering homosexuality
those people who are denigrating homosexuality have an image of hedonistic relationships that bear little similarity to the sorts of relationships many homosexual couples enjoy.
if you're condemning male homosexuality, what about female? Does that attract the same condemnation? There's nothing in the Bible about that one.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

People are multifaceted, rich and extraordinarily complex. To reduce a person to one single aspect, one single desire, as though the sexual drive is all-important, and the be-all and end-all of a person, is worrying, and harmful.

I agree 100% - and that was not my intention at all. Nobody's sexuality sums them up, any more than my sexuality is all there is to me (I would have thought this goes without saying, to be fair)

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Surely a celibate man with homosexual desires is still a man with a full and fulfilling life, a well-rounded character, and a diverse and rich nature, despite him not expressing one of his desires - for whatever reason.

Absolutely, if that's what he chooses, with no pressure from others, no problem at all.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Oops, sorry, first point on my last post, I meant to say unequal relationships tend to be abusive.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Indeed, but given that we have no hesitation in saying this to paedophiles, it's clear that we have the right to do so. The ONLY debate is where the line is to be drawn, and what constitutes behaviour that is spiritually damaging to the participants. Now I have no hesitation in arguing that sexual activity by adults with children is harmful - despite that the fact that many other societies have affirmed it as normal and acceptable. And until very recently our society placed a similar condemnation on gay relationships; that is no longer the consensus of our society - but it's not legitimate to argue it's obviously wrong because it rejects who they are. Unless you are going to offer the same free pass to paedophiles...
There is a difference between paedophilia and homosexuality because...

But as that wasn't the point of my post, it's irrelevant here; I was seeking to challenge the suggestion that it is illegitimate to challenge a gay person because it's so fundamental to their identity.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:
5) Bishops who have knowingly consecrated bishops in gay relationships, or who have endorsed liturgies blessing gay relationships will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference in 2018.
Where do you get this one from? Is there a reference you can give?

The OP asked us what we wished Justin had said; that's just an element in what I'd like him to have said...

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
People are multifaceted, rich and extraordinarily complex. To reduce a person to one single aspect, one single desire, as though the sexual drive is all-important, and the be-all and end-all of a person, is worrying, and harmful.

I agree 100% - and that was not my intention at all. Nobody's sexuality sums them up, any more than my sexuality is all there is to me (I would have thought this goes without saying, to be fair)

I am sure that wasn’t your intention, and I’m sure you think it does go without saying. However, I would imagine that a gay person (and indeed any person at all), struggling with their sexuality, and where it touches their faith, would find it a heavy burden to hear that any rejection of their sexuality is “total rejection of who they are”, and “if you reject a person's sexuality and treat it as a temptation to be resisted, you reject them as a person too”.

This is not just you, and I am sorry to pick you out, but your post is an example of the rhetoric and attitude that pervades our culture. The sexualisation of the self. As though if you are not fulfilled sexually, you are unfulfilled totally. This is problematic on a wider scale, but specifically to the debate on homosexuality, it is damaging to anyone who is struggling to understand their sexuality – it puts undue pressure on them to pursue and fulfil desires they may be confused about, or which may not be right for them at the time. To create such a hothouse environment that forces people to define themselves by their sexual interactions, desires and experiences, is not healthy.

I am undecided on the issue of whether homosexual practice, within a monogamous, committed relationship, is blessed by God or not, but what attracts me by certain ‘no’ voices like Vaughan Roberts and Justin Welby (and even Enders Shadow at times - when he leaves off the paedophilia similes) is that it treats homosexuality as just one small desire among the whole, that it presents homosexual people not as ‘Homosexuals’, but as ‘people’ just like anyone else, with loves, likes, temptations and thorns of sin they are struggling with just like everyone. Vaughan Roberts for one does not define himself by his sexuality – he talks about it as just one thing he struggles with, along with many others. And that, to me, is an attractive position.

This thread is one example of the single-issue ‘pro’ voice – that a new archbishop makes a long speech and the fulcrum point on whether people approve of him or not is reduced to a single issue he briefly touches on. The entire church is judged on its stance on this one issue, and every speech and decision is turned around to address it. Homosexuality is not the biggest issue addressing Christians today but for the Pro voice, it is the biggest, indeed, often in the rhetoric - the only, issue that matters, obscuring all other aspects of the Church, and its important work.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

The Bible orders the genocide of entire peoples in Joshua. Therefore the Bible is not a perfect guide of what is good, unless you think that mass-murder is good. And best of luck arguing that one.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

This thread is one example of the single-issue ‘pro’ voice – that a new archbishop makes a long speech and the fulcrum point on whether people approve of him or not is reduced to a single issue he briefly touches on. The entire church is judged on its stance on this one issue, and every speech and decision is turned around to address it. Homosexuality is not the biggest issue addressing Christians today but for the Pro voice, it is the biggest, indeed, often in the rhetoric - the only, issue that matters, obscuring all other aspects of the Church, and its important work.

I'm guessing some reasonable people said exactly the same thing about the abolition of slavery, the campaign against apartheid and so on.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

But the Church has made a point of treating this "one issue" as a major sticking point for the last decade and more.

Many, probably most, people outside the church have come to realise that gayness/homosexual preference is simply what some people are blessed with*. The Church has made this one issue into a big deal, so the Church, including it's leader/spokesperson, has to find a way to deflate the issue.

Given that too many of the bishops want to do the GOP thing and kill the Church over OoW, I'm not holding my breath on the GLBT thing.

* from the T-shirt: "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any"

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Well I don't know if there are big enough ruptures here to cause a split, but I'd think it highly likely. Everyone will eventually get tired of having the same battles, surely.

Possibly Welby will be the last head of the Anglican Communion as we know it.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But as that wasn't the point of my post, it's irrelevant here; I was seeking to challenge the suggestion that it is illegitimate to challenge a gay person because it's so fundamental to their identity.

Then you'd better think up a different sexual attraction to use as an analogy if you want people to listen to your argument. Because as soon as you mention paedophila in this context people are going to stop hearing whatever else it is you were trying to say. You just made it all about you. Discussion is over. You mention raping children and the topic stops being about the point you said you wanted to make, and starts being about others perceptions of your prejudices.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Many, probably most, people outside the church have come to realise that gayness/homosexual preference is simply what some people are blessed with*....

* from the T-shirt: "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any"

And at the risk of getting rocks thrown at me again - substitute the word Paedophiles for homosexuals and see if your logic holds water.

For the record, I'm a lot more personally involved in both those issues than most of you, I suspect, so don't even think of accusing me of point scoring from a comfortable place; no - I'm not going to expand on that statement.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
nd at the risk of getting rocks thrown at me again - substitute the word Paedophiles for homosexuals and see if your logic holds water.

For the record, I'm a lot more personally involved in both those issues than most of you, I suspect, so don't even think of accusing me of point scoring from a comfortable place; no - I'm not going to expand on that statement.

It is hard for me to take seriously an argument that equates consenting homosexual adults to paedophilia, whatever your experience is or is not.

To me your argument simply smacks of the one against mixed race marriages - on the basis that we're not supposed to have sex with animals.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Many, probably most, people outside the church have come to realise that gayness/homosexual preference is simply what some people are blessed with*....

* from the T-shirt: "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any"
And at the risk of getting rocks thrown at me again - substitute the word Paedophiles for homosexuals and see if your logic holds water.

For the record, I'm a lot more personally involved in both those issues than most of you, I suspect, so don't even think of accusing me of point scoring from a comfortable place; no - I'm not going to expand on that statement.

Why do you persist in substituting the word paedophile? Why not substitute adulterer? Divorcee? Prostitute?

Still, you clearly know so much more about this than I do, so there's no point debating the issue. Not much for anyone else either. [Disappointed]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Ender's Shadow - the whole reason I personally, and I suspect others, have a problem with paedophilia* is that the adult, usually man but not always, may well be consenting but the child cannot give informed consent, they do not have the maturity to do so. You're equating that with two adults having a consensual sexual relationship.

* I am using paedophilia to refer to sex with pre-pubescent children. If you mean hebephilia or ebophilia those are slightly different arguments, but paedophilia attracts such disgust because the child is not physically sexually mature let alone psychologically.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There is your problem, the idea that same sex sex is a sin/temptation.
**
You may not call it homophobia, but it is total rejection of who they are just the same.

Well said.
On the new AofC thread, the phrase 'the will of God' was used to mean the way to decide what is right. If 'the will of God' is so right, why doesn't God make it for all people instead of for Christians, since the only way that any Christian can decide on what is 'the will of God' is by what other people say it is. They may say it is from the bible, but that was entirely composed by people. Presumably they thought, and stil think that it is expressing 'the will of God' but what about the billions of others who do not agree, or even know it?

(If this is the wrong place to put this post, will hosts please move. thank you.)

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Many, probably most, people outside the church have come to realise that gayness/homosexual preference is simply what some people are blessed with*....

* from the T-shirt: "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any"
And at the risk of getting rocks thrown at me again - substitute the word Paedophiles for homosexuals and see if your logic holds water.

For the record, I'm a lot more personally involved in both those issues than most of you, I suspect, so don't even think of accusing me of point scoring from a comfortable place; no - I'm not going to expand on that statement.
Why do you persist in substituting the word paedophile? Why not substitute adulterer? Divorcee? Prostitute?

Sorry - I'm obviously not making myself clear. My response to the quote on the tee shirt is an attempt to undermine what I'm hearing as the suggestion that 'God made people homosexual, therefore it must be all right'. IF that logic is applicable, then it surely applies to paedophiles, on the working definition that they are people ONLY sexually attracted to children, in the same way as homosexuals are only attracted to people of their own gender. That is the limit of my argument. Sound byte slogans that are deeply flawed deserve to be challenged...

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Sorry - I'm obviously not making myself clear. My response to the quote on the tee shirt is an attempt to undermine what I'm hearing as the suggestion that 'God made people homosexual, therefore it must be all right'. IF that logic is applicable, then it surely applies to paedophiles, on the working definition that they are people ONLY sexually attracted to children, in the same way as homosexuals are only attracted to people of their own gender. That is the limit of my argument. Sound byte slogans that are deeply flawed deserve to be challenged...

Nope, you're not making yourself clear - because it sounds like you are equating homosexuality with paedophilia. Which is on the same level as saying eating chips is as bad as eating anthrax, because they'll both kill you.

The slogan is sound, your reasoning is not.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Many, probably most, people outside the church have come to realise that gayness/homosexual preference is simply what some people are blessed with*....

* from the T-shirt: "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any"
And at the risk of getting rocks thrown at me again - substitute the word Paedophiles for homosexuals and see if your logic holds water.

For the record, I'm a lot more personally involved in both those issues than most of you, I suspect, so don't even think of accusing me of point scoring from a comfortable place; no - I'm not going to expand on that statement.
Why do you persist in substituting the word paedophile? Why not substitute adulterer? Divorcee? Prostitute?
Sorry - I'm obviously not making myself clear. My response to the quote on the tee shirt is an attempt to undermine what I'm hearing as the suggestion that 'God made people homosexual, therefore it must be all right'. IF that logic is applicable, then it surely applies to paedophiles, on the working definition that they are people ONLY sexually attracted to children, in the same way as homosexuals are only attracted to people of their own gender. That is the limit of my argument. Sound byte slogans that are deeply flawed deserve to be challenged...

You're making yourself perfectly clear. From the statement on the shirt "If God didn't make homosexuals, there wouldn't be any" you draw the conclusion that "God made people homosexual, therefore it must be all right". That does not necessarily follow. As a consequence, if God made paedophiles, then we could not assume simply from His creation of paedophiles, that that too must be all right.

You have taken the argument beyond its limits.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
People are multifaceted, rich and extraordinarily complex. To reduce a person to one single aspect, one single desire, as though the sexual drive is all-important, and the be-all and end-all of a person, is worrying, and harmful.

A gay person is not just gay, and if they never have a sexual relationship, by choice or by circumstance, does that mean they are denying themselves entirely, or just one small aspect of the whole? Surely a celibate man with homosexual desires is still a man with a full and fulfilling life, a well-rounded character, and a diverse and rich nature, despite him not expressing one of his desires - for whatever reason.

Perhaps a little perspective needs to be maintained?

Why reduce homosexuality to sexual desire, as opposed to love and companionship? [I realise you were reacting to a post by Boogie that did exactly the same thing.]

ISTM that a married man's wife is a fairly important facet of his existence. Ergo, a gay man's partner is an equally big deal.

[ 12. November 2012, 13:29: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
IF that logic is applicable, then it surely applies to paedophiles, on the working definition that they are people ONLY sexually attracted to children, in the same way as homosexuals are only attracted to people of their own gender.

The logical problem is that this argument then turns back on your position. The Bible is rather silent on age of consent issues. Sex with a child is no worse or better than sex with an adult. There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that a man can't contract a marriage with a pre-pubescent girl. So if you're going to start from the premise that paedophilia is wrong, you then have to accept the premise that the Bible is not a sufficient guide to morality.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I strongly endorse the work of the True Freedom Trust and other organisations committed to providing mutual support and encouragement to gay people seeking to live celibately.

Despite the great psychological damage that these organisations do to people?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
if you're condemning male homosexuality, what about female? Does that attract the same condemnation? There's nothing in the Bible about that one.
[/list]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Romans 1:26? (When badly exegeted)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Sorry - I'm obviously not making myself clear. My response to the quote on the tee shirt is an attempt to undermine what I'm hearing as the suggestion that 'God made people homosexual, therefore it must be all right'.

You are making yourself very clear but as I said before by persisting to use this analogy you are making the argument all about yourself and your outrage. Its no way to persuade people who don't agree with you.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I started a different thread to discuss homosexuality and paedophilia here

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Why reduce homosexuality to sexual desire, as opposed to love and companionship?

Because that's the definition of homosexual, and the sticking point for many people.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Involving, related to, or characterized by a sexual propensity for one's own sex; of or involving sexual activity with a member of one's own sex, or between individuals of the same sex."

Love and companionship between people of the same sex isn't homosexual by definition - there needs to be a sexual element, either desire or activity, for it to be defined as such.

If two (or more) people of the same sex live together without any sexual desire or activity between them then the church has historically had nothing but good things to say about the relationship. Especially if there is love and companionship involved.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Love and companionship between people of the same sex isn't homosexual by definition - there needs to be a sexual element, either desire or activity, for it to be defined as such.

If that is so, then celibates are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. They are asexual.

That simply isn't true.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Love and companionship between people of the same sex isn't homosexual by definition - there needs to be a sexual element, either desire or activity, for it to be defined as such.
If that is so, then celibates are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. They are asexual.

That simply isn't true.

If a celibate has no sexual desire for anyone then that is the very definition of asexual.

Most celibates do have sexual desire though, and choose not to act on it. And if that desire is towards a member of the same sex then that desire is homosexual, according to the dictionary definition above.

I'm not sure why you feel that isn't true. Could you elaborate?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

But the definition seemed to say that someone isn't homosexual unless they have gay sex.

As for 'desire', there is a spectrum between wistfully looking at someone who is beautiful and lusting after them.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Hawk:

quote:
Homosexuality is not the biggest issue addressing Christians today

I'm not sure about this. Certainly there are bigger issues facing the world, but this is one of the biggest facing the Church, if not the biggest.

What I mean is that issues such as world poverty, or global warming, are more serious for the planet as a whole since they are life and death for many people. But the Church can do little to solve those by itself (not that I'm suggesting these issues get ignored, or that all the excellent Christian work in these areas ceases).

On the other hand, treatment of homosexuals is an issue where the Church, and individual Christians, can make an enormous difference. Even in the West homosexuals may be bullied at school and insulted at work (both of which can lead to depression and suicide), whereas in some other parts of the world they can face the death penalty just for being gay (see what is happening in Uganda at the moment). If Christians spoke out with a united voice opposing such behaviour I think it would make an enormous difference to the lives of many people.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well I don't know if there are big enough ruptures here to cause a split, but I'd think it highly likely. Everyone will eventually get tired of having the same battles, surely.

Possibly Welby will be the last head of the Anglican Communion as we know it.

I assume his approach will be that of his predecessor; try to dither untill the issue goes away.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I strongly endorse the work of the True Freedom Trust and other organisations committed to providing mutual support and encouragement to gay people seeking to live celibately.
Despite the great psychological damage that these organisations do to people?

Evidence please? And a few stories of people who've dropped out from 'these organisations' isn't evidence. Incidentally, TFT isn't into expecting people changing their orientation, so if that's what you are complaining about, you've missed your target.

Posted by whitebait (# 7740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I strongly endorse the work of the True Freedom Trust and other organisations committed to providing mutual support and encouragement to gay people seeking to live celibately.
Despite the great psychological damage that these organisations do to people?
Evidence please? And a few stories of people who've dropped out from 'these organisations' isn't evidence. Incidentally, TFT isn't into expecting people changing their orientation, so if that's what you are complaining about, you've missed your target.

This line of discussion started after Boogie noted: "Try imagining being told that your very nature is a temptation and an evil to be resisted."

That's certainly how it seemed to me back when I was in that situation in the early noughties. I was single and celibate, trying to handle my gay feelings, and at that time wishing they would go away. The CofE was going into meltdown on the topic and my church was becoming increasingly conservative on the subject. Pronouncements from the pulpit that "if we accepted gay relationships it would be polygamy and bestiality next" didn't exactly help.

I wasn't acting out, but I was being made to feel as though those with gay feelings should be ashamed for merely existing. Despite forcing myself into an asexual limbo for decades I couldn't make those gay feelings completely go away. I even toyed with the idea of suicide.

Being in churches where I had felt unable to discuss these issues widely, finding True Freedom Trust (TfT) some years earlier was, at first, a big release. I finally had people who understood where I was at to share with.

TfT was actively promoting the "change" route as a possible option when I first contacted them back in the late 80s, and this was still on the table when I started to attend one of their groups in the 90s. By the early noughties the worldwide lack of success of the "change" therapies (and the damage they can cause), led TfT to drop any claims to "cure" in their written materials, though some of their group leaders (including mine) did still support this in the mid noughties when I left TfT, and maybe a few still do. TfT only dropped the link to an ex-gay ministry on its website in the last couple of months. To be fair, TfT sees its main role now as to support those living celibately.

By the time I left I was worn down by the unending burdens of shame that attendees seemed to bring to every meeting. I knew I had to research the topic with fresh eyes and a more open mind.

I've since come out and am a great deal more comfortable in my own skin. I've met a good number of former TfT folk who have taken the same route. Most of them are still in churches, though those of a more accepting nature. I've since lost any faith.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'm obviously not making myself clear.

But, you are making yourself perfectly clear.

You pick pedophilia precisely because it is prejudicial and libelous.

It's classic gay-hating agitprop.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Why reduce homosexuality to sexual desire, as opposed to love and companionship?
Because that's the definition of homosexual, and the sticking point for many people.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Involving, related to, or characterized by a sexual propensity for one's own sex; of or involving sexual activity with a member of one's own sex, or between individuals of the same sex."

Love and companionship between people of the same sex isn't homosexual by definition - there needs to be a sexual element, either desire or activity, for it to be defined as such.

If two (or more) people of the same sex live together without any sexual desire or activity between them then the church has historically had nothing but good things to say about the relationship. Especially if there is love and companionship involved.

But I don't think you can easily separate the romantic-companionship aspect of a marriage from the sexual aspect. I mean it's not just coincidence that most people have an exclusive romantic-companionship relationship with the person they also have an exclusive sexual relationship with. Living with your wife isn't just living with a good friend with a bit of sex twice a week.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Hawk:
quote:
Homosexuality is not the biggest issue addressing Christians today
I'm not sure about this. Certainly there are bigger issues facing the world, but this is one of the biggest facing the Church, if not the biggest.

What I mean is that issues such as world poverty, or global warming, are more serious for the planet as a whole since they are life and death for many people. But the Church can do little to solve those by itself (not that I'm suggesting these issues get ignored, or that all the excellent Christian work in these areas ceases).

On the other hand, treatment of homosexuals is an issue where the Church, and individual Christians, can make an enormous difference. Even in the West homosexuals may be bullied at school and insulted at work (both of which can lead to depression and suicide), whereas in some other parts of the world they can face the death penalty just for being gay (see what is happening in Uganda at the moment). If Christians spoke out with a united voice opposing such behaviour I think it would make an enormous difference to the lives of many people.

Christians never speak loudly with a united voice. But even if they did, no one would listen. We’ve been speaking loudly and clearly with a united voice for two thousand years about the gospel of Jesus Christ, and there are more unbelievers who reject Him than ever. The only reason the wider media cares so much about what the church has to say about homosexuality is because it’s controversial at the moment.

I agree though, that the Church can and should do much more on this subject. We should be explicitly and voraciously condemning and working against the systematic and vile abuses in Nigeria, the hate speech in America from Westboro and the rest, and the bullying, prejudice and insults in our own schools and workplaces. All Christians, whatever their theology about homosexuality, should be able to agree on this and take centre stage in protecting and supporting the vulnerable in our societies, including those struggling with diverse sexualities. Those who disagree that homosexual practice is blessed by God can still help homosexuals, and show them love, gentleness, care, protection and support. When Jesus interacted with people whose sexual practices were unaccepted in society, he never tried to get his followers to change their minds about the practices themselves, or argue that they were ok. He just challenged them to treat such people with love, eating in their houses, treating them kindly, protecting them from attackers, no matter what they had done, or who they were.

However, whenever the Church speaks about this, they are immediately drowned out by the neighing of the Dead Horse of SSM and the theology of homosexuality within the church. Some people agree with it, some people disagree. But instead of accepting these differences of conscience among the faithful, the shouting starts - demanding consensus, uniformity and for one side to change their minds completely to make the other side happy.

These uncompromising demands, this squabbling, disrupts any chance the Church has to make a difference in this area. It is a tragedy. Both sides must lay down their arms and agree to disagree and learn to work together to promote the gospel, and protect the vulnerable, which is the thing that unites them in Christ. Either this, or one side must fight and win at the expense of their brothers, expelling those who disagree with their version of the Truth, (which they and only they have got right) breaking the unity of Christ. Is this what we are called to do when we disagree with our brothers? As Paul says in Ephesians 4: “be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace”.

We need to work together in Christ, even with, especially with, those who we disagree with.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
We’ve been speaking loudly and clearly with a united voice for two thousand years about the gospel of Jesus Christ

Really? Clearly and with a united voice? Then I was just imagining all those crusades, schisms, heresies, wars of religion, and general local frostinesses between and within denominations?

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Be careful, The Silent Acolyte.

Your post above is dangerously close to breaching Commandment 3.

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Indeed, but given that we have no hesitation in saying this to paedophiles, it's clear that we have the right to do so. The ONLY debate is where the line is to be drawn, and what constitutes behaviour that is spiritually damaging to the participants.

1: You've snuck some assumptions in there under the guise of spiritually damaging. Is 'spiritually damaging' a thing? And is that where we should draw the lines, or can adults hurt themselves?

2: The line is very clear. Informed consent of the participants involved.

quote:
but it's not legitimate to argue it's obviously wrong because it rejects who they are. Unless you are going to offer the same free pass to paedophiles...

And here you show you have no understanding of sexual ethics at all. Paedophillia is not obviously wrong because it rejects who the paedophile is. It's obviously wrong because it involves someone who can not give informed consent. There is nothing inherently wrong in ageplay (it squicks me, but that's a whole different story; the idea of Margaret Thatcher having sex also squicks me, but I don't think that should be illegal assuming she is still able to give informed consent).

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

For what it's worth Silent Acolyte can bang away in Hell on this issue. Everyone else is.

This post has been brought to you by a Friendly Hellhost.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I strongly endorse the work of the True Freedom Trust and other organisations committed to providing mutual support and encouragement to gay people seeking to live celibately.
Despite the great psychological damage that these organisations do to people?
Evidence please? And a few stories of people who've dropped out from 'these organisations' isn't evidence. Incidentally, TFT isn't into expecting people changing their orientation, so if that's what you are complaining about, you've missed your target.

What whitebait said.

Additionally, as an Inclusive church, we pick up the pieces but I could not betrat pastoral confidences.

There is also the famous story of the young man who committed suicide after attending Holy trinity Brompton in Millar's days.

Jeremy marks provides a lot of evidence in explaining why his organisation 'Courage' was wrong.

The most convincing evidence, for me, is in Not for Turning: An Enquiry into the Ex-Gay Movement
Tony Green, Brenda Harrison & Jeremy Innes.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

It’s always easy to find negative stories about any organisation. The question for me is whether the negative consequences are inherently a consequence of the aims and methods of the organisation, or because of personal and individual failings within it.

For instance many people have suffered deep psychological damage, and committed suicide from being involved with the Christian church. Yet it is a leap to say that this means the church is inherently damaging, rather than to address the specific issues that caused the damage, and refom the interactions and individual situations that caused the damage themselves.

In regards to organisations seeking to help people who wish to avoid what they see as the temptation of homosexual sin, it appears they have evolved and reformed quite considerably over the years in response to their experience and their observed failures. As per Whitebait’s post above, they no longer feel able to promise a ‘cure’, for instance and do not promote themselves as able to change orientation, just to support those Christian homosexuals who choose to live celibately.

quote:
Originally posted by whitebait:
I was being made to feel as though those with gay feelings should be ashamed for merely existing. Despite forcing myself into an asexual limbo for decades I couldn't make those gay feelings completely go away. I even toyed with the idea of suicide.
...
By the time I left I was worn down by the unending burdens of shame that attendees seemed to bring to every meeting.

Whitebait, I am sorry to hear of your struggle and subsequent loss of faith. From your account it seems that the people who tried to help you made fundamental errors in approach, and seriously let you down. To make you feel ashamed for who you are, and for your own existence is a horrible burden to place on you and a terrible betrayal of the gospel, which is that God loves you so much he died for you.

I agree that this should certainly not be the approach of the church, and any organisation that works through the methods of imparting shame and burdening those who struggle with even more psychological burden, is IMO fundamentally flawed. A lot of churches unfortunately do this when discussing religion, as well as sexuality, and I am sorry that they have failed to understand the damage this causes. I believe that Jesus came to free us from the burden of sin, not to place an even bigger millstone around our necks.

I hope and pray that not all the organisations, and not all those who work within such organisations, act or speak in a way that makes those they try to help feel ashamed of who they are. That they understand that they are loved, and cherished, no matter what temptations they struggle with.

Finally I am struck by the fact that you felt at the time the only way open to you was to force yourself not to feel same-sex desire any more. Again, I feel that if this was the preaching you were given, this was fundamentally flawed, both theologically, and practically. It appears this is a major misunderstanding of the nature of sin*, and redemption. I do not believe that Christ redeems us by making us sinless, and taking away our temptations, but by taking the consequences of our sin on himself, and freeing us from our desires, giving us the strength not to have to act according to them.

I believe that it is perfectly possible, when Christ’s message is properly understood, for those churches who reject homosexual behaviour, to support, encourage, love, cherish and respect those Christians who struggle with homosexual desire, without making them feel less than others, or as though their specific temptation is any worse, or makes them any worse than the other sinners that surround them, with their own temptations. The danger is speaking about homosexuality as though it is the biggest sin, and those who struggle with it are fundamentally different from others who don’t. I don’t know if the organisations such as TFT succeed in imparting such love and support, but I hope they do.

* Of course, I realise now you are convinced that homosexual practice is not a sin, but I am referring to when it is taken to be sin.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
However, whenever the Church speaks about this, they are immediately drowned out by the neighing of the Dead Horse of SSM and the theology of homosexuality within the church. Some people agree with it, some people disagree. But instead of accepting these differences of conscience among the faithful, the shouting starts - demanding consensus, uniformity and for one side to change their minds completely to make the other side happy.

These uncompromising demands, this squabbling, disrupts any chance the Church has to make a difference in this area. It is a tragedy. Both sides must lay down their arms and agree to disagree and learn to work together to promote the gospel, and protect the vulnerable, which is the thing that unites them in Christ. Either this, or one side must fight and win at the expense of their brothers, expelling those who disagree with their version of the Truth, (which they and only they have got right) breaking the unity of Christ. Is this what we are called to do when we disagree with our brothers? As Paul says in Ephesians 4: “be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace”.

We need to work together in Christ, even with, especially with, those who we disagree with.

And when that is true (to self-link) and the mainstream of society has moved on, you are in a very nasty ethical and PR trap.

Those promoting the bad things that society has moved on from are seen (with good reason) as reactionary fuckwits with no moral authority at all because they are reactionary fuckwits, and the liberals moral authority is undermined as they are chiefly seen feuding with their normal allies rather than doing things everyone would prefer they be doing. The feud mostly helps atheists.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

I agree though, that the Church can and should do much more on this subject. We should be explicitly and voraciously condemning and working against the systematic and vile abuses in Nigeria, the hate speech in America from Westboro and the rest, and the bullying, prejudice and insults in our own schools and workplaces. All Christians, whatever their theology about homosexuality, should be able to agree on this and take centre stage in protecting and supporting the vulnerable in our societies, including those struggling with diverse sexualities. Those who disagree that homosexual practice is blessed by God can still help homosexuals, and show them love, gentleness, care, protection and support. When Jesus interacted with people whose sexual practices were unaccepted in society, he never tried to get his followers to change their minds about the practices themselves, or argue that they were ok. He just challenged them to treat such people with love, eating in their houses, treating them kindly, protecting them from attackers, no matter what they had done, or who they were.

However, whenever the Church speaks about this, they are immediately drowned out by the neighing of the Dead Horse of SSM and the theology of homosexuality within the church. Some people agree with it, some people disagree. But instead of accepting these differences of conscience among the faithful, the shouting starts - demanding consensus, uniformity and for one side to change their minds completely to make the other side happy.

These uncompromising demands, this squabbling, disrupts any chance the Church has to make a difference in this area. It is a tragedy. Both sides must lay down their arms and agree to disagree and learn to work together to promote the gospel, and protect the vulnerable, which is the thing that unites them in Christ. Either this, or one side must fight and win at the expense of their brothers, expelling those who disagree with their version of the Truth, (which they and only they have got right) breaking the unity of Christ. Is this what we are called to do when we disagree with our brothers? As Paul says in Ephesians 4: “be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace”.

We need to work together in Christ, even with, especially with, those who we disagree with. [/QB]

First of all, your attitude that even if you think homosexuals are sinners, you should be nice to them may reduce the violence, but is still toxic. It's like saying that you should embrace your enemies, even if you have active small pox infection.

This all happened two hundred years ago around the issue of slavery. Christians who thought that negros bore the mark of Ham and were cursed by God to be slaves so they could be educated by caring Christians, and Christians who thought all men should be free, just couldn't compromise and get along and be nice to the slaves. So they split violenetly along this line. The Southern Baptists are still trying to recover from their previous acts of charity.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

However, whenever the Church speaks about this, they are immediately drowned out by the neighing of the Dead Horse of SSM and the theology of homosexuality within the church. Some people agree with it, some people disagree. But instead of accepting these differences of conscience among the faithful, the shouting starts - demanding consensus, uniformity and for one side to change their minds completely to make the other side happy.

That's because it's the theology itself which is marginalising, stigmatising and excluding homosexuals.

You can't be 'nice' to people if you are constantly trying to change them and prevent them from living normal lives.

The only way this will be resolved will be when, as Palimpsest says, the theology of those who would exclude others changes to an inclusive and uniting gospel.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It is a tragedy. Both sides must lay down their arms and agree to disagree and learn to work together to promote the gospel, and protect the vulnerable, which is the thing that unites them in Christ. Either this, or one side must fight and win at the expense of their brothers, expelling those who disagree with their version of the Truth, (which they and only they have got right) breaking the unity of Christ.

And if those in favour of inclusion and SSM 'win' - what have their brothers on the 'other side' lost?

Precisely nothing. As they had nothing to lose except wrongly placed self-righteous indignation.

[ 17. November 2012, 07:46: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

which is probably a (the?) key point. No-one is harmed by same-sex orientation, and people in loving relationships (or even the merely consensual ones) are doing no harm.

But the self-righteous are actively seeking to do harm to other people.

ISTM that Jesus had quite a lot to say about that.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Dead right.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

However, whenever the Church speaks about this, they are immediately drowned out by the neighing of the Dead Horse of SSM and the theology of homosexuality within the church. Some people agree with it, some people disagree. But instead of accepting these differences of conscience among the faithful, the shouting starts - demanding consensus, uniformity and for one side to change their minds completely to make the other side happy.

That's because it's the theology itself which is marginalising, stigmatising and excluding homosexuals.

You can't be 'nice' to people if you are constantly trying to change them and prevent them from living normal lives.

The only way this will be resolved will be when, as Palimpsest says, the theology of those who would exclude others changes to an inclusive and uniting gospel.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It is a tragedy. Both sides must lay down their arms and agree to disagree and learn to work together to promote the gospel, and protect the vulnerable, which is the thing that unites them in Christ. Either this, or one side must fight and win at the expense of their brothers, expelling those who disagree with their version of the Truth, (which they and only they have got right) breaking the unity of Christ.
And if those in favour of inclusion and SSM 'win' - what have their brothers on the 'other side' lost?

Precisely nothing. As they had nothing to lose except wrongly placed self-righteous indignation.

I believe you have misattributed this nasty stuff to me. I've quoted it, but it's not my idea of a good thing for gay people to emotionally castrate themselves.

However the heterosexuals who are so concerned about Homosexuality as a sin should volunteer to lead lives of selfless celibacy in support of their proposal that those who have same sex attractions should deny them.

This rarely seems to happen.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Oh! Palimpsest, I am so sorry - that's twice I have done that now [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
which is probably a (the?) key point. No-one is harmed by same-sex orientation, and people in loving relationships (or even the merely consensual ones) are doing no harm.

But the self-righteous are actively seeking to do harm to other people.

ISTM that Jesus had quite a lot to say about that.

HERE HERE!

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Christians never speak loudly with a united voice. But even if they did, no one would listen. We’ve been speaking loudly and clearly with a united voice for two thousand years about the gospel of Jesus Christ, and there are more unbelievers who reject Him than ever.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi.

Christians have emphatically not been speaking clearly with a united voice about Jesus Christ, and even when you have, your actions have not matched your words. The main highlight the Church has created in the 20th Century for behaving in a Christlike manner was Mother Teresa who definitely now has a tarnished image.

quote:
The only reason the wider media cares so much about what the church has to say about homosexuality is because it’s controversial at the moment.

The only reason the wider media cares what the Church has to say about homosexuality is because that, more than any other, is the value that makes the Church stand apart from the rest of society. That homophobia is a bad thing is not terribly controvertial - except to the Churches.

quote:
I agree though, that the Church can and should do much more on this subject. We should be explicitly and voraciously condemning and working against the systematic and vile abuses in Nigeria, the hate speech in America from Westboro and the rest, and the bullying, prejudice and insults in our own schools and workplaces.

And this brings to mind the line in Tom Lehrer's Folk Song Army "We all hate poverty, war, and injustice. Unlike the rest of you squares." Or at least that is the standard you want to reach - rather than having e.g. former Archbishop George Carey violate Godwin's Law and whinge that nurses aren't allowed to become infection risks by wearing crosses on chains outside their clothes rather than on pins or inside their clothes. Or worse yet, in America, the Catholic Bishops complaining about proper medical care being provided to women.

quote:
However, whenever the Church speaks about this, they are immediately drowned out by the neighing of the Dead Horse of SSM and the theology of homosexuality within the church.

Or to rephrase, whenever the Church tries to discriminate against people, and to oppose religious freedom, it gets roundly and deservedly criticised.

quote:
These uncompromising demands, this squabbling, disrupts any chance the Church has to make a difference in this area.

Good! The difference the Church wants to make hurts friends of mine.

quote:
Both sides must lay down their arms and agree to disagree and learn to work together to promote the gospel, and protect the vulnerable, which is the thing that unites them in Christ. Either this, or one side must fight and win at the expense of their brothers, expelling those who disagree with their version of the Truth, (which they and only they have got right) breaking the unity of Christ. Is this what we are called to do when we disagree with our brothers?

I don't know, and I don't care. When one side is fighting to make people second class citizens, to break up families, to prevent children getting parents, and to perpetuate injustice compromise isn't something I want to see.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Aye; there's the rub. This isn't a dispute about vestments or the nature of the Eucharist or inerrancy of Scripture or any other bit of internal navel-gazing; this is something that has the potential to negatively impact real people.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I believe that it is perfectly possible, when Christ’s message is properly understood, for those churches who reject homosexual behaviour, to support, encourage, love, cherish and respect those Christians who struggle with homosexual desire, without making them feel less than others, or as though their specific temptation is any worse, or makes them any worse than the other sinners that surround them, with their own temptations.

And I believe it isn't.

Relationship and intimacy is at the very core of our being. You're asking people to feel normal and okay while watching their entire culture (and ESPECIALLY churches) celebrate the value of being in a family.

It's bad enough for heterosexual people that are single but don't want to be, feeling unloved and unlucky. It's even worse for homosexual people who are told that not only has it not worked out for them, but that their desires for relationship and intimacy are perverted.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
However the heterosexuals who are so concerned about Homosexuality as a sin should volunteer to lead lives of selfless celibacy in support of their proposal that those who have same sex attractions should deny them.

This rarely seems to happen.

Except of course for the hundreds of thousands of catholic priests, monks, and nuns who do just that.

It's not what I believe in personally, but I'm impressed by the courage of their convictions, that they believe that to serve God's will they must avoid any romantic or sexual relationship. These sexual and romantic restrictions do not make them AFAIK 'emotionally castrated' but rather is a personal choice to express their emotions and desires within a framework of religious faith, which allows some expressions and behaviours, while not others.

Is this practice of emotional self-control and self-restriction harsh, is it damaging to them, does it mean they are lesser than they could be or inherently damaged by the church? Does this restraint in itself cause them to suffer deep psychological harm?

I think you could argue that in some cases it might, if done badly, or forced on them by others, but in most cases it allows such faithful men and women still to be themselves, still to be happy, healthy and fully realised members of society, despite the restrictions that have been placed on certain behaviours by their faith.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
a personal choice

I've left in the salient words. That's the bit that LGBT people don't get in these situations.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

It's not what I believe in personally, but I'm impressed by the courage of their convictions, that they believe that to serve God's will they must avoid any romantic or sexual relationship.

So am I - but this has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
a personal choice
I've left in the salient words. That's the bit that LGBT people don't get in these situations.

Exactly. It's all very well to wax lyrical about the nobility of self-restriction, but for many LGBT folk it's not SELF-restriction at all. It's not a personal decision to eschew sex, it's an externally imposed requirement.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Except of course for the hundreds of thousands of catholic priests, monks, and nuns who do just that.

Some of whom are homosexual, but have experienced the same calling as their heterosexual colleagues.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
a personal choice
I've left in the salient words. That's the bit that LGBT people don't get in these situations.
Exactly. It's all very well to wax lyrical about the nobility of self-restriction, but for many LGBT folk it's not SELF-restriction at all. It's not a personal decision to eschew sex, it's an externally imposed requirement.

It's not either though, it's always a collaboration of both. The RCC church externally imposes the requirement for celibacy in the situation of priesthood, the individual priest chooses to abide by those requirements or not. And everyone has a free choice to leave the church if they so wish, if those requirements are too great for them to submit to.

In religion there is always a personal choice, but it is a personal choice by individuals to abide by restrictions that individual did not create. In that sense, it is both externally-imposed restriction, and self-restriction at the same time.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

It's not what I believe in personally, but I'm impressed by the courage of their convictions, that they believe that to serve God's will they must avoid any romantic or sexual relationship.
So am I - but this has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality.

I'm sorry you don't get what I'm saying. In leiu of any direct question that I can address, I'll summarise my argument for clarity.

Basically my argument was a counter to the argument that: if the Church requires a person to live a life of imposed celibacy, this is prejudiced, inherently damaging and destructive of a person's fundamental being. In response I pointed out other situations where this exact requirement is made, and met, without damage, prejudice, or destruction of the self.

I'm saying, if it is both morally acceptable, and practically effective (in the sense of being possible without harming the individual), for sexual and romantic restriction in this case, why can't it be both acceptable and effective in the case of homosexuality? Is same-sex attraction so different from opposite-sex attaction that celibacy is impossible, or fundamentally harmful?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Relationship and intimacy is at the very core of our being.

You argue that relationships and intimacy are at the core of our being, that these are so fundamental that to expect, or practice restrictions on these are impossible. By this comment Orfeo, you seem to be purposefully conflating 'relationships and intimacy' with 'romantic/sexual union', as though it is impossible to have any intimacy or relationship with anyone who we are not in a romantic or sexual union with.

I reject this assumption. I beleive strong friendships, family, and yes, even our relationship with God, can provide emotional intimacy, and fulfil our built-in need for relationship. These relationships are of a very different nature from those that include a sexual and romantic element, and maybe we will be missing out on part of the wide spectrum of relationships that exist, but that does not equal emotional castration or the starvation of our fundamental emotional needs.

Many people do not experience romantic love, or 'eros' in their lives, but there are two other kinds of love, and these can be very fulfilling indeed. Why is eros considered absolutely vital to our being, when agape and philia come a distant second. I argued earlier that sex is given too high a value in our society, and I will say it again.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're asking people to feel normal and okay while watching their entire culture (and ESPECIALLY churches) celebrate the value of being in a family.

If that's all a church does then that does exclude a large part of their congregation. All the churches I've been to though have not preached and celebrated solely being in a family, but made sure they encouraged and supported those who are single as well. In fact I remember mutiple occasions when Paul has been preached from the pulpit where he writes that singleness is actually best! That as a single person, you can serve God more effectively. I found that very comforting when I was single (and celibate).

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

From Hawk::

quote:
I'm saying, if it is both morally acceptable, and practically effective (in the sense of being possible without harming the individual), for sexual and romantic restriction in this case, why can't it be both acceptable and effective in the case of homosexuality? Is same-sex attraction so different from opposite-sex attaction that celibacy is impossible, or fundamentally harmful?

I'd say it is no more and no less so in the case of homosexuality than in the case of heterosexuality. On this reasoning- with which I would agree- unless we wish all heterosexuals to be celibate (as some small Christian groups have, although I suspect that, like the North Saxons who lived in Nosex, they all died out...) we should not wish all heterosexuals to be celibate either.Some people are positively called to celibacy; some accept it as the price of a call to a specific vocation; none, I believe, is required to be celibate as part of the general Christian vocation.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Hawk - I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it no matter how much you expand your argument. Some people choose not to have romantic love, some have few choices - I know this.

But you are saying that there should be a further restriction of choice - same sex relationships.

I disagree, strongly.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Hawk:

quote:
[Paul] writes that singleness is actually best! That as a single person, you can serve God more effectively. I found that very comforting when I was single (and celibate).

But you didn't have to go ON being single and celibate for the rest of your life, did you? There's the vital difference which you appear to be unable to grasp.

St Paul didn't really approve of straight sex, let alone gay sex. He grudgingly allows marriage on the grounds that 'it is better to marry than burn'. So he would probably have disapproved of you and me as well, despite the fact we are both straight.

I don't think monks, nuns and Catholic priests are really comparable to homosexuals. Yes, they are celibate, but they have become celibate in order to GAIN something that is of value to them: the chance to devote their lives to the service of God. This may be admirable, but it is not something all of us are called to.

You're asking people to give up all prospect of romantic love, sex, family life and companionship in old age* because YOUR reading of six verses in the Bible says that it's the only way they can gain eternal life (which the atheists among them don't believe in anyway). Why is it surprising that some (most) of them hear this as 'We hate you!'?

*Yes, single people can have friends and a social life too. Some of the most sociable people I know are single. But it's not the same as having an Other Half. Don't pretend it is.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
It's not either though, it's always a collaboration of both. The RCC church externally imposes the requirement for celibacy in the situation of priesthood, the individual priest chooses to abide by those requirements or not. And everyone has a free choice to leave the church if they so wish, if those requirements are too great for them to submit to.

I wasn't talking about the priesthood. I was talking about the ordinary gay Christian who is told that the only morally acceptable option to them is to be celibate. Regardless of what else they do in life, in church ministry or otherwise, they are told it is a permanent condition of their existence as a faithful Christian to be celibate. No personal vows or commitment are involved.

quote:

By this comment Orfeo, you seem to be purposefully conflating 'relationships and intimacy' with 'romantic/sexual union', as though it is impossible to have any intimacy or relationship with anyone who we are not in a romantic or sexual union with.

I reject this assumption. I beleive strong friendships, family, and yes, even our relationship with God, can provide emotional intimacy, and fulfil our built-in need for relationship. These relationships are of a very different nature from those that include a sexual and romantic element, and maybe we will be missing out on part of the wide spectrum of relationships that exist, but that does not equal emotional castration or the starvation of our fundamental emotional needs.

What a spectacular way to miss the point. "Maybe we will be missing out on part of the wide spectrum". Exactly. You happily gain satisfaction from a COMBINATION of different kinds of relationships. Then tell me that I'm saying all the other ones don't matter.

Then suggest that the kind of relationship which leads people to stand up in front of society and declare their intention to share a home with someone for the rest of their lives is the one that won't really make any difference?

I have friends, Hawk. Good, Christian friends. I go to their parties. I have a good time. I then go home alone while they wander off in pairs. The sexual/romantic couples might not be engaging in sexual behaviour while we're all at the Christmas BBQ together, but it's positively ridiculous to suggest that "gays are morally required to get all of their relational needs met through good friendships" is functionally equivalent to "will you marry me".

[ 19. November 2012, 20:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Given the time, I'd like to study-- both as an intellectual and an emotional phenomenon-- how the church moved from vehemently condemning money-lending at interest to giving nary a peep over it even late in 2008. It's a fascinating story. Perhaps part of the church (i.e. the Calvinist part) simply reinterpreted the Bible in such a way as to find it mistaken ever to condemn an act that seemed so reasonable, and even important, to contemporary society. According to IngoB, in the case of the Roman Catholic church, her response to changing conditions consisted in perceiving a hitherto-unnoticed difference between precious-metal money and our kind of money. Hence, if we were to charge interest for someone to borrow a gold coin that we owned, we would still be liable for the full condemnation that the church meted out centuries ago. But with modern currency, it is basically quite o.k. By this means, the church could adapt to change while maintaining that her teaching is changeless.

You might find this distinction as expediently artificial as Blaise Pasal did when he called it the quintessence of casuistry. But if you do, then I'd be very curious as to whether personally you hold to the biblical and traditional view, or the revisionist one. The former must cramp your style painfully nowadays. How do you manage?

I'm mainly interested in pointing out that this development in teaching has occurred, rather than in a particular explanation as to how it has done so. But if you are more invested than I am in the premise that infallible presupposes static in every detail, then distinguishing between the aspirations of a faithful gay couple today and some of the things that were going on in first-century times ought to be at least as easy, for anyone who wishes to try, as distinguishing between silver and paper money. Suffice it to say that the church seems to have faced before, and painfully gotten over, the problem of what to do with a doctrine that was no longer making any sense to people. Aren't we glad today that the conservatives failed to consign her five hundred years ago to an oblivion of gloriously irrelevant intransigence?

[ 19. November 2012, 22:27: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
From Hawk::
quote:
I'm saying, if it is both morally acceptable, and practically effective (in the sense of being possible without harming the individual), for sexual and romantic restriction in this case, why can't it be both acceptable and effective in the case of homosexuality? Is same-sex attraction so different from opposite-sex attaction that celibacy is impossible, or fundamentally harmful?

I'd say it is no more and no less so in the case of homosexuality than in the case of heterosexuality. On this reasoning- with which I would agree- unless we wish all heterosexuals to be celibate (as some small Christian groups have, although I suspect that, like the North Saxons who lived in Nosex, they all died out...) we should not wish all heterosexuals to be celibate either.Some people are positively called to celibacy; some accept it as the price of a call to a specific vocation; none, I believe, is required to be celibate as part of the general Christian vocation.

It's probably fine for both heterosexuals and homosexuals to voluntarily accept celibacy as part of the requirements of a vocation. It's not all right to impose this on people who do not wish said vocation. This not only applies to homosexuals, but for example the Renaissance Italian younger daughters who were forced into convents, as was documented in a recent book.

As for the special pleading that heterosexuals need an exemption from the theory that sex and romance is bad so they can raise children;
I thought it was a tenet of Christian belief that God is able to make perfectly good human beings without the need of heterosexuals to put their genitals together.
Also, it turns out that's it not that hard a trick for Homosexuals to create and raise children. It takes a bit more planning than doing it when you get drunk, but it's quite doable.

So start with your plans for celibacy with your heterosexual selves before you presume to instruct homosexuals on how live their lives.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Many people do not experience romantic love, or 'eros' in their lives, but there are two other kinds of love, and these can be very fulfilling indeed. Why is eros considered absolutely vital to our being, when agape and philia come a distant second. I argued earlier that sex is given too high a value in our society, and I will say it again.

I agree with you that eros is over-emphasised both in church and in society, but why does it follow that it is not important at all?

ISTM your comments about celibate orders proves the point. Historically and now, celibacy was always regarded as a Big Thing, a remarkable and difficult calling. But celibacy can only be a Big Thing if eros is also a Big Thing, such that the privation of eros is a major sacrifice.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Ricardus, [Overused]

for putting it far more clearly and succinctly than I could manage.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Many people do not experience romantic love, or 'eros' in their lives, but there are two other kinds of love, and these can be very fulfilling indeed. Why is eros considered absolutely vital to our being, when agape and philia come a distant second. I argued earlier that sex is given too high a value in our society, and I will say it again.

CS Lewis' 'Four Loves' discusses the meaning of those differing loves and comes to an interestingly different understanding of the true meaning of Eros. I strongly suggest you read the book, as it provides a great piece of exposition. But a BAD summary is that Eros is a form of love that looks for a response in the loved, whilst Agape is totally other centred. He started the book assuming that Agape was all that a Christian need to be demonstrating, and ended up finding Eros to be a part of the functioning of all well rounded people, celibate or not, to his surprise!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

From Palimpsest

quote:
So start with your plans for celibacy with your heterosexual selves before you presume to instruct homosexuals on how live their lives.

That's pretty much what I was saying, isn't it? It's what I meant to say, certainly, or as near as dammit.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

No doubt, there are many gay men who hear and voluntarily respond to a call to celibacy, but most pursue celibacy out of a sense of failure (for not being created heterosexual) and guilt. Perhaps there are ministries that can separate the two (celibacy and guilt) but in wider context, I have yet to see that ever happen in practise. People who support gay celibacy groups don't seem to show much respect to gay people who, after much thought and reflection, don't believe these groups are for them.

Ignoring the comparison with paedophilia for reasons that have already been covered in this thread, the equating of homosexuality with greed and racism makes no sense either. Greed and racism do objective harm. The former values objects ahead of people; the latter singles out others for negative treatment because of an aspect of who they are. Racism and greed weaken bonds between individuals. These sins destroy bonds of trust and intimacy and break apart communities.

At worse, being in a gay relationship breaks a purity code. It's something that causes no objective harm, but is wrong simply because it's wrong. Purity codes have a place in religious morality - observant Jews don't mix meat and milk, or linen and cotton - even though they are the first to admit there is no objective harm in doing so.

The hard thing for most anti-gay conservatives to understand is that for most of us, being in relationship is a core human need and that a physical connection adds an essential component of intimacy to the already existing emotional or spiritual side of that relationship. Sexuality, used wisely enhances and deepens a bond between two people. It deepens trust, leads to more emotional intimacy and enhances commitment and fidelity. It does exactly the opposite of greed and racism.

Every time someone tries to compare monogamous homosexuality with a act that causes harm, IMHO they've lost the battle. On a gut level gay people and their friends know that these things are not comparable and will come to the conclusion that the person making the assertion either hasn't thought it through, or doesn't know what they are talking about. It doesn't show much moral depth or reflection. This is why very, very few, even devout gay Christians find these conservative groups attractive - over the long haul at least - and certainly why conservative Christians' efforts to evangelize the greater gay community fail spectacularly.

A more intellectually powerful argument may be to admit that being in a gay relationship merely breaks a purity code - like mixing meat and milk - but assert why purity codes should matter to Christians and why observing a purity code is more important than pursuing the deepest depths of human intimacy and relationship. I don't think such an argument could be made given the attitudes Christ and St. Paul gave to observing purity codes for the sake of observing purity codes, but maybe others can argue differently.

But no one is going to take comparisons of loving relationship, which only differ based on gender, with things like paedophilia, murder, adultery, racism or greed. It's obvious that those who make these comparison are talking to themselves in the mirror, not trying to dialogue those who don't already agree with their position.

[ 10. December 2012, 20:31: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, i think you're gith about purity codes. It's the sort of thing that the anthropologist Mary Douglas ( a practising RC, by the way) was very good on. It would help a lot if more people understood that insight.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0