quote:I have a Christian friend who came out of the closet over the last few years. Those Christians around him have struggled with this issue.
Originally posted by Elijah on Horeb:
We have seen therefore arrogance, bigotry and lack of love at both ends ofthe spectrum, and many of us are caught in the middle, wanting to accept homosexuals as Christ would have accepted them ...But we are still very aware that the whole tenor of both OT and NT teaching ... we must also bear in mind that neither do self-righteous judgmentalism and bigotry have any place in God's scheme.
I used to take a very hard-line approach and say that homosexual acts were sinful, and that homosexual feelings were 'confused'. But after having listened in to a number of these debates I am firmly undecided!
What I know now is that Jesus died for all, not just the people that we like.
bb
how about condemning the real atrocities like marital rape or pedophilia, not, by the way, a homosexual problem as is commonly assumed, as any daughter who has been molested by a heterosexual relative will attest to.
like anything else, there's no easy way to categorize...you have to take each person individually, and hope they extend the same courtesy to you.
i think the issue is mostly a smokescreen...it's the finer details of interpersonal relationships that i imagine God is more concerned with...how much love did i offer? how much compassion did i extend?
quote:
BUT, where does he fit into Christ's church? Either he hides who he is and lives a closet life while in church or he just does not go to church.
This is the bit I never understand. I am heterosexual, but I don't consider it "Who I am". I don't feel any inclination to "come out" and tell everyone I'm heterosexual The thing is be the whole person that you are and don't fixate on that one part of you which is your sexuality.
I do believe homosexual activity is sinful, but I see a hundred other things that I do everyday as sinful too it's no more or less sinful than anything else and no less forgivable by Gods grace.
There is simply no point in shouting about homosexuality being sinful, as if we scare homosexuals away from the church then essentially it is US who have consigned them to hell.
In essence we should pardon the crime, as God does, we should forgive as Christ forgave, but surely the point is Christ forgave peoples sins? Not that he told them they hadn't actually sinned at all in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
The thing is be the whole person that you are and don't fixate on that one part of you which is your sexuality.
That is fine when things are going great. But when things are less than great then it can become the thing that defines you. The same is true for disabilities, skin colour etc.
Saying "don't fixate on one part of your life" just does not help! If that is the area that is causing grief then it needs to be addresssed. People need to find a way of living with themselves, otherwise it can cause massive problems for themselves and others.
bb
P.S. Matt, are you prepared to talk about anything other than sex and sexuality?
I'll be addressing the predestination thread at length at some point (You have been warned)
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I don't feel any inclination to "come out" and tell everyone
Maybe you're married(or will be one day) - strikes me as a pretty blatant way of telling people what one is. (Although, of course, not all married people are straight: it's a good cover!)
I have no desire to tell people what I am either (and, for what it's worth, I'm not sure I know!) but I do know that, whatever I am, and whatever sin it involves, God will be forgiving: good job, too. There are plenty of sinful married folk out there. 
I was just reminded of a friend - a serious and capable theologian - who argued that God must have been gay, since no straight man could have thrown the sort of queeny fits evident throughout the Old Testament! All that smiting stuff is just too queeny for words, he insists!
Until she discovered the reason why she wasn't interested in men.
Well, she had been a hard-line anti-homosexual sort of Christian so this really devastated her. She tried hard not to be a lesbian, but that didn't work. So she tried hard not to be a Christian, and that didn't work either.
Eventually she gave up, and told God to sort it out. Which he did.
She is now a Christian and a lesbian. And she feels that God has accepted her as a Christian lesbian.
As homosexuality is so obviously against the teachings of the Bible, it is impossible to expect the church to condone it. That doesn't mean that on a pastoral level they shouldn't be accepted. "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone."
1) Fags are intrinsically evil and are all paedophiles anyway [I am a bigot]
2) Homosexuality is inconsistent with six passages in scripture [I am the Lambeth Conference]
3) Homosexuality is not part of God's ordained plan for loving relationships, which require the complementarity of male and female [I am a natural law nut]
4) Homosexuals in themselves are sinful [I am judgemental]
5) Homosexual feelings/people are not sinful, but homosexual acts are [I am a dualist]
6) Gays should not be ordained [I have no idea how many already are]
7) I think 2) really, but it isn't that big a deal [some of my best friends are gay]
8) It's all a gray area [I am David Hope]
9) The evidence for homosexuality being inconsistent with scripture is questionable [I have actually looked at context]
10) The argument for homosexuality being inconsistent with scripture is incorrect [I have a gloss and I know how to use it]
11) Male-female complementarity is not the only complementarity for relationships [I think natural law arguments are idiotic anyway]
12) Homosexuals are made that way [I have a clue]
13) Homosexuality is a choice [I've never talked to a gay person]
14) Homosexual people and homosexuality are as good or bad as hets and hettyness, and homosexuality as well as hettyness is to be celebrated as a gift from God [I am incarnationalist, hurrah]
15) Lets go shag whoever we want [I am a rebellious teenager]
===
On a slightly more serious note, please remember that you are talking about people and intimate parts of who they are. If you love someone, try and think about how you would feel if someone told you that your feelings for them were sinful or the result of a handicap, and were not proper love. This precious bond that you share with another person is being declared at best second-class. Be aware of this in your arguments; be sensitive to others' feelings.
Why is 4 judgemental?
If I add to it the statement "just the same as heterosexual people are sinful"?
18) The failure of the Church fully to engage with questions of homosexuality is really the failure the engage with issues of sexuality fullstop. Gays make useful scapegoats. [I've seen how uncomfortable people get debating this stuff].
FWIW, I'm 10, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 18. 
Louise
Serious point: could Joan the Dwarf tell m e how context is supposed to show me that homosexuality may not be inconsistent with Biblical teaching ?
PaulTH is leading the pack at the moment, for classifying homosexuality as an 'incontrollable proclivity' akin to hypersexuality.
And I have to have a flouncy, queeny fight with Joan (by PM of course, so's not to titillate nasty hetty voyeuristic tendencies) because. Just because.
I do so hate being thought of as a primal creature directed by my native instincts. Celibacy, the ultimate demonstration against. Or is it just the catchphrase for peer rejection, undesirability and failure to get a pick-up on a Friday night?
quote:
Originally posted by Sibling Coot:
PaulTH is leading the pack at the moment, for classifying homosexuality as an 'incontrollable proclivity' akin to hypersexuality.
Oh my, I missed that. Must be losing my touch 
Mind you, that is a nice example of 18). I'm guessing the idea of "incontrollable [surely uncontrollable?] proclivity" comes from seeing all these homos banging on about wanting to be able to bang one another, and hets thinking "ooh, that's in such bad taste to talk about it". There is a failure to realise that if hets too were suddenly told it was sinful to have sex then it would sure as hell become important for them. A lot of the time gay people challenge straight ones because we are living proof of how important sexuality is for everyone - it's just that hets can get away with not thinking about it if they a) tie it up in 'acceptable' marriage, and b) cast gays into outer darkness.
quote:
And I have to have a flouncy, queeny fight with Joan (by PM of course, so's not to titillate nasty hetty voyeuristic tendencies) because. Just because.
Oh good grief no my dear, we're meant to be big butch dykes in biker jackets, don't you know. Nothing at all queeny, we leave that to the boys.
It's a sort of role-reversal thing like Violette le Duc dressing up in a male body stocking to come on to Jean Genet.
M'dear, I am of course, a dyke on a bike. (Do Vespa scooters qualify?) Excuse me, I have to apply some lippy. Where's my handbag?
Sieg
PS-darn it! Just broke a nail! Wouldn't you know?!
Where's that nice, young 'St. Whatisname' gentleman? We could parade around on the thread in a sort of online Mardi Gras.
(Come on, jemmi dear, all is forgiven... hop up onto the float... oh! and I see bicurious tedward in the distance)
quote:One argument is that the ban on homosexuality was relevant to a particular society, not necessarily our own.
Originally posted by calvin's granny:
Serious point: could Joan the Dwarf tell m e how context is supposed to show me that homosexuality may not be inconsistent with Biblical teaching ?
The Israelites were, at this point, a band of refugees wandering around the desert looking for a place to live. They were open to attack, and needed as many fighting men as possible. This meant they needed as many children as possible: men to fight, and women to bear children. So all men were to be encouraged to impregnate women.
This idea has merit, especially as it explains, for example, the existence of the cautionary tale of Onan, condemned for practising the withdrawal method. And given that soldiers tended to die relatively frequently, it would explain why polygamy was allowed, but not polyandry (one woman, many husbands), as well as the logic behind the Levirite marriage (if a man died childless, his brother was duty-bound to marry that man's widow).
So the context is a tribe in the desert, constantly under threat of attack. That context doesn't exist now, so (the argument goes) the ban on homosexuality is irrelevant.
quote:
This idea has merit, especially as it explains, for example, the existence of the cautionary tale of Onan, condemned for practising the withdrawal method.
To be fair, I don't think this story had any big social context. More simply Onan was dishonest to God. I think that's the sin that was committed surely?
Incidently, I have a friend who is bisexual..she has a boyfriend, but also simultaneously a sexual relationship with her best female friend. She insists both are essential and feel natural to her, and she could never possibly make up her mind which to choose if she had to choose between them.
What do people (particularly the "inclusives") think about this?
Matt
I would never ever under any circumstances have an intimate relationship with more than one other person. The emotional and sexual bond in what I feel to be the most intense and spiritual form would simply preclude that. Trust, openness and honesty could not survive for me in such a situation, which I feel are imperative in a relationship. I didn't think this in my hetero-repressed days (yes, I cheated on a boyf once), but having discovered what real, deep, spiritual and sexual love actually is this is now my opinion. Monogamy forever!
I should point out both the boyfriend her her female friend are aware of the situation, not only that, but my impression is the whole thing functions as a three-way relationship in fact. So there is not a question of "dishonesty" being at work here.
Incidently, no..I am not judgemental of her. As I said, this person is a friend, and I wasn't using the term with irony.
Sorry, Calvin's granny, the on-line Mardi Gras kind of obscured your qu.
There's much theological writing out there on the subject, so I'm only going to be able to summarize the arguments, rather than actually argue properly (that would take an even looooooonger post!). Further reading at the end.
The 'bible bullets' commonly used against gays are:
1) Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as you lie with a woman - that is detestable"
On a personal note, I have no problem with this. Lying with women is fine by me
More seriously, this is part of the Jewish Holiness Code. We are not Jews, we're Christians. As Paul says repeatedly, we don't follow Jewish Law (cf allowing in uncircumsised Gentiles as Christians in NT churches, Peter's dream about eating non-Kosher food "That which I have made clean you shall not call unclean", etc.).
2) Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestible."
Ditto as for 1). Also, look at verse 18:it prohibits sleeping with a woman during her period on the same terms. There's also prohibitions against wearing mixed fibre clothing. Anyone got a polycotton shirt on?
3)Genesis 18-19: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The sin isn't one of sodomy, it's about abuse of hospitality and gang-rape. If the men of Sodom were really raging raping pooftahs, would they have accepted Lot's daughter instead of his male guest and raped her until morning? Also, you have to talk very hard to try and get a prohibition against homosexuality out of a judgement against homosexual AND heterosexual gang rapes.
4) Deuteronomy 23:17: "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine-prostitute"
5) 1 Kings 14:24: "There were even male shrine-prostitutes in the landl the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites"
6) 1 Kings 15:12: "He expelled the male shrine-prostitutes from the land"
These all talk about prostitution rather than committed relationships, so say nothing about homosexuality per se.
7) Romans 1:26-17: "Even their women exhanged natural ralations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men"
Finally, something that talks about lesbians!
Paul in Romans is talking mainly to the Jews, and is showing how Christianity is a natural extension of Judaeism, and the law of love the successor to the law of Moses. He starts off by trying to puncture the Jews sense that they are justified by their works by showing that they don't follow even their own laws. Basically, he says: look at these nasty heathen who did all these things that Mosaic Law prohibits (that's the bit where the quote comes from), aren't they bad, oh by the way you're like that. He's using the Jews' ideas against themselves (remember, Paul was VERY well-trained theologically): it would need quite a lot of argument to show from this that he thought homosexuality was wrong.
Other points made are: Paul's talking about hets who do homo practices, ie go against their own natures. And he might be talking about the homosexual practices that went on in Pagan temples.
8) 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homsexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
There is a translation problem here. The relevant bits are: male prostitutes, and homosexual offenders. The Greek is 'malakoi arsenokoitai'. 'Malakoi' means 'soft', but no-one knows what 'arsenokoitai' means - the meaning has been lost. 'Arsen' means 'male', and 'koites' means 'bed' or 'sexual intercourse', but there is no recorded use of 'arsenokoitai' before Paul, so we don't know to what it was referring - temple prostitutes, call-boys, child male prostitutes or what? Taking it to mean simply 'male homosexual' (again, there's nothing about lesbianism here) is a very large assumption. Here, the two words have been translated separately: malakoi as male prositiute, arsenokoitai as homosexual offender, but no-one really knows how to translate it.
9) 1 Timothy 1:9: "We know that law is made not for the righteous but for law-breakers and rebels... for adulterers and perverts,... and whatever else is contrary to sound the sound doctrine"
Again, this is the NIV translation. Again we have 'arsenokoita', translated in this passage as 'perverts'. See above.
10) Jude 7: "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion"
See 3). Also, Jude does not specify the perversion - it may be referring to the legend that the women of Sodom had sex with angels. Basically, Sodom became a byword for lust and perversion: how you can get from that to a prohibition on loving and monogomous homosexual relations where there is no compulsion or exploitation is beyond me.
AFAIK this is all the bible says that could possibly be interpreted as refering to homosexuality. Do let me know if I've missed anything.
FURTHER READING:
What the bible says about homosexuality
Chapter 2 of 'Issues in Human Sexuality' by the House of Bishops, 1991.
Finally, here's a few other bible quotes to ponder:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." -- John 3:16
"God, who knows the heart, showed that He accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us." --Acts 15:8
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:28
"The voice spoke to him a second time, ' Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'" -- Acts 10: 15
"By your fruits will you know them" --- [can't remember]
"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God." -- Romans 7:4
"The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery'...[etc]... and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: Love your neighbour as yourself."
And from the liturgy: "We are the Body of Christ; by one Spirit we were all baptised."
Matt, you seem to have a very naive view of liberalism. You're expecting a liberal to say "oh well, if she feels it's OK for her then that's all that matters", aren't you, and wave their limp wrists? That sort of a response is as much a cop-out as an evo response of "no, it's all wrong outside of marriage full stop" - they're the two extremes, whereas truth, as always, lies in the difficult middle ground.
How do we tell what's right? The best answer I've found (I can't off the top of my head remember where) is that we have to look at what forms of life lead to an increase in holiness and Christian living and love. In terms of relationships, do they bring people closer to God and an understanding of his love? Are they a blessing to the world around them?
I personally cannot imagine a relationship that is a blessing to the people involved and other people and is holy and God-centred but involves more than two people.
I have stayed out of these discussions before, being, I guess, a number 8!!
Review now underway.
I especially liked your gentle wrist-slap reminder at the end!
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
If the men of Sodom were really raging raping pooftahs, would they have accepted Lot's daughter instead of his male guest and raped her until morning?
I think you are thinking of Judges 19, where an incident similar to Sodom occurs. In Sodom no daughters were raped - the men were struck with blindness. Both the Sodom and Gibeah stories seem to be meant to depict the absolute nadir of civilization.
And, Joan, I find it hard to accept your explanations of those various Bible verses. Whether or not you believe that homosexuality is wrong, attempting to reconcile it with the Bible is a fool's errand. It requires too many logical leaps and unorthodox assumptions to hang together.
As for a 'fools errand', well we disagree, fairly obviously. I think it's a fools errand to try and get a prohibition against loving, committed and monogomous homosexual relationships from the Bible as it doesn't talk about them anywhere. And BTW as I said these are not "my" arguments - I just summarised what many properly-trained theologians have argued in much greater detail.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
attempting to reconcile it with the Bible is a fool's errand. It requires too many logical leaps and unorthodox assumptions to hang together.
Unfortunately you have not backed this statement up. As I showed in my post, I think the unorthodox assumptions and logical leaps come in the attempt to prohibit homosexual relations from scripture. I'm now waiting for your refutation of these arguments...
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Unfortunately you have not backed this statement up... I'm now waiting for your refutation of these arguments...
Sorry. I tought they were obvious. This topic is just a little too scary for me. The anger is palpable. 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Sorry. I tought they were obvious. This topic is just a little too scary for me. The anger is palpable.
Yes, I'm angry... sorry it showed. I'm angry that people dismiss biblical scholarship as "logical leaps and unorthodox assumptions". I'm angry that the arguments weren't taken seriously - do you really think I would have posted that long post if it was "obvious" that the arguments don't stand up? Freddy, I don't want to be angry over this, but I can't argue with non-arguments like "it's all silly and that's obvious". You may be a number 2, but that doesn't mean that's end of story, end of discussion. Back it up, and we can have a good, fruitful, non-angry discussion!
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
why would Lot have offered his daughters in the first place if he knew the men only wanted other men?
just to throw in a classical perspective here...
the distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals was not one the Greeks found (i cannot speak for the Hebrews, but i thought an ancient viewpoint might throw some light on the matter). it was perfectly natural for middle-aged Greek men (with wives) to take young boys (just entering adulthood) for lovers in order to teach them. (unfortunately, we have very little evidence either way for women - sapho's poetry, but that's about it). as far as i am aware, the greeks did not believe that a person had a defined single sexuality. indeed, it seems to be a (relatively) modern construct.
the distinction the greeks made, in fact, was between (apologies for bad taste) penetrator and penetrated. the penetrated was always the "inferior" party.
if this kind of view was shared by the Hebrews, then there would be no problem with Lot offering his daughters instead - these men were perhaps not so much after sex with a particular sex, but rather just sex with whoever they could lay their hands on.
i dunno if that actually adds anything to the discussion or not, but hey-ho.
Sodom story has always interested me 'cos
1) God had decided to destroy the city before the inhabitants got round to wanting to 'know' Lot's guests
2) As angels do not have genitalia it's a dead end anyway
Right. Angry bit. 
And just to whip back up the thread to the strange post
quote:
This is the bit I never understand. I am heterosexual, but I don't consider it "Who I am". I don't feel any inclination to "come out" and tell everyone I'm heterosexual
Shall we lay this one to rest now? It's heterosexuals, usually bigotted ones and sometimes well-meaning 'liberal' ones, who perpetuate the whole 'defining by sexuality' business. The responsibility for that waste of time is all with the breeders. I'm sure the gays of this world would be quite happy not to be defined by sexual orientation if only you lot would let them be. OK? To some, if sexual orientation is not hidden away safely in the closet it's being shouted from the rooftops. Perspective please!
Sorry should add an absence of digestive system to genitalia for angels as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Back it up, and we can have a good, fruitful, non-angry discussion!
Joan, I can understand your feelings. I would love to go through them point by point, but I'm afraid I haven't time right now. However, since these points have been dwelt on ad nauseum in other threads, it might be easy to just look them up. The assertions and counter-assertions about the Biblical view of homosexuality are fairly standardized at this point.
quote:How do you know?
Originally posted by St Rumwald:
angels do not have genitalia
quote:
Originally posted by St Rumwald:
It's heterosexuals, usually bigotted ones and sometimes well-meaning 'liberal' ones, who perpetuate the whole 'defining by sexuality' business. The responsibility for that waste of time is all with the breeders. I'm sure the gays of this world would be quite happy not to be defined by sexual orientation if only you lot would let them be. OK? To some, if sexual orientation is not hidden away safely in the closet it's being shouted from the rooftops. Perspective please!
Emphasis added.
So are you painting all heterosexuals with the same brush or not? If you are, please don't. It's a violation of the Ship's third commandment.
RuthW
Purgatory host
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So are you painting all heterosexuals with the same brush or not?
Erm, no. What a curious idea. I apologise unreservedly to the sane among the heterosexual community.
Angels & genitalia...
Surely you jest?
They would be entirely superfluous and redundant. God is not known for creating things with pointless parts to them (apart from the male part of humankind that is) Why one earth would they have them, having no need to reproduce? Are you arguing from not having specific references to them NOT having them?
I'm unaware of a single instance of their depiction or description with them or mention of them (though of course I can be- and usually am- proved wrong).
(that particular smiley means "my Bishop may be monitoring this site...)
Er, I'll go to bed now, shall I?
quote:
Originally posted by St Rumwald:
Erm, no. What a curious idea. I apologise unreservedly to the sane among the heterosexual community.
In your extensive (and very helpful) list of biblical Homosexuality references, you missed Judges 19.
Which incidently wins my vote as one of the sickest passages of literature ever written..particularly as I'm not sure if the girl was dead or alive when she was cut into a dozen pieces....
Judges 19: It's Sodom revisited! Visitor in a town, whose people want to rape him. Visitor's host offers his concubine, they accept and rape her until morning and then killed her. Nice.
See comments on the Sodom story, it's the same thing again.
Also, one further comment to these stories: anyone who works with victims will tell you that rape is not about sex - it's about power and abuse. There are an awful lot of rape cases of men by heterosexual men.
Some rape is about sex. It's about sexual gratification from sadism.
Some is about power, as you say.
Some is almost political...like when soliders go raping and pillaging in wars.
Incidently, can you explain a little more fully your theory about Lot (and the judges thing) and what the sin being committed was? this whole hospitality thing?
Just when I thought the thread was getting fun again... St Sebastian. That's who I was thinking of. Last time he posted he was thinking of joining the Orthodox. Well there'll be no Mardi Gras there, let me tell you.
How resplendently butchy you look with the bowtie, JtD - just the thing to catch the Canon's eye.
Thankyou and Goodnight.
Why thankyou my dear Coot, I'm glad you like the tie *gives a distinctly unbutch blush* - do you really think she'll like it? And I must say your lipstick is looking perfectly wonderful today.
Oh my dear corpie, you shouldn't snap your handbag like that, you'll break a nail! Darling Sieg can tell you how utterly traumatic that is. But I must say you look divine in those heels (from a purely Platonic point of view, of course ).
quote:
Originally posted by Lizzabee:
where does he fit into Christ's church? Either he hides who he is and lives a closet life while in church or he just does not go to church. Should homosexuality and Christianity be that mutually exclusive?
I don't know what church you go to, but none of the services I've been to have required every member of the congregation to make public their sexual preferences.
"I shouldn't have to hide" isn't an excuse for shouting from the rooftops.
Not sure if this is on Joan's list of standard attitudes (?platitudes?) or not, but it seems to me not impossible to hold simultaneously the belief that God loves us all individually with the belief that homo and hetero are not equally valid "lifestyle choices".
Suppose I have sexual feelings for my sister. It doesn't mean that I'm bad, doesn't mean that I'm less moral than anybody else, doesn't mean that God rejects me, but also doesn't necessarily mean that I should try to force everybody else to accept that a sexual relationship between the two of us would necessarily be moral just because I want it.
If you're still not convinced, try substituting for "sister" any other inappropriate object of sexual feelings.
Russ
Thank you for your long and detailed replies to my questions on context. I'll try and post a reply in the next few days when I have time to consider your arguments thoughtfully
no comment on your message, but your signature was DEEPLY offensive. Everybody with a vaguest degree of insight knows that life is a game of cricket and God is an Englishman. After all, His Son played square leg for Lancashire.
"Hate the sin and love the sinner" is an excellent maxim, and I do indeed believe that this is what our attitude ought to be.
But I don't identify with your attitude #5, because it labels all homosexual acts as sinful, and this seems to me too simplistic.
I struggle with this, and don't have a fully-thought-out view, but it seems to me that it is choices rather than acts which are morally good or bad. It does not seem impossible that in some cases the best achievable outcome might be two people of the same gender setting up house together. Exactly what acts they get up to in the privacy of their own home is their business.
We're all broken people in our different ways. But let us not set up our brokenness as an ideal to which others should aspire.
It is the shouting about sexuality, the demands for equal status, the militancy which seems to me wrong, unloving, putting one's own feelings before the feelings of others. The Christian answer to persecution is not a counter-persecution. People with "old-fashioned" views are also to be loved and tolerated.
Babybear was right to say that "people need to find a way of living with themselves", but not at the expense of others. Becoming completely defined by some aspect of ourselves is something to be resisted.
Don't know if this answers Lizzabee's question...
Russ
quote:
What liberating words! NOTHING separates us from God. Not homosexuality, not disbelief in certain creeds, Bible passages, litanies or opinions of other believers. Not sin, not death, not anything. My fundamentalist friends, do you realize the freeing beauty of those words??? Nothing!! NOTHING! Will you take those words to heart? Will you believe the Holy Word Of God when it says NOTHING separates you from God??? Or will you continue to thump your Bible and point out all those who *you* believe have been separated from God?
The above is taken from the website whosoever.org that you linked to Joan, thanks for that.
A very good website it is too. Rational and balanced.
However, the above quote (which is her comment on the famous passage in Romans 8)seems to me to be performing a bit of slight of hand with the wording of the scripture.
Romans 8v39 says nothing can separate us from the love of God. This is a dramatically different thing to saying "nothing can separate us from God".
To use the parable of the lost son in Luke 15, the point is that the son was never separated from the father's love even thought he WAS separated from the father by his rebellion.
There is no contradiction at all, in saying "God loves homosexuals" and at the same time saying "homosexuals are in rebellion" than there is in saying "The Father loves his son" and at the same time saying "The son was in rebellion"
The writer ends up saying "Sin cannot separate us from God" but what is sin, but exactly that: "Separation from God"? Sin is the great devide between us and God which He bridges through Love he showed at the cross.
If Sin did not separate us from God then it would not matter. But Sin matters hugely. It matters enough for God to lay down the life of his own Son to defeat it.
The difference between saying "nothing can separate us from God" and "nothing can separate us from the love of God" is enormous and has far reaching implications.
quote:
They would be entirely superfluous and redundant. God is not known for creating things with pointless parts to them
I don't know about that. The male human body is fairly extravagant for what is essentially just a life support system for a penis.
As there is some experience of these things on this board I have a genuine question:
Why do some gay blokes camp it up?
That is a serious question.
My only conclusion is that for the same reason that some lads, for want of a better expression, lad it up. Loudness, competitiveness etc etc.
My only experience of a gay friend was that he was a lad but just had male partners, although he found the 'scene' very destructive on him emmotionally and I think spiritually. But he has moved away from where I live now and I no longer see him, so any questions I may have once been able to ask I can no longer do so.
cheers
Matt - your penultimate posting saddened me. While you may be making a reasonable exigetical point, please remember that this is not an abstract issue for many. There are real people involved in all of this who can only be hurt by statements such as "Homosexuals are in rebellion [against God]", however you intended it. I have known peopel who have attempted suicide because they are both gay and christian, when other christians have expressed what they see as an objective view of "what the Bible teaches". These others were not intending to be destructive - but when you're in a vulnerable position you can get hurt very easily indeed. I know you don't intend to cause offence, but please take care how you make your points. (The other post - about the penis - I found hilarious!)
23) I'd be fine with homosexuals if they would just shut up about being gay. They're doing more harm than good trying to shove it down other peoples' throats, I mean why do people insist on being camp in public, can't they just do it in the privacy of their own homes, rather than in front of ordinary decent people? [I am an ostrich]
I find this perhaps the most depressing view - certainly, that's why I was depressed last night. It's the view that we'd be acceptable so long we kept quiet, so long as people could blank it out of their minds that we were gay and not have to deal with it. That "what you do is your own business", which means: "it's shameful but I'm not going to get into an argument with you". But what if we don't think it's shameful? What if we want to bring the whole of who we are into our Eucharistic community? If we want to celebrate our love and all the ways in our lives in which God works?
Of course we have to treat other people lovingly - that's why I do not advocate Peter Tatchell-style campagning However I do not think that the ideas of stumbling block and loving extend to retreating into silence and shadows and acting ashamed of part of who and what we are, just to pander to other people's prejudices. Personally, I find public displays of heterosexual love (kissing, cuddling etc) disgusting: but I don't try and make them hide because of what I feel, however much I wish they would!
There are the two extremes that we have to be warey of: hiding so that no-one sees us, and getting up on a soapbox all the time. In the middle lies the openness in love that everyone can learn from. That's where the challenges are on both sides: a lot of hets want us to shut up because any degree of visibility means they have to confront these issues and that makes them uncomfortable, so they blame gays for making them feel bad. A lot of the time 23) can be a cover for "if you shut up I won't have to think about it and won't find my world-view threatened". Similarly, gays can react to the threatening nature of the argument by being over-agressive, un-loving and not engaging in dialogue.
I know I keep on getting it wrong, being too soap-boxy, and for a variety of reasons tend to get over-angry in these discussions. This is something I've got to learn - you lot are helping, and I'm sorry for those who got on the wrong end of it. But I'm not going to go to the other extreme and become invisible.
Pyx_e
These days, I'm not sure where on Joan's list I come. I would have to say that having read and read the Sodom and Gomorrah Story, I would never have realised that it was useable as an argument against homosexuality if I hadn't been told. I thought it was about a City in which there was not one righteous man to be found - this being the final implication of gen Ch 18, v 16-33 - and an illustration of quite how unrighteous it all was, is a particularly nasty gang rape. It never occured to me that the point of the passage was in any way homosexuality.
In terms of the passages in Leviticus, I think Joan is correct to point out some of the other commandments in the same part of Leviticus - which we now ignore as we think them totally irrelevant. A lot of OT laws relate to hygiene - things like the laws about spots and blemishes and nasty skin diseases - and just aren't relevant in our society, although they were very important to keep a nomadic tribe alive. Bear with me - I am not about to say that homosexuality is unhygienic. However, anal sex is a pretty good way of spreading nasty STDs - as is heterosexual sex. I read somewhere, however, that without lubricants etc (which they didn't have then) the more forceful nature of anal sex, makes bleediing and hence the spread of infection more likely. This is not really relevant now, but in a society with no KY jelly (or whatever) and no condoms, an act which has no procreative purpose, but which easily spreads infection, could easily be forbidden on grounds of hygiene. But, we don't keep the Jewish hygiene laws today. So basically, if you want to ban homosexuality on this basis, I reckon we'd also better reinstitute burning mildewed clothes and sending people out of the town if they have particularly bad acne. Any takers?
However, the passages in Paul writings, I struggle more with. Having said that I struggle with a lot of things in Paul. Joan's right in saying that the translation is difficult, and frequently inconsistent. Those of us who are women here have to figure out whether to cover our heads in church and remove oursleves from any positions of authority in the church, before we start casting stones at homosexuals. Cultural context is important, and should be considered before we start leaping into condemnation of people on the grounds of biblical statements.
In the end the 2 greatest commandments are ...
1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength
2) Love your neighbour as yourself.
I can see no way that being gay or performing gay sex acts in the context of a loving relationship can prevent you from keeping the second of these. As for the first - even if we interpret those bible passages conservatively and homosexuals are disobedient to God, they can still be doing the best they can to love him as much as they can. Maybe the rest of us should start loving them more - they are our neighbour as much as the next person.
All the best,
Rachel.
I am no Falwell or Phelps. I don't hate gays. But the Bible says, and life proves, that male/female relationships are the natural thing.
The most simple look at physiology makes it clear that homosexual conduct is not natural to the human design.
Having said that, I harbor no hate or fear of gays or lesbians. I believe they should be reached out to. But I also believe that a truly repentant homosexual can be brought to celibacy OR heterosexual relationships (and yes, I allow that the homosexual inclinations may never cease, and celibacy is the moral option.) Just as one can be have bigotry, addictions, and hate removed by the power of Christ, so can the homosexual. They're no worse than anyone else who is not living by God's standard, and they need our compassion, but also in being compassionate, we should not go through gymnastics to come up with a supposedly "Biblical" excuse for things that are obviously not in God's plan/will for human relations.
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
17.Another thread on sexuality.Arrrrrrgh.....[I am Stephen]
Fortunately, this discussion isn’t about sexuality: it’s about justice. And how we interpret God's love. And how one should be faithful to God when the chips are down. And I don’t see how any thinking Christian can ignore it.
It was partly my response to this issue (along with such old chestnuts as the doctrine of hell) which defines the Christian I now am – the type of church I go to, the way I approach the Bible, the way I think or talk (on the rare occasions I’m brave enough to do so) about my faith.
It is an important issue for me (and I see for others who have posted on this thread) because I am faced with a particularly intense conflict between my ordinary sense of justice and the views which appear to be held by some writers of the Bible.
There is no moral reason (convincing to me) outside the Bible why gay couples cannot have a committed sexual relationship recognised and blessed by the surrounding community in the way that straight couples can. I see great suffering caused to gay Christians by the church’s refusal to accept that a gay relationship can be ‘a valid lifestyle choice’.
So, do I accept the prohibition of homosexual acts because I see it condemned in the Bible, despite every protest of my rebellious conscience?
Erm… well, I’ve never been much of a rebel, but…
No, I jolly well don’t. Am I by doing this following my own conscience rather than what I understand in the Bible? Well, yes. In this instance. And from that point there really is no turning back. In fear and trembling, the whole development of my faith then differs substantially from someone who comes to a different conclusion.
Now I read Joan’s summary of alternative interpretations of the troublesome passages with interest. So Paul was not necessarily a gay-basher? I’m very pleased for him.
Part of the reason you probably struggle with is that pure reason and conscience tells you that homosexuality is not standard for humanity.
If I were an atheist, I would still have serious philosophical differences with homosexuality. The fact that I am a Christian only provides a definite moral law.
As to celibacy, I'd hold homosexuals to the same standard I do unmarried straight couples. Abstinance. The only thing is, in this case, I can find nothing in the Bible that would accept anything less than total abstinance from homosexual acts.
Oh some try to rationalize it because of what they "feel" or what God supposedly tells them, but God didn't write the Bible to go around and provide exception clauses to everyone that had attractions to goats, relatives,or members of the same sex. Nature is nature, right is right.
I am what some consider a "aberrant" Christian, and I admit there are many misinterpretations of Scripture in the church, but prayer, study, and research have led me to my current and assured position on this issue.
I harbor no hate or fear for the homosexual, any more than I fear or hate those in adultery, abuse, or any other lifestyle contrary to God's standard.
Like I say, I'd love to believe that our behaviour really didn't matter. But God has set things up, and His system is the one we are called as Christians to follow. Homosexuality is simply not in that plan according to any measured and accurate reading of the Scriptures, nor is it scientifically or physiologically correct.
Doesn't ANYONE understand what I am trying to say here?
quote:
Matt - your penultimate posting saddened me. While you may be making a reasonable exigetical point, please remember that this is not an abstract issue for many. There are real people involved in all of this who can only be hurt by statements such as "Homosexuals are in rebellion [against God]", however you intended it.
I stand by my statement. With the additional statement:
"heterosexuals are equally in rebellion".
I am sure I made this point in an earlier post that I am not in anyway marking out homosexuals as "especially bad". Just that they are bad, exactly like the rest of us. Myself included. Including every human being from Mother Teresa to Charles Manson. With the one exception of Jesus Christ.
In any discussion on anything to do with sin...including homosexuality, I always approach it with the assumption that we are all sinners and there are NO "better sinners" or "worse sinners". (although you'd have to go a long way to be better at sinning than me!)
It seems to me not that we are SINNERS because we SIN, but in fact the other way around: We SIN because we are SINNERS!
The manifestation of actual Sin...of any type...is a symptom of the disease.
When I say that homosexuality is sinful what I mean is that for that particular individual, the disease which we ALL suffer from (Sin) has chosen to mainfest itself in that particular behavioural symptom.
For me, I have the same disease, but different symptoms. Greed, pride, arrogance, lust. They are all on my list of symptoms.
The truth is, that regardless of the symptoms, the consequence of the disease is always the same if left untreated...death.
Fortunately, God has provided a medicine that cures the disease, in Jesus Christ. But just like a medical disease may leave a permenant scar, in the same way, even though we are healed, we are (for the present moment in this life) still suffering residual symptoms of the disease of Sin.
It is like the chickenpox scar I have on my neck. Harmless to me, but a reminder of what I was before I was healed.
So in this sense the sin we commit now as Christians is harmless to ourselves. The only danger of it...like my chickenpox scar...is that it makes us ugly to others.
why are you so hung up on this single issue that you have to go looking so deeply for references to it, and ignore all the other wealth of interesting subjects this board has to offer? why are you so fascinated by what consenting adults do in bed, to exclusion of any other subject (except for one post on the "pinups" thread, i think it was...)
quote:
I know I keep on getting it wrong, being too soap-boxy, and for a variety of reasons tend to get over-angry in these discussions.
No, no, no. It's only soap boxy and over-angry for people for whom ANY display or open acknowledgement of homosexuality is 'ramming it down our throats'. Some people will never be satisfied.
DrakeDetective...
I'd be interested to know why a
quote:This is perhaps one of the most asinine arguments that crops up time and again. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?
The most simple look at physiology makes it clear that homosexual conduct is not natural to the human design.
rachel_o
quote:
I read somewhere, however, that without lubricants etc (which they didn't have then)
Without wishing to elaborate too much, lubricants of animal, plant or human origin would have been then available. But more to the point, the assumption is that sexual relations between two men are usually of a particular kind which, statistically, in fact, comes a poor third.
In my years as a priest, I have not yet been able to find an answer to this dilema. My advice to everyone is to come and participate in Church, no matter what else might be happening in their lives.
Abouna
Lets not kid ourselves. My heterosexuality is corrupt and sinful anyway. Everything I do is corrupt and sinful. Even when I'm being nice, I'm usually doing it for my own ends ultimately.
Regardless of whether homosexuality is intrinsically sinful or not, it seems to me a slightly irrelevant question. Your homosexuality is as corrupt as my heterosexuality.
Vehmently trying to resist this seems to me to be trying to argue out a little corner of our lives which we can say "this is NOT sinful! Jesus, I don't need YOU in THIS bit of my life, I've already got THIS little bit of my house in order by myself thankyou! I don't need your forgiveness for this bit."
It strikes me as being the last vestiages of our pride taking their stand. This isn't about homsexuality. It's about human nature.
Saying homosexuality (or anything else)isn't sinful
For example, it's like me trying to argue that my giving money to a homeless person yesterday was not sinful. I could show you a thousand bible verses which show how rightous it is.
It doesn't change the fact that the reason I did it was because I was with a girl who I was trying to impress with what a nice guy I am.....
My attempting to argue the points of law on it not being sinful is like the pharasee and misses the point completely. We are so sinful everything we get our grubby hands on..be it sexuality or charity...gets mucked up too.
Nicole, I have been browsing these boards at random as a new member. I happen to have some beliefs on this issue, so those were the threads I've responded to thusfar. I'm sure you'll see me in many other threads over the course of my time here. It's just the odds. And yes, I will reply to "dead" threads if I feel I have something to say. Who when first coming to a message board doesn't??
St--Please, read some biology and then try to tell me that the human body was designed to be sexually interchangeable..far from even the morality of it, homosexual acts are obviously not "in the flow" of natural actions.
All, I cannot believe that I am the only one here who understands what I'm saying in my posts. What a welcome. *sigh* It's as if I offered someone wine at an anti-drinking league. At any rate, if you're tired of this subject but just want to lend a little *gasp* agreement or something, feel free to email.
And REALLY, I'm not hateful and I DON'T BITE.
Hi gang!
The Coot.
I refer you to my earlier exchange with Freddy for an answer to your particular expression of your number 2 views.
Also, people don't struggle with this because they know in their hearts that fundamentalist teaching is right and they're trying to escape it. People struggle with it because extreme and simplistic views are rarely correct, however emotionally tempting they are.
Oh, and your 'biology' argument deserves its own number, thankyou, I forgot about it:
25) A man's penis fits in a woman's vagina. Therefore by natural law homosexual sex is unnatural [I am another type of natural law nut who only thinks about blokes]
Moreover I have (woe unto me!) taken unnatural medicines to curb my natural illness. Indeed I verily repent.
As for those spawns of Satan, tampons, I have inserted them where only a manly member should go, ah ah ah I put on dust and ashes.
Ever so slightly more seriously, if you want to go down the line of the 'natural' argument, you're going to have to do it a bit more rigorously. 'Natural' is a very slippery word, as is acknowledged in the literature on the subject; most authors start by defining what they mean by it. 'Natural' as normally used in theological discourse is to do with God's ordained purpose in making something the way it is. So what's God's ordained purpose for sex? Looking at biology, we see its purpose there is for reproduction - penis fits in vagina for the purpose of producing babies. However we are not just biological creatures: as humans we are also emotional and spiritual beings. The Anglican Church at least has long recognised these aspects to sexual relations: intimacy and bonding, personal and spiritual (see eg the 1662 marriage service for couples who can't have children, and the 1958(?) pronouncements on contraception). The 1991 House of Bishops report states that "The potential blessing of this bonding are such that a theology of creation will very properly see them as also 'natural', that is, within the purposes of God."
I cannot see the end of the 'what fits where' argument as anything other than: all sex must be for the purposes of procreation. This is because it ignores the emotional and spiritual side of sex.
Personally, I think this is one of the most beautiful things about homosexual sex: it points to an understanding of sexuality that is unavoidably spiritual, because we cannot pretend that it is about biology and procreation. Love is the most important thing - real, deep, spiritual love and bonding body and soul with another human. It's taking us beyond mere biological necessity, showing that sexuality and sexual bonding can be good things in themselves at their best, and in good circumstances lead to our growth as human beings in our relationships with one another and with God. It shows just how important it is to be fully human: integrated body with soul, not to carry our body around like a sinful lump but to be our bodies. Ultimately, for me, this is incarnational: Christ became fully human and fully divine, each part in harmony, to help us reclaim every part of who we are.
quote:
Originally posted by St Rumwald:
Without wishing to elaborate too much, lubricants of animal, plant or human origin would have been then available. But more to the point, the assumption is that sexual relations between two men are usually of a particular kind which, statistically, in fact, comes a poor third.
Please remember I'm a GLE, and therefore don't necessarily have the knowledge about sex to figure out things people don't elaborate on.
Having siad that...
In reference to lubricants..... these people were wandering in the desert, and being fed manna and quail from heaven, they probably didn't have much around by way of animal or vegetable anything.
With reference to your 2nd point - I'm not sure I understand, but I'm assuming you mean anal sex is not the prevalent form of sexual activity between gay men? If so, then the verse we are talking about in Leviticus strikes me as irelevant anyway.
All the best,
Rachel.
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
PS Dear Sibling Drake, it is biologically unnatural to put a headphone earpiece in my ear. I have sinned against the natural flow of my body, I repent before thee, in the absence of Rev Gez.Moreover I have (woe unto me!) taken unnatural medicines to curb my natural illness. Indeed I verily repent.
As for those spawns of Satan, tampons, I have inserted them where only a manly member should go, ah ah ah I put on dust and ashes.
Hurrah for Joan. I was just in the middle of composing an angry post when I read yours.
See Drake - I respect the conclusions you've come to from scripture. Sometimes I agree with them too. But I can't agree with the 'natural' stuff. Just doesn't seem right or fair.
quote:
All, I cannot believe that I am the only one here who understands what I'm saying in my posts.
Dear Drake's Detective,
I think most of us here understand your posts very well.
They seem to indicate that there is only one right view - yours - and that you are not very open to the views of others (on the Falwell thread in Hell, you actually said that you found the differing views of others on this issue 'disturbing')
You also seem to be pushing a simplistic natural law argument which is, literally, medieval and which probably qualifies by now as a PRATT - point refuted a thousand times.
Yet you seem to think it offers some kind of irrefutable insight.
In fact this argument has been around in its developed form since the days of St Thomas Aquinas, and its flaws have been pointed out ad nauseam long before now. I'll give just one example.
If I walk on my hands then I am using a part of my body for something it wasn't 'designed' for and which 'naturally' I should be doing with my feet.
So let's ban gymnastics - totally unnatural if you ask me.
Also you seem to think there's only one possible way of interpreting scripture - yours again.
I'm sure you are not hateful, but your posts come across as, well, somewhat lacking in charity and respect for others, to put it mildly.
This issue has been discussed many times on these boards, but here you come, barging in, spouting off a commonplace argument as though none of us will ever have heard it before and we'll all go 'Duh! why didn't we ever think of THAT before?'
Try pondering the concept that it's a good bet that many of us here have heard that sort of argument before and rejected it.
Louise
quote:
The most simple look at physiology makes it clear that homosexual conduct is not natural to the human design.
I don't wish to make this board X-rated with too many details, but as a medical student, I can tell you research shows that the type of conduct you are referring to is suprisingly common among at least a fair percentage of heterosexual couples on at least one encounter.
Surveys also suggest that a fair number of those who havn't had a heterosexual encounter of this nature would like to at some point in the future.
Did I put that delicately enough everyone?
(Incidently, most people will notice that this post goes against my side of the argument in anyways, which only goes to show I'm just looking to tell it like it is, not how I want it to be.)
But I also respect what God says about sex and the boundaries He placed on it.
That's all. No hate, just my simple convictions, and I'm sorry if they are not welcome here.
quote:
Originally posted by DrakeDetective:
For the record, I'm far from anti-sex. I think a good Christian marriage, (egalitarian no less) should be a lovely, very vibrant sexual relationship.
So maybe you are experienced in sex aids?
quote:
Medic, thank you for your reasoned responses. Though not directly for me, I appreciate your feedback here.
I would just like to take this opportunity to distance myself from anything drakedetective says. My "fundaMENTAList" alarm bells are ringing where our new friend is concerned.....
I hope he reads my posts...about us all being equally sinners. He says homosexuality is "unnatural", but hey...get this...God thinks we are ALL unnatural! imagine that! Any sin is completely alien to God's nature and therefore unnatural to him. drake, every time you are angry, or hurt someone you are being as "unnatural" to God as those "repulsive faggots" imagine that drake!!! Uncomfortable thought huh? Good job we've all got Grace then isn't it?.
(DISCLAIMER: previous "foggot"phrase was deliberate sarcasm use of language...quote marks do not represent quote by specific individual)
quote:
Personally, I think this is one of the most beautiful things about homosexual sex: it points to an understanding of sexuality that is unavoidably spiritual, because we cannot pretend that it is about biology and procreation.
Joan, you've come up with some good stuff on this thread, then you go and spoil it with this...errmmm...ok. Sorry, I've offended you before but I won't again.
Coz there is no procreation involved, the sex is automatically superspirtual?! ha!
Well, if I go out to euston station pick up half a dozen rent boys and stick my big end *ahem* "where the sun don't shine" to each one in turn would that be spiritual just coz they aren't gonna get pregnant?
No, it would be sordid and repulsive to God. Homosexual sex can be every bit as sordid too, and you know it. It doesn't strike me as "unavoidably spiritual" in the least. (sorry...that was extremely crude...had to be to make the point methinks)
quote:
Ultimately, for me, this is incarnational: Christ became fully human and fully divine, each part in harmony, to help us reclaim every part of who we are.
We don't reclaim anything. Christ reclaims us...all of us. God reclaims us for himself.
quote:
They seem to indicate that there is only one right view - yours - and that you are not very open to the views of others
Louise, I kind of know what you are getting at here, but you state it like it's an intrinsically bad thing.
I believe that 1+1=2. I think that is right, I think it is the only right view. I an not very open to the views of others on this issue. So if you think 1+1=3, I am very sorry, but I do not accord your view any weight.
Clearly, drake believes (possibly incorrectly) that this issue is an issue of this type. Given that he thinks that, it is not suprising he responds in this way. It doesn't neccessarily mean he is wishing to be opinionated and judgemental. He just happens to see this issue in a black and white way. Critisising the manner in which this makes him respond is a pointless exersise.
You should address the assumptions he is making which lead him to stop considering the issue in the same light you or I would consider "1+1=2".
quote:
If I walk on my hands then I am using a part of my body for something it wasn't 'designed' for and which 'naturally' I should be doing with my feet.So let's ban gymnastics - totally unnatural if you ask me.
If you are going to use analogies you should use them in a consistent way.
The consistent application of the analogy for someone who lives a lifetime of homosexual activity would be if someone tried to walk on their hands their whole life and never used their feet.
Gymnastics in the analogy would be the equivilent of having a few homosexual encounters, as opposed to being a homosexual.
Also, no one is suggesting that homosexuality be "banned" (as in your analogy gymnastics is). They are simply saying it is not what God intended and harmful to us.
And we all know that gymnastics can be extremely harmful and result in an increased risk of injuries, precisely because we are using our bodies in unnatural ways.
If you are using the analogy to prove your point then it is a flawed argument. I'm not saying your wrong...but your particular argument is not a convincing one.
Oh dear daisymay you are naughty - LOL!
And Matt - I'm impressed. Even GLE Rachel should not be blushing from that description
Instead of constantly telling us "what God says", as if you are a prophet with a direct line to the Almighty and the only possibly correct interpetation, how about if you tried saying
"What I think God says is..."
or
"What I think the Bible says is..."
or even
"My interpretation of x verse in scripture is y" (whatever that might be).
Then you might not sound as if you believed you were the only person in the world who had a valid opinion on this matter.
Just a suggestion.
Louise
I said:
quote:
Personally, I think this is one of the most beautiful things about homosexual sex: it points to an understanding of sexuality that is unavoidably spiritual, because we cannot pretend that it is about biology and procreation.
Matt replied:
quote:
Joan, you've come up with some good stuff on this thread, then you go and spoil it with this...errmmm...ok. Sorry, I've offended you before but I won't again.Coz there is no procreation involved, the sex is automatically superspirtual?! ha!
I echo your 'ha' a hundred times. However that wasn't what I said I said homosexuality points to an intrinsically spiritual understanding of sexuality (that is, gay or straight). The difference is, for example as Christians we have a spiritual understanding of life. That doesn't mean that every event in life is experienced as spiritual!
The beauty of homosexual sex that I was pointing out was the spiritual nature that it flags up of ALL sex - het and gay. IMHO sex as it should be is spiritual, because sexuality is spiritual. Of course a lot of the time sex isn't - one doesn't have to go banging rent boys to see that That doesn't divorce our sexual nature from our spiritual, it's just an example of sinning.
quote:
Louise, I kind of know what you are getting at here, but you state it like it's an intrinsically bad thing.I believe that 1+1=2. I think that is right, I think it is the only right view. I an not very open to the views of others on this issue. So if you think 1+1=3, I am very sorry, but I do not accord your view any weight.
Clearly, drake believes (possibly incorrectly) that this issue is an issue of this type. Given that he thinks that, it is not suprising he responds in this way. It doesn't neccessarily mean he is wishing to be opinionated and judgemental. He just happens to see this issue in a black and white way. Critisising the manner in which this makes him respond is a pointless exersise.
You should address the assumptions he is making which lead him to stop considering the issue in the same light you or I would consider "1+1=2".
Matt, I don't see
"Criticising the manner in which this makes him respond" as "a pointless exercise. "
I see it as an important one. There are issues on which I hold extremely strong views but if I simply declare 'I'm right and you're all wrong' that is not discussing the matter constructively or helpfully.
In my opinion stating 'God says' rather than 'I think' or 'my view of scripture is' or 'my argument is' is simply another way of stating 'I am right and you are all wrong' and that doesn't seem (to me) to be leaving room for constructive debate.
To go back to the analogy thing, if i decided to walk on my hands for the whole of my life, that would be odd, but I doubt if anyone would consider it to be deeply sinful.
I didn't spell it out but my point was not the physical effects thereof, but that walking on our hands is not something most of us would consider to be earth-shatteringly sinful.
To pick up your point that it's not something we'd do for life.
Right now, as a lifestyle, I am spending hours in front of a computer monitor, an exercise (or should I say lack of it!) which is not exactly good for my body, but which has many other benefits.
It's not using my body for what it was originally designed for, as I'm not a hunter-gatherer in Africa, but I wouldn't say that the only possible life-style for humans is hunter-gathering and that anything else, outside of hunter-gathering, is to be abhorred.
You made some very interesting points earlier about the nature of sinfulness, but I'm too tired to give them the exploration they deserve. Just want to say I'm not lumping you in with DD either.
cheers
Louise
I am sorry for being irritating.
Matt, I truly am not a real funda MENTAL ist. LOL. Unless you mean I think alot. Heh.
Anyhow, I agree with your point about the extreme sinfulness of us all. I know I am.
I would counter with my opinion, as I understand the Bible, that a sin such as homosexuality or fornication or adultery is usually (not always) perpetually lived in as a lifestyle, continued on a daily basis.
The Bible, to me, expresses that we should turn from our old lifestyles and aim to live a more holy life. That doesn't mean we'll always tell the truth, abstain from sex, or always love our neighbor. But it means overall, that is what we do and we avoid sin in its forms as much as possible. I simply don't see where daily living in a homosexual lifestyle is compatible with that.
And very funny about the "aids" BTW. I can't be TOO tight, I did like the joke.
Well, I hope I haven't ruined my chances of making friends on here. Even if I disagree with this, you are all certainly an interesting group.
Why do some gay blokes camp it up so much?
Please see my previous question for the my tiny little toughts on this.
thanks
Simon
Why do some gay men act differently from het men? Well, um, because they're not hets? Why should they be expected to act the same? To save the feelings of tight hets? Welcome back to 23!
Why do some fewer gay men go overboard on the screaming queen routine? Off the top of my head... desire to belong in a community (especially acute for those rejected by most other communities), bonding by shared behaviour (pretty ubiquitious in humanity), defensive persona (again, common amongst the rejected), emphasis of self and difference to overcome repression...
quote:
In reference to lubricants..... <snip>With reference to your 2nd point - I'm not sure I understand, but I'm assuming you mean anal sex is not the prevalent form of sexual activity between gay men?
Point one- saliva or quail grease would do.
Point two- quite correct. 3rd on the range of the activities but first in everybody's minds. As to whether this would make Leviticus irrelevant, I don't know. I mean, if we follow Drake's arguments (more below) it would be impossible for man to lie with man as with woman, as at least one of them is missing the requisite bit of anatomy. In fact, this appears to be prohibiting the impossible, which is fine by me. Or is Leviticus suggesting that man and woman have non-vaginal sex? Perish the thought!
DrakeDetective...
quote:
St--Please, read some biology and then try to tell me that the human body was designed to be sexually interchangeable..far from even the morality of it, homosexual acts are obviously not "in the flow" of natural actions.
As has been said subsequently, this argument is reallly rather PRATT. I don't need to read biology, I'm trained in medicine, thanks all the same.
I can, however, suggest you read some zoology and / or anthropology to see homosexuality occurring, perfectly 'naturally' 'in the wild' so to speak. I suggest you read some history and see that homosexuality has been there in every society in every age.
Would you class heterosexual non-reproductive or non-vaginal sex as 'unnatural'?
So..I suppose my "nature" argument would fail there.
However, while some animals will engage in homosexual activity in unusual circumstances, exclusive homosexuality in animals is virtually unheard of, and even preferential homosexual activity rarely takes place in animals except in those with specific neurological functions impaired, or in lower species, where they are confused by masked phermones.
So IF you were assuming humans were animals then I believe your natural law argument would be highly valid.
The debate is that we are not animals...are not entirely anyway. So do the same rules apply? This is a difficult question because in different cases different trends apply.
For example, as a basic rule, Christianity usually tells us to suppress our animal instincts...or at least have them under control and use them in appropriate time and place. Complete obedience to our instincts would make us animals. The ability to surpass merely instinctive behaviour is one of the defining points of Human nature.
On the other hand, what you so rightly say is that homosexuality does not appear to be an animal instinct in the strict sense as it does not occur in other animals. It seems rather unique to humanity.
This raises a diffcult question, because humanity is a double edge sword. some aspects of it are good, some are bad.
Is homosexuality simply part of the joys of the additional choice, freedom and expression available to us that is not available to animals?
Or is it the fact that our humanity gives us the opportunity to be far more bad than a lower organisim?
A worm can be neither very good or very bad, a dog can be much better or much worse, a man can be better or worse still, a genius man can be a monster or a hero. This continues all the way up the hirachy of existing beings right up to satan himself...a super-human being.
As it stands, the natural law argument does not help us to discover which of these two alternatives is the true state of affairs.
i was hoping not to have to do this again, and maybe i won't but...
matt, if i tell you that the last time we had this debate on this site i pulled out quite a few links to prove that same-sex sexual activity occurs with great frequency in animals in natual settings, will you take my word for it? or will i have to search them out again?
alternatly, they might be on one of the threads in the archive....
quote:
Point one- saliva or quail grease would do.
This whole "medical hygine" argument relating to anal sex seems to me to be spurious.
If this was the reasoning the bible would simply say "do not have anal sex". However, there is no mention specifically of anal sex (correct me if I'm wrong people) so presumably it is ok for heterosexuals. (although my guess is you are not gonna hear that preached from the average pulpit!!!)
And don't kid yourselves that the innocent little people back then didn't know boys and girls could do that kind of thing together. Classic literature is full of it.
quote:
I mean, if we follow Drake's arguments (more below) it would be impossible for man to lie with man as with woman, as at least one of them is missing the requisite bit of anatomy. In fact, this appears to be prohibiting the impossible, which is fine by me. Or is Leviticus suggesting that man and woman have non-vaginal sex? Perish the thought!
I'm saying the following simply exploring the original meaning and purpose of the Leviticus law...not whether we are bound to that law today:
To your comment about non-vaginal sex, It's quite possible I should think, it was a fairly common practice in the ancient world.
However, what is more relevant is that the wording in leviticus is as you say, vague: "lie with a man as a woman" seems to be referring to broad sexual activity than specific act.
I think this is intentional. This is a book of law, and in any legal document, wording is important. I don't think it is mere shyness because the subject happens to be sex which causes the vague wording. As proof of this, check out laws on checking whether or not a girl is a virgin, laws about women grabbing mens balls etc...leviticus is quite direct and clinical about human anatomy and physiology in these cases.
It seems to be vague because it is an inclusive law.
For whatever reason, at that time, in that place, the jewish people believed God did not want them to have sexual relations with men and it was not specifically about anal sex hygine.
quote:
I can, however, suggest you read some zoology and / or anthropology to see homosexuality occurring, perfectly 'naturally' 'in the wild' so to speak.
This is a myth. homosexual acts occur in nature, agreed. However, the animals involved are virtually always bisexual. They just happen to be the randy kind of animals which will shag their way. There is no recorded example in nature of an animal showing intentional, purposeful and persistent homosexual preference.
quote:
matt, if i tell you that the last time we had this debate on this site i pulled out quite a few links to prove that same-sex sexual activity occurs with great frequency in animals in natual settings, will you take my word for it? or will i have to search them out again?
You had better, because you are making assumptions way beyong the evidence.
What the zoological evidence tells us is that homosexual activity occurs in animals. agreed. HOWEVER:
1. These animals are usually, to put it bluntly, randy species which are highly promiscuous in their normal heterosexual behaviour. These animals are not the best examples. male dogs will mount other dogs when they get randy...agreed. However, they will also mount peoples legs, tree stumps..soft toys etc. It prooves nothing.
2. very rarely occurring in preference to heterosexual activity. Give two male dogs a bitch to play with and the only "mounting" they will do of each other is having a fight over who can get to mate with her first!
3. To my knowledge never occurring as the exclusive sexual preference of any other animal. That is to say, there is not any animal anywhere in the world which turns it's nose up at heterosexual sex if given the opportunity without the opportunity of homosexual activity.
The only exception to that is some research done into specific nuro-transmitters and their genetic controls in mice which enabled them to produce exclusively gay mice in the lab.
Incidently, to reiterate what I said. The natural law argument is in itself only a single piece of evidence anyway...I'm not actually sure which side of the arugment it benefits to be honest. Read the whole of my previous post.
Take for example "smoking". Nobody gets upset if the church talking about smoking says "Hate the Sin Love the Sinner".
There are no proposals put forward in synod that smokers should not be allowed to be priests.
On first becoming a christian (except in a few fundie churches) a smoker is not expected to give up smoking immediately.
Smokers don't get all offended and say that it is to do with their identity.
Sorry, I may have offended some people with this, but I wanted to give examples of how both sides react (rightly or wrongly).
Still if smoking caused the same upsets it would give a whole new meaning to sites like "We Hate fags"
hope these all work ok.
[URLs fixed, subsequent posts correcting them deleted]
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Seems like threads on sex always lead to everyone vougeing and looking over shoulders. 
I think it has something to do with the intenseness of the human body and the gift of sex from God. 
Has anyone heard of the Theology of the Body (TOB). Indirectly it has something to do with this thread. The TOB suprised me and made some things like Sex, the Trinity, the Body and our ultimate destiny in heaven stick together. Talking about strange bed-fellows. Caramba!
Here are 6 one page articles by Christopher West who gives conferences on the significance of the Theology of the Body (TOB).
Basically these articles try to show that our religions should not be going around saying "Spirit good. Body Bad!". The body is very good because it symbolizes the essence of the Trinity. The TOB is much more complex than that and I am sure I am butchering the ideas and making your skin rumple. So just check out the articles.
Here are the articles:
1. Naked Without Shame: Behind the Fig Leaves
2. Naked Without Shame: The Scandal of the Body
3. Naked Without Shame: The Great Divorce
4. Naked Without Shame: Epiphany of the Body
5. Naked Without Shame: Karol Wojtyla's Cure for Cancer
6. Naked Without Shame: God, Sex, and the Meaning of Life
This is what I get out of the articles: the male and female body when loving fully are physical symbols of God's life giving esssence. This idea is not a club to beat over anyone's head. This is a proposal of what love and sex originally were meant in God's original plan before original sin.
[UBB fixed]
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Re: homosexuality in other animals - I'm not sure that's either here or there. A human understanding of sex is more than the understanding of other animals - there are the emotional and spiritual elements as well. Biology only becomes important if you take it as pre-eminent, in which case you need a concept of all sex being purely procreative, so as I said you need to be anti-contraception (including rhythm method) and ignore the emotional and spiritual aspects of sex. If you won't go there then you can't use biology as an argument against homosexuality because it won't hold together.
However, don't despair Drake - there is a 'natural' argument out there that you can use. Basically, the only 'natural' argument that's ever got anywhere is number 3). As far as I've seen it is along the lines that a natural (in the sense of in line with God's purposes) necessity in sexual relations is the 'complementarity' of male and female (this is not simply in terms of biology - it's more sophisticated than a 'what fits where' argument). Homosexual sexual relations are defined thus as unnatural because they do not incorporate the required complementarity.
IMNSVHO this falls down (primarily on the fact that I have not yet seen an argument for the uniqueness of this type of complementarity), but it's an argument I at least respect enough to engage with, rather than the 'what fits where' argument which one just has to stand back and watch trip over its own feet as soon as it's out of the starting blocks
I'm afraid I don't have any references for this natural law argument - if I find any within the natural (ho ho) lifetime of this thread then I'll post 'em.
Can we talk about body theology now? That's what I think one of the real issues is - as I posted before and Matt misunderstood, I think the phenomenon of homosexual sexual love at its best gives us a clear example of the spirtual and the physical inseparably linked. Basically, sexual love is an act of creation, in some cases of babies and in all cases of real love of creation of the bond between two people and a spiritual entity that is more than the individuals concerned. With het sex we can kid ourselves that the latter isn't there - "it's just for making babies, that's all" - but with gay sex we can see the latter creation uncluttered, and IMHO a part of God's creation and intention, for both gay and straight.
quote:
Originally posted by simon 2:
Why do some gay blokes camp it up so much?
Joan the Dwarf:
quote:
" babies ... and ... love ...
With het sex we can kid ourselves that the latter isn't there - "it's just for making babies, that's all"
Please show me the robotic wanker in the 21st century who kids herself/himself into believing that sex does not feel good to herself and/or his/her partner?
The point that good sex deepens the bond between the two - even if the bond is non-existant before the act is known like the palm of my hand. Not knowing what sex was - was the problem before the sexual revolution. Right? People were so Victorian and uptight that they needed to be coerced into thinking about sex as fun and potentially full of love.
The Sexual Revolution (thank God) changed all that. June Cleaver is long gone. Ward Cleaver went before June. And Beaver Cleaver and Eddie Haskel are getting them some while Wally waits his turn in the hall.
Gay love is good for many things and is a beautiful human thing but I wouldn't say that it is by definition a higher spiritual love than het love. Because it cannot create a baby makes it more spiritual?
Honestly I strain and nothing comes out on this one.
As far as church matters are concerned, I wanted to climb up a Cathedral tower recently, and bought a ticket just as it had come to the end of the roll (where the coloured dye starts to show). The steward handed me my ticket and in his campest voice said 'ooooh, you've got a pretty pink one!' which sent my young son into stitches - it made his day as much as the tower climb.
OK, I'll try and say this for the fourth time, hopefully clearer than the previous three Sniffy: "by definition a higher spiritual love than het love. Because it cannot create a baby makes it more spiritual?"
No, no no and no! Honestly, someone ought to invent telepathy then we wouldn't have these misunderstandings. Here's the hopefully unambigous version of what I was saying:
I place het and gay sex on an exact level emotionally and spiritually.
Het sex can also produce babies.
Some people can get hung up on a biological justification for sex (ie all sex must be about procreation).
Less extremely, some people can say that the primary function of het sex is to have babies, anything else is just a nice side-effect.
Both of these are ways in which people can chose to denigrate the emotional and spiritual aspects of sex.
Neither of these are available cop-outs when considering gay sex.
Gay sex is a plainer example of what all sex is. IMHO it shows that the emotional and spiritual parts of sex are valid ends in themselves, quite apart from the biological (but NOT apart from the physical). That is why I find it beautiful.
Gay sex is as spiritual or as unspiritual as making-baby sex. Gay sex helps us see this side to All sex, gay and straight.
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:I think the phenomenon of homosexual sexual love at its best gives us a clear example of the spirtual and the physical inseparably linked. Basically, sexual love is an act of creation, in some cases of babies and in all cases of real love of creation of the bond between two people and a spiritual entity that is more than the individuals concerned. With het sex we can kid ourselves that the latter isn't there - "it's just for making babies, that's all" - but with gay sex we can see the latter creation uncluttered, and IMHO a part of God's creation and intention, for both gay and straight.
Gay relationships (I am thinking of stable couples in their social context, not anonymous trips to Soho to find rent boys) are also a powerful statement about the magnificent arbitrariness and unnecessariness of love and desire – gay and straight. It shows us that the sexual love is not just an evolutionary imperative to ensure the survival of the species, or a mindless succumbing to your family’s expectations, or acquiring a status symbol or suitable parent for your children, a path to social acceptability or (getting all feminist now, are we?) an exercise of patriarchal power, but a gift from God.
If you’re gay, you can’t really demand that your partner stay chained to the kitchen sink where she belongs and give up her career to cook your dinners. You don’t find yourself making out with a same sex peer at a teenage disco because all your friends are doing it. You don’t move in with your gay lover because your parents are moaning at you to settle down. (Though it would certainly shut them up if you did.)
But the fact that gay people pursue relationships against all social expectation and sometimes in the face of extreme prejudice, is in itself a statement of the strength of a bond of sexual love, even when uncalled for and unsought for and unsupported by a social stamp of approval.
Of course, I’m not saying all straight relationships are full of gender stereotyping and nasty power games and that gay ones are always full of sweetness and sharing.
Only that it is generally an example of a type of relationship which can have no purpose or compensation except in the enjoyment of itself. Perhaps it is this which can embarrass people - a relationship with that degree of nakedness.
(I was wrong earlier – it looks as though this thread is about sex after all. Ulp.)
I'm not impressed. The books by Bruce Bagemihl and such are not research papers. You can write anything you like in a book. It makes some valid points, but at the end of the day it is not a scientific study.
In general, all the studies seem to be reiterating something we already knew; in some species (usually those which are promiscuous anyway) have sexual activity with the same sex. All these documents you listed make this point very well because it's well attested to, it's old news. What they then do is slide in the supposition this is exclusive based on far less compelling evidence.
And to return to my point, the nature argument is not valid for Christians anyway, since we are set apart from animals. What is right for them is not neccessarily right for us. What is right for us is not neccessarily right for them.
quote:
Originally posted by Elaine from the bar:But the fact that gay people pursue relationships against all social expectation and sometimes in the face of extreme prejudice, is in itself a statement of the strength of a bond of sexual love, even when uncalled for and unsought for and unsupported by a social stamp of approval.
(I was wrong earlier – it looks as though this thread is about sex after all. Ulp.)
Hey Elaine- well said. Very 'cue swelling quasi-romantic God-Bless-America' type music.
Of course the thread is about sex. When heterosexuals start discussing gay people sex is, depressingly, always top of the agenda (OK, there's an occasional 'who's the mand, who's the woman').
I must agree with Joan that the 'natural/unnatural' argument is a bit of a red herring 'cos we will never be able to know what is 'natural' for humankind, and of course this doesn't necessarily fit in with God's scheme of things.
Mad Medic
We agree on something at least, that you can't argue to humans from ethology (sorry Desmond Morris), even if I may have brought this into the discussion.
Still, considering how much writing there is in the Bible, and how much of it is genuinely concerned with homosexuality (statistically negligble), it's amazing how people get so hot under the collar about it. Methinks this is man's perennial habit of twisting religion to suit his own biases.
Still not sure where I stand in Joan's list, but I know I care more about my friend as a person than what he does in the bedroom. The rest is up for debate (as we have well seen) and really is up to God to figure it out. It just ain't my place to decide what is a sin and what is not.
Thanks one and all for giving me so much to consider. (Especially Joan for stretching what I think.) Also thanks for the encouragement that there are other Christians out there that aren't afraid to discuss sensitive issues.
quote:
Originally posted by St Rumwald:
Point one- saliva or quail grease would do
OK, I take your point(s) and withdraw my earlier comments about hygiene, which were made in all innocence. I am finding all this very educational, and you will all be pleased to know that you have made me blush! 
!
Whatever we all think about this, I hope we are agreed that we'd like homosexual people to be welcome in the church. How they live out their Christian life can only, in the final analysis, be their choice. I believe that fs our moral choices are only made because they are forced upon us from outside, they become meaningless. All I can say, is that I am really glad that I have brothers ans sisters in Christ who are gay, and I'm pretty sure God's glad to have you with Him as well! I am also sure that you can all educate me a whole lot, but please only do it on the boards where you can't se me blushing!
All the best,
Rachel.
), here' Everything you wanted to ask about lesbians but were afraid to (well, lots of it anyway). Not explicit (well, not that explicit ), and follow the link at the bottom for the second page. If you dare, follow the link on the right for the gay men one - it's a wee bit more x-rated, so I won't link direct to it Oh, and note: SHIP OF FOOLS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF EXTERNAL SITES!!!!!!
Education's fun
quote:
matt, did you actually read the gay sheep article
As I said before (and I'll say again). It makes not one iota of difference to the debate where humans are concerned.
Yes. I did. I wasn't impressed. It appeared on the personal homepage of some guy. It was based on a "study" done by some postgrad student.
Come on! Post-grad students do "research studys" on some of the most bizzare things for their PHds. It prooves nothing whatsoever.
The student made several subjective comments, but the only statistic mentioned was "8% of sheep are gay" or something like that. To which I reply "92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot".
I wanna see the hard figures. Standard Deviations. P-values etc.
HOWEVER....to reiterate AGAIN. As people on both sides of the argument have said, I really couldn't care less if the whole of the rest of the mammalian Kingdom were subscribers to "We Hate Fags Monthly" or if they were buggering each other sideways.
It wouldn't make a jot of difference to us humans, because as all Christians know, Humans are not just animals right?
The rights and wrongs of the animal Kingdom are not directly referable to us.
The question was genuine, and your answer was pretty much the same as what I thought might be the case. It may seem very silly but I would not want to pressume any form of behaviour is driven by whatever motive if I don't do that. Just along the lines of nobody knows the heart of a person except that person themselves and God.
So it is essentially for the same reason that het blokes might act laddish and loutish. To fit in and belong. This might be another whole thread so sorry if it is, but with het blokes who 'lad it up' all I can see is really personal insecurity, some lack of real deep self worth and identity, and so a group is needed for personal identity. And so one might say the same for gay blokes I geuss. But then a personal insecurity is more understandable from a gay bloke who has had swim against the tide one way or another.
thanks again joan
Simon
I think that's right as far as the 'over the top' camping is concerned. Boys being camp (or girls being butch) at all is a different matter, and one I still haven't fully worked out. The stereotype of all gay boys wanting to be girls and all gay girls wanting to be boys is rubbish, but less extrememly and by no means pertaining to everyone, gay boys tend to be less laddish and gay girls less girlie. Being repelled by insensitive laddishness could, I guess, lead people to being attracted to a more feminine modus operandi. I don't know.
One thing I find interesting is a description of a camp man in 'The Well of Loneliness' (v. famous lesbian book). This was written early last century, before being camp was widely seen as a defining feature of gay men, before even there was a language to talk about this - it's quite amusing to read descriptions of small hand movements and high-pitched voices etc and then suddenly think 'oh yes, that character's being camp'. So it seems to be a part of a lot of mens' experience of being gay.
I don't know. I'm kind of groping in the dark as far as blokes are concerned. From the other direction, I know I'm less feminine than most straight women... I was a regular tomboy as a child, until I was developed enough that I couldn't be mistaken for a boy. Even then I just couldn't get into this girlie thing, despite trying for so many years because I was told by all and sundry and society that I ought to and I was warped because I wasn't happy with my femininity.
Rambling even further from the original point, I think this sort of assault on gender stereotypes that gays make by our existance is another thing that can get hets anxious or feel threatened. A female who feels uncomfortable wearing dresses and who does some things most commonly thought of as 'male' yet who has no desire to be male can be quite puzzling and disturbing to some people!
I see the laddish aggression and competitiveness and really quite bad.
Definitely another thread I know, But I really dont get on with competitiveness, and I hear so many christians proclaiming it as a virtue. I mean where in the bible does it say, beat everyone whenever you can. The race is personal, marked out for each indicidual. This is something I would love to explore further if anybody else wants to too.
I find this discussion on the right or wrongness of it all challenges my paradigm on sexuality. And that hurts me a bit. But almost all I believe is up for grabs. I don't want to join in right or wrongness as I know nothing (manuel style).
cheers
Si
Sorry everyone, I will try to read what I write, well I do, but never spot the mistakes till later.
Simon
quote:
Gay sex is a plainer example of what all sex is. IMHO it shows that the emotional and spiritual parts of sex are valid ends in themselves, quite apart from the biological (but NOT apart from the physical). That is why I find it beautiful.Gay sex is as spiritual or as unspiritual as making-baby sex. Gay sex helps us see this side to All sex, gay and straight.
Nice. I agree that gay sex is a plainer example of what sex is because it shows sex to be firmly rooted in the physical and emotional world. It also shows that humans alone, when all is said and done, are in charge of their sexual realities and experiences. It shows that there does not have to be the possibility of a biological reason for sex.
I also would like to enhance that thought with the fact that contraception makes het love very close if not the same as gay love. It's our attempt to remove biological justification from het sex. So, het and gay sex both point out this beautiful clarity of sex for sex's sake.
At the same time this sex for sex's sake has been there for eons, regardless of gay or contraception sex. There have always been people who could not conceive. Gay sex and contraception sex do not alone make the point that sex is good just for sex's sake. There are many couples that cannot conceive and these people were born that way.
Is het-contraception sex, gay sex and cannot-conceive sex the same thing? Are they better or worse than plain ol' naked het sex?
Where does the Trinity fit in this? By the Trinity, I mean that The Father (representing the Creator) and the Son (representing the Incarnation) generated the Holy Spirit. That is the Father "knowing" (in the full biblical meaning of that word:rolleyes the Son generated the Holy Spirit (or Third Person of the Trinity). The fact that we are created in God's image and that God creates through intimate "knowledge" has me on the fence on this issue.
Is our love supposed to be open to life because it seems to be God's very essence to be a creator based on love? And I don't simply mean to create "love" but a person with a soul who is capable of union with God. And are gay couples, contracepting-het couples and cannot-conceive couples not fully imaging God's essence by their incomplete acts?
Huh? Not sure if I was able to get across my questions there. Hey, it's no fair when your brain smells of Vodka and Cranberry.
I really can't say anything more than repeat yet again:
quote:
Gay sex is as spiritual or as unspiritual as making-baby sex. Gay sex helps us see this side to ALL sex, gay and straight.
I would add: gay couples are a public statement of this side of sex - you don't have to know the details (ie whether they use contraception or are infertile) to know they aren't going to procreate biologically.
And no, sexuality as spiritual isn't modern - as I'm arguing that it's natural then I wouldn't be saying that, would I!
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
I don't know. I'm kind of groping in the dark as far as blokes are concerned.
Erm..... 
As a former funda-definitelymental-ist, I've had to deal with the issues of sexuality as part of my own journey towards wholeness.
I came out as a lesbian ten years ago now, and had to leave the Church in order to do so. It felt like it was either the deepest instincual part of me, or my faith. And I couldn't believe in a God who would tell me that everything I was feeling (and I'd been a Christian for nine years or more) was wrong.
I've known God do an awful lot of healing in my life. I can point to ways in which I have been changed through prayer, some sudden, some more slowly.
And yet, despite many frantic, desparate, heart-felt pleas, God did not change my sexual orientation.
It took Metropolitan Community Church, and a lot of God-incidences to help me realise that I can integrate my faith and my sexuality - that they can even inspire and help eachother, as Joan has been saying.
I have a partner, also a Christian. We have a committed, monogomous relationship. And we have seen God working through us, ministering as a couple, to people around us. Our prayer has always been to have God at the centre of our relationship. And that we were - and are- willing to give up anything in our relationship that was displeasing to God.
All we have seen are blessings. And those around us who know us will add their support and testimony to this.
We try and live by the "meat before idols" principle - we are discreet when in church and do not "flaunt" our sexuality or our relationship. Because we don't want to cause offense to anyone who does believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful. And while there are times that we have cried, and longed for a "marriage-of-sorts" type ceremony to affirm our love and committment in the heart of the congregation where we worship, I think that realistically, this is a long way off.
I'm rambling a bit now, and congrats to anyone who's read this far...
Peace,
Kirsti
Won't be joining in this debate been here several times before on these boards.
Though it has to be said my opinion has changed as a result has any one elses?
.. the gay men=camp thing... my personal theory on that, and on the very "aggressive butch" attitude you see from some lesbians.. the whole "loud and proud, in yer face" attitude...
... I think comes from a deep sense of hurt at being left out of society, a feeling of rejection at some level.
And then it's all too easy for that hurt and rejection to swing into "Well, I'm going to be NOTHING like them! I'm going to be different! And I'm going to show just how different I can be!" - and thus you get the sort of behaviours mentioned above.
And sadly, the gay subculture seems to embody a lot of the worst of these. And, if you're feeling isolated and insecure, the subculture offers instant acceptance - and its own, easy to follow, rules of behaviour, dress, conduct, reading material, festivals ...
(and yes, someday I'm going to write an essay on the parallels between that and the evangelical Christian sub-culture)
Peace,
Kirsti
quote:
(and yes, someday I'm going to write an essay on the parallels between that and the evangelical Christian sub-culture)
Please do, as an evangelical christian who cannot stand the evangelical sub-culture I hope that it will be a best seller
LOL
quote:
Originally posted by Lizzabee:
It just ain't my place to decide what is a sin and what is not.
Lizzabee,
If you're a thinking human being then that's exactly what you have to decide. You're responsible for your own conduct. If you have children, you're going to have to teach them right from wrong to the best of your ability.
What it isn't our place to do is to impose our individual ideas of what's sinful or not sinful on other people (over and above that minimum consensus of values that is necessary for community life).
Both those who seek to use the Bible to impose their conservative views, and those who seek to use their victimhood to impose their right to do whatever feels good, are equally IMHO on the wrong path.
I'm very impressed with Inanna's post combining humility, self-acceptance, and concern for the feelings of others. Whatever inner resources or community situation make this sort of maturity possible, I pray that they may grow to be available to all.
Russ
(PS: sorry to quote my own post, but couldn't resist highlighting the contrast between the view that we're all "broken" and Matt's view that we're all "bad").
I can't imagine what it must've been like for an evo to come out - I'm finding it difficult enough as an anglo-catholic!
I've written more about my coming out journey hereif anyone wants to read.
And Joan - actually, converting to Catholicism has helped me grow more secure in my sexual identity as a part of my whole personhood. The Catholic teaching of "conscience" as your guide, and what you will be judged on when you stand before God is incredibly freeing, and a wonderful invitation to develop a mature adult faith. Yes, we have to inform our consciences by knowing what the Bible says, what the Church teaches, but also what psychology and science tells us, and, most importantly, what the voice of God-living-in-me, and my gut instincts tell me.
I'd disagree with the "we are inherantly sinful" theology. I much prefer Russ's brokenness. But, when I was baptized, I became a "new creation". God didn't just throw a white sheet over my old, sinful nature. Instead, I am now living from God's Spirit within me.
Anyway, before I get into rambling again.. thank you for the warm welcome. I spent most of today feeling incredibly vulnerable wondering if there were going to be any replies and if so, how people would react. I can breathe slightly easier now.
Peace,
Kirsti
Personally, it's really good hearing from someone who's further down the line from me and is female - a consequence of being AC is that all my 'role models' of gay christians are male ! Also someone who's reached an accommodation within themselves about their church - I've nearly left the Anglican church on many many occasions over the last months because I felt unable to reach a healthy one.
quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:
.. the gay men=camp thing... my personal theory on that, and on the very "aggressive butch" attitude you see from some lesbians.. the whole "loud and proud, in yer face" attitude...... I think comes from a deep sense of hurt at being left out of society, a feeling of rejection at some level.
And then it's all too easy for that hurt and rejection to swing into "Well, I'm going to be NOTHING like them! I'm going to be different! And I'm going to show just how different I can be!" - and thus you get the sort of behaviours mentioned above.
And sadly, the gay subculture seems to embody a lot of the worst of these. And, if you're feeling isolated and insecure, the subculture offers instant acceptance - and its own, easy to follow, rules of behaviour, dress, conduct, reading material, festivals ...
...which then leads to even more and stronger reactions from those who believe that homosexuality is not acceptable.
If the idea of peanut butter and banana sandwiches disgusts me, and that is OK, why is it not OK for the idea of homosexuality to disgust me? Others may like peanut butter and banana sandwiches - I'd just prefer if they did not put them on my plate or eat them in front of me.
(running quickly, because I expect to get jumped on for this...)
how has anyone ever attempted to force gayness on you? were you the victem of a rape attempt? thats the only possible comparison, and that not a good one, to someone trying to put a peanut butter and banana sandwich on your plate. as to eating one in front of you, i'm sure you would be annoyed if, as you were about to dig into your nice rare roast beef at a restaurant, someone came up to you and said "i'm a vegetarian and i find that disgusting, so you mustn't do it."
quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:
thank you for the warm welcome. I spent most of today feeling incredibly vulnerable wondering if there were going to be any replies and if so, how people would react. I can breathe slightly easier now.
Hi Inanna. As a fellow newbie I completely understand your anxiety - I have been feeling just the same over my computer-less weekend, having posted on this thread last week for my first venture into Purg (perhaps, for my own peace of mind, I should have worked up from a less controversial topic!) even though I'd not said anything as personal as you have.
I appreciated your posts and am glad you felt that you could share your experience here.
From what I've seen of Purgatory, most people do realise that it takes a lot of courage to share their personal experiences and they will respect that in their responses.
Dodgy arguments, on the other hand, may get ripped apart - but even then people don't tend to jump down your throat unless you're being insufferably arrogant.
I like to think that the Ship is a safe space for vulnerability and uncertainty.
So, welcome, and thank you for joining us.
Inanna - I second Elaine's comments, the Ship is a safe place. It's very safe to explore in as well: I've found people have been pretty patient with me, even when I go into one of my ultra-agressive moods
Elaine - I should've said, thanks for your posts, they both made valuable contributions.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If the idea of peanut butter and banana sandwiches disgusts me, and that is OK, why is it not OK for the idea of homosexuality to disgust me? Others may like peanut butter and banana sandwiches - I'd just prefer if they did not put them on my plate or eat them in front of me.
I think that the main difference with this is that there are all sorts of other things to eat other than peanut butter and banana sandwiches (can I also add an 'ew' at the idea?). And even their most devoted advocate would not suggest a diet solely of such substance.
But, for those of us who are lesbian and gay, there really is no other alternative when it comes to relationships. We don't have the choice to "eat something else" (OK, I know there's an innuendo there, but I'll keep this PG for now )
So it's a case of trying to compare apples and oranges - the analogy doesn't really hold up....
And as for your other point about the cycle continuing - absolutely. I think it's such a real shame that the image most heterosexual Christians have of gays and lesbians is:
a) entirely focused on our sex lives
and b) based on the worst stereotypes from gay pride parades and the 'angry vocal' minority.
And likewise, I'm sure there are way too many gays and lesbians who sterotype Christians as narrow-minded and homophobic.
[I]Peace,[I]
Kirsti, who thinks that discussions like this are a great place to break past those stereotypes.
Welcome aboard. Yes, we are very glad to have your thoughtful and considerate responses on this thread. Homosexuality is a frequently recurring topic on the Ship, and we hope that we provide a safe place for people to explore ideas on the subject. As long as posters are obeying the Ship's Ten Commandments (most important ones in this context: Don't Be A Jerk and Attack The Issue, Not The Person), all views are welcome.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Inanna... you seem familiar... did you use to post here, way back in the beginning?
[/tangent]
.. and yes, I did. Way way way waaaaaaaaaaay back.
Kirsti, very impressed with your memory.
Hello matey, do you remember me? I met you at Holy Joes about 3 years ago and raved on about your website.. now if you do remember me from way back then I will be VERY impressed.
Welcome back,
...Lev
I'm interested to know how you went from fundamentalisim to Catholicsim though?
I guess you found catholic attitudes to homosexuality more in line with your own, but there must have been an awful lot of other issue's to weigh up on the other side of the scales?
Some of you may remember Ann Widdicombe becoming catholic over the issue of women priests?? (I think I am remembering that correctly?)
It struck me that whatever I felt about women priests a single issue wouldn't get me changing denominations like that.
Thanks for the kind words.
And actually, the official position/teaching of the Catholic church is about the same as evangelicals - they don't believe that the orientation is sin, but is "objectively disordered" (I think that's the phrase).
Most of this is based on Aquinas's natural law argument, which ends up saying that masturbation is a greater evil than rape or incest (*boggles quietly to herself*) and hence one I feel free to respectfully replace with a more up to date theology.
As far as my reasons for converting.. I'm not quite sure they belong in this thread, but are mainly to do with the sacramental view of life and faith as a Catholic. I no longer have to "work really hard" to try and believe or feel God's presence, or hope for an ecstatic worship experience ... the Eucharist promises that God will be present, whether I believe or not, whether the priest believes it, or not ... it's about God, not about me. Which I really really like.
Peace,
Kirsti
Thanks Erin for the welcome-back message... good to know that I'm still remembered.
And Lev, OK, I had to surf through your website looking at all the past piccies, but yes, I do indeed remember you being so nice about my webpages at HJs way back when.
[/random chatter]
I was talking with a good friend of mine last night who is doing his personal journey with his sexuality. One of the things that was poigniant in our conversation was that he hoped that we could go beyond the support stuff and start of really talk about the issue and to work through this part of our relationship.
My friend said that this journey is dangerous particularly in the church world and some have already felt that the friendship is too much to take on emotionally and so do not make the necessary time for various reasons
The challenge for me as a friend is issues around accompaniment. For me - it is my friend who has the integrity to be working through the truth of his sexuality in his life and my integrity is working through what it means to be a friend in spaces that are hostile to my friends situation.
For some who I worship and work with this can either a) question me and my judgement or
b) alienate me for stuff that I wish to do because of association issues
c) Respect the fact that this person is first and foremost a friend prior to disclosure. I wish it were c) all the time but it is not a perfect world!!
I am not sure whether we have engaged with the accompanying part of this issue especially for friends who might be people who have a higher profile.
Be interesting to hear some more views on accompaniment in church life.
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
It does not, however, give me any sort of moral etc right to tell hets to stop what they're doing or even to call it sinful.
Quite so, and whilst we're at it, can't we come up with a better word than "hets"? Apart from anything else, it's so naff. We have to be so careful about what we call others. Well, FWIT, I am offended by the word "hets" simply because it's such an ugly abuse of the English language. Much worse than those "odd" boys who've hijacked that lovely English word "gay".
OK, the last sentence was ironic (in the sense of "some people won't get the humour") but please! "HETS"???? "Homos" went out even when I was a lad so "hets" can't be any better.
Where are the shipmates with imagination who can come up with some terminology (if we must have it) that neither offends anybody nor is an abuse of the language?
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
Where are the shipmates with imagination who can come up with some terminology (if we must have it) that neither offends anybody nor is an abuse of the language?
unfortunately, i don't think it's gonna happen. no-one likes to be defined by what they do, and the only words that can define these two groups of people obviously centre in on the differences. someone is gonna be offended by whatever is written... unless we can come up with some unloaded, completely unrelated terms picked at random from the dictionary...
um: "kidney-machines" and "swiggletrees"???
(mind u... i'm sure we could find someone who found those offensive, if we searched hard enough!)
Joan the Dwarf's use of that word immediately turns me off anything else she has to say, especially when coupled with her quite aggressive style (IMO).
Thankfully we have, by contrast, Inanna, who puts her case very reasonably and has probably got the attention and respect of the likes of myself and Matt the M.M. (who I believe share a similar starting point of view on the subject).
I've appreciated and enjoyed reading Joan's comments, and - IMHO - if she's sounded agressive, that's probably because she's felt like she has to defend her corner in the face of attacks.
When you're just coming out, and just dealing with all this, and the attitudes of the established church, and your own feelings of "I've always thought this must be wrong, but help, it's me, and it doesn't feel wrong at all.." it's very easy to see rejection and shock everywhere. And get defensive as a result of that.
Me, I've lived with this for a while, I have an incredibly supportive Christian partner, we have a great church (they hired my partner as assistant music minister knowing she was lesbian, and the priest there gave the two of us a private 'engagement blessing' service..) and I've done an awful lot of reading, of thinking, and of praying to get to a point where I'm reasonably secure in my faith and my sexuality.
Joan - you're doing great. Keep listening to God, listening to your instincts, and email me if you want to talk off-board.
Peace
Kirsti
On this and so many other topics, I have many more questions than answers....
I don't like the word 'het', which I'd not come across before reading this thread - Joan's defence of it is rational, I see that, but there's no denying the ugliness of the word. And, although I have used the word in my previous posts as the lesser of the two evils, I don't particularly like being referred to as 'straight', either - it suggests I don't get to crack any gags, which is a shame.
Language, hey. Insoluble problems. We'll just have to make do.
On another note, I don't find the tone of Joan's posts aggressive. They come across to me as confident and intelligent. I hope I'm not just saying that because I pretty much agree with them... I don't think so.
I must admit I had doubts whether a thread on this topic could avoid becoming a storm thread, but, apart from a couple of hairy moments, I have been impressed by posters' restraint and courtesy.
And Inanna - I see I shouldn't have referred to you as a newbie!
'.One of my irritations after the claiming of the word gay by the homosexual community. Is the word 'partner' to mean some one we are having sexual relations with. Partner used to mean some one I did sketchs with the person i worked with.
Joan said:
quote:
I was wondering about taking back my comments that the Ship was a safe place after Alaric's comments, which I found pretty brutal and upsetting.
The Ship being a safe place does not mean that you (or your style) will be accepted without question, or that everyone will like you. I strongly encourage people here to take stock of what they say before they say it, particularly if it is on highly personal subject. Alaric had as much right to his comments as others had to object to them.
Community Editor hat OFF
quote:
Nightlamp wrote:
One of my irritations after the claiming of the word gay by the homosexual community. Is the word 'partner' to mean some one we are having sexual relations with. Partner used to mean some one I did sketchs with the person i worked with.
That's a tough one. Because what else can I use to describe the woman I love, who has been a part of my life for seven years, and who I hope will be with me until the end of it. Our relationship, our love, consists of an awful lot more than just "sexual relations" Nightlamp - just as any husband would say of his wife that their marriage is more than just what goes on in the bedroom.
I don't like to use "girlfriend" - we're both in our 30s, and it seems somewhat teenager-ish.
I don't really want to use "lover" because, as I said above, our relationship is about an awful lot more than sex. And "lover" seems to be heading for the "rubbing-it-in-people's-faces" which really isn't appropriate in my book.
And I can't use "wife" because we have no official marriage ceremony. (Though I have called her my fiancee on occasions.)
"Life-partner" is way too cumbersome and unwieldy, as is "significant other" (and that also implies that everyone else in my life is non-significant, which certainly isn't the case). "Companion" sounds like I'm an old lady being taken care of, which is also nowhere near the truth.
So any other suggestions as to a word which encompasses the depth of a loving committed relationship, while not offending anyone, or taking more than a few syllables to spell out would be very welcome.
Peace,
Kirsti
No, Alaric's comments do not constitute personal attack. It seems to me Erin's already made that clear.
Host hat off
I have always felt the need, however, to make sure that people don't equate safe with unchallenged or universally liked. It saves me from work in the end.
Some of the forms of work I have done have meant more than working togther it was an entire life style we were partners then and as far as i am concerned they are my ex partners.
And no, Alaric has not violated a 10c in his content. It was the nastiness in his tone I was objecting to, hence I didn't yell for the hosts. My last post about the 10c's was a cheap jibe at Erin because I was angry at being told off for being upset - I was trying to pick a fight with you, thankyou for not rising to the bait.
Erin: "I have always felt the need, however, to make sure that people don't equate safe with unchallenged or universally liked. It saves me from work in the end."
For me, safe=safe to challenge and be challenged. As shown by the first 3.5 pages of this thread
Peace? Or have I missed something?
Back to the thread: maybe it'd be useful to have 2 words, for writing and speaking. In speech I've often heard "other half" (only one more syllable than "partner"), and if thats too much to write then in text I've seen "SO" (for Significant Other). Just don't mix 'em up - calling t'other half your "Esso" in speech might get you a few wierd looks and petrol-station comments
I have to admit that I read this topic because I find it so mind-boggling that homosexuality is such a big issue for so many heterosexual people. I guess somehow I lucked out and didn't pick up any early indoctrination about it, so as I grew up and became sexually aware of people, I just gradually discovered that there were different sexual attractions and added it to the long list of attributes that people have in our minds which causes our brain to sort them into interesting/sexual, interesting/nonsexual, boring.
The much more challenging question to me is how to deal with the sexual urges of the adolescent and young adult (without pushing them into early marriage and children) while also creating a civil and religious system that creates and supports stable 'families' which DO provide the proper environment for raising children? And I put the emphasis on *stable*, which is why the 'families' is in quotes.
I realize that for good bible-based Christians, this is just blather, so don't bother arguing with me. But I had to say it.
quote:
Joan suggested:
In speech I've often heard "other half" (only one more syllable than "partner"), and if thats too much to write then in text I've seen "SO" (for Significant Other). Just don't mix 'em up - calling t'other half your "Esso" in speech might get you a few wierd looks and petrol-station comments
Yeah, I tend to use SO online a fair bit - problem is that very few non-net-literate folks have any clue what it stands for.
As for 'other half' this is a peeve of mine and probably belongs in a Hell-bend rant ... I really dislike the implications that I am somehow giving up half of myself by joining in a relationship. Also, for me at least, it has somewhat sexist connotations where it's used in a demeaning way.. "my better half", when in actual fact, he means "the little woman at home" kind of thing. [disclaimer]Please note, I don't mean this about all men, or all people who use that phrase. this is purely my own gut reaction to it.[/disclaimer]
And for a lot of what was written, I would have to say it was just that - depths of fear and angst which clouded rational thinking and gave rise to the same kind of adolescent "humour" with which so many of us try to hide our deep-seated uneasiness at anything remotely related to sex, especially its physical manifestations. I'm afraid I was less than impressed with a lot of the semi-flippant interchange, especially when it deviated into a kind of delighted recognition and greeting of old friends like that which you see at school reunions.
On the other hand I did appreciate the serious discussions by those who either attempted to exegete the biblical passages involved, or by talking openly of their own experiences gave me a fresh insight into what it's like to be homosexual in a heterosexually oriented Church. Thank you - there are too many of you to mention by name.
I should perhaps confess that I have never had any doubt that I am veryheterosexual, and that I have in fact had very little to do personally with homosexuals (or if I have I still don't know it!) But because the whole question has been very much a hot potato in our Uniting Church here in Australia I have had, like many others, to think deeply about issues which previously had never occurred to me as issues, and to try and arrive at some position which takes account of both God's purity and His love. Let me now try to wind up this thread, certainly my own contribution to it, by spelling out some conclusions which I have reached so far - "conclusions" not being the best word, since I don't pretend for one moment to have all the answers, and that the whole subject is too complex for there to be one final answer anyway:-
First, we should ask, "What is a homosexual?"(and for the purposes of this dissertation I take the word "homosexual" to embrace "lesbian"!):
Is a homosexual one who through no fault of their own finds themselves with the feelings for one or more of the same sex that one would usually expect to feel toward the opposite sex?
OR
Is a homosexual one who actually engages with another of the same sex in physical activities normally associated with physical "love-making" between a man and a woman?
All the biblical passages refer to the latter - overt physical sexual acts. Biblical writers were not in the habit of dissecting psychological motive and subconscious intention, as our society is. So let us be clear that the Bible speaks against physical acts within same-sex relationships - it has nothing to say against deep and abiding relationship between man and man(eg., David and Jonathan) which may well transcend even the relationship of husband and wife.
On the other hand, we cannot avoid the fact that the Bible makes it equally plain, especially in the example and teaching of Jesus, that while certain behaviours may well be labelled "sin against God", there can be no ostracism or rejection of those who perpetrate those behaviours. The story of John8:1-12: the woman taken in adultery, could I believe have equally well been told of two emn caught sodomising each other: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone at them . . . Men, has no one condemned you? . . . Then neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more!"
Surely it is possible for Christians, and the Church, to both declare that homosexuality has no place in God's purpose for humanity, and to demonstrate by word and deed God's self-giving love for all people, regardless of who they are or what they do. I really cannot see that this should be such a problem for so many. It is probably because of society's obsession with physical sex that the whole issue has got out of proportion - someone onthis thread rightly reminded us that sex involves awhole lot more than just this one thing.
Sure, this raises many questions over which there will always be differences of opinion, maybe even radically different answers for different situations. Questions like, What is our attitude to homosexal "marriages"? Should homosexuals be ordained or commissioned to spiritual ministry within the Church? What about the adoption of children by homosexual couples?
I could go on, but I think I've said more than enough already! Surprising how these trains of thought go onfrom point to point before one realizes it!
Over and out!!
quote:
Originally posted by Elijah on Horeb:And for a lot of what was written, I would have to say it was just that - depths of fear and angst which clouded rational thinking and gave rise to the same kind of adolescent "humour" with which so many of us try to hide our deep-seated uneasiness at anything remotely related to sex, especially its physical manifestations. I'm afraid I was less than impressed with a lot of the semi-flippant interchange, especially when it deviated into a kind of delighted recognition and greeting of old friends like that which you see at school reunions.
Hmm. I think that's a bit sweeping, and a bit harsh.
As I've said before, I've been pretty impressed with the level of debate on this thread, and the use of humour hasn't, to my mind, detracted from it, as it so easily could have. This is in contrast to the 'What is sex' thread which I understand has spiralled inexorably hell-wards because of its graphic content.
I also think the humour has served a useful, if not essential, purpose in diffusing tension when feelings have been running high. If cracking jokes had been a way of ducking the issues or taking the mick out of certain groups of people, yes, it would have been irritating, but on the whole I don't think it was.
I can do no better than echo good ol' Mr Lewis on this one, and point out that, 'We must not be totally serious about Venus. Indeed we can't be totally serious without doing violence to our humanity'.
As to why heterosexuals should get so het(!) up about the issue, I've already said my piece, as have others, and I won't get into it again. Suffice it to say that it's not always a prurient preoccupation with other people's personal lives. (Of course, I have that too, but I do try to keep it off this thread...)
Peace, folks, and well done, I say.
quote:
Elijah on Horeb pronounced:
Surely it is possible for Christians, and the Church, to both declare that homosexuality has no place in God's purpose for humanity, and to demonstrate by word and deed God's self-giving love for all people, regardless of who they are or what they do. I really cannot see that this should be such a problem for so many.
So, you're reducing it all back down to a "love the sinner, hate the sin" aspect; and using the grounds that the Bible only refers to homosexual actions to conclude that all homosexual behaviour is a sin?
Your comments made me wonder - how much of what gay and lesbian Christians have been saying did you really read? Take in? It's not as simple as your statement makes out.
You focus right back on the sex again, with your example of "two men sodomizing eachother" - and your very choice of verb is one that would offend and upset many gays and lesbians. The story of sodom is not about homosexuality. So using 'sodomize' in this context is inflamatory at best. (And, from what my friends tell me, anal sex is not necessarily a part of many gay men's sexual behaviour anyway.)
You are right in stating that the Bible in no way condemns - and actually in several places affirms male-male friendship ("More pleasing to me was your love than the love of women" as David said to Jonathan or vice versa), and the female bonding of Ruth to Naomi, where the words originally said from one woman to another are now often used in wedding services.
And I would say that from there is the place of acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships. Not focusing on what may or may not go on in anyone's bedroom. But meeting us as children of God, as equals, with a right to form monogomous faithful partnerships, just as heterosexuals have.
Peace,
Kirsti
Tirian
I am sorry, Joan the Dwarf, for any nastiness of tone -looking at my original post it could have been put nicer. It is remiss of me to criticise someone for 'aggressiveness' and do so in an unpleasant manner. I also aplogise for it seeming to you to be a 'personal attack'.
. Thanks.
quote:
I have to admit that I read this topic because I find it so mind-boggling that homosexuality is such a big issue for so many heterosexual people. I guess somehow I lucked out and didn't pick up any early indoctrination about it, so as I grew up and became sexually aware of people, I just gradually discovered that there were different sexual attractions and added it to the long list of attributes that people have in our minds which causes our brain to sort them into interesting/sexual, interesting/nonsexual, boring.
I have the same feeling when I get into these threads -- even ones that are as well conducted as this one has been. We had so many gay friends around growing up that it never occurred to me that it was an issue. My parents did say that they'd rather I was straight because parents want their children to have a good life, and (especially at the time they were speaking) being homosexual could make life difficult.
I remember how astonished I was (as a child) when I first heard a serious argument, the implications of which were that many of my honorary uncles were apparently doomed to hellfire, a position not preached in my church, which generally taught on more pressing international issues, such as the obligation to work for justice and alleviate suffering, etcetera. As a result, I tend to regard extended public debate, and indeed, extended speaking from the pulpit in this regard an active distraction from our primary duties as Christians, in over-focusing on something that just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, using a convenient group to blame and hate, for no reason than to spotlight our own supposed holiness.
There are so many other things condemned in the scripture these same people aren't yammering on about. It's just extraordinary to pick this one thing and make it such a huge issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:
As for 'other half' ... I really dislike the implications ...
I wouldn't describe my doulos David as my "other half" (though I don't think I'd call him my "partner" either) partly because he's not the only doulos in my life, though he is (at present) the most committed one.
I know some people, too, who are partners and yet are no longer lovers as such, and seem relatively content with their (sexually open) relationship.
This is probably going to confuse, baffle, and/or disturb some people...
Myself, I was just thinking I'd leave this thread alone now because I've pretty much said anything even semi-original I have to say, and was worrying that people might think I was unhealthily obsessed with homosexuality issues/sex/the conduct of this thread if I didn't go and post elsewhere!
Or that I might indeed become so, given time...
I must have a chat with you about C.S. Lewis (on another thread) at some point instead.
Yours affirmatively
Elaine
Getting back on topic, some good news from me on this whole subject. I had a visit from my parents (first time of seeing my mother since I'd told her I was gay), and not only did we end up going out for a meal in Soho (gay village bit of central London) but also mother told me she'd come a long way in her thinking, and now she hoped I would find someone to be with and she wanted me to be happy!!!!!! If you heard a distant thud on Friday night that was the sound of my jaw hitting the floor . It's nice not having the oppression of having to ignore her opinion, and I'm impressed with the amount of thinking she's obviously done.
quote:
i've never understood it either. it always seemed such an odd thing to care about. why would anyone care who someone else was having sex with, as long as it was consensual???
Gary
quote:
Originally posted by Canucklehead:
Personally, I don't view homosexuality to be different from any other sin
As one who has, elsewhere on these boards, quite clearly stated my opinion that the bible prohibits homosexual practice, I must come in here (having restrained myself as much as possible to date).
Let me make this clear: Homosexuality is not repeat not a sin. This has been agreed even by Pope John-Paul II. All arguments on this and other threads revolve around homosexual practice, something that is a matter for debate, but has been done to death here and which I, for one, have no wish to rehearse again.
As I have said elsewhere on these boards, we cannot know God's mind but can only guess. I strongly suspect that when each of us has the opportunity to ask him in person for his views on sin in general and any particular ones that concern us, then we will all be quite surprised, some more than others!
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Open relationships and all that's not particular to homosexuality
Sometimes I think my communities (mainly leather but I'm connected to the "bears" as well) are not well-liked by some others in the gay community who are fighting for acceptance, because the image they think will be most acceptable (two committed, exclusive partners, no more, no less) to outsiders who are dubious about gay relationships is far, far away from the way our own lives go. They don't like it when we march in gay pride parades in leather -- sometimes we are not even invited to, though we are often in attendance -- they think it gives the rest of them/us a bad name. Yet for me and for many others, the way we approach being gay is just as valid as theirs; all we want is to be accepted, or at least not persecuted, for not matching their model.
Some of us in the gay community are even dubious about legalised "gay marriage" (despite the obvious benefits to us) because it will still leave us out, or perhaps even pressure us to conform to that image. (Which may be part of the reason we accept "domestic partnership" more.)
Sorry for nattering on (and on) -- and I truly hope none of this is inflammatory to anyone.
David
ahem.
canucklehead... i'm straight.
and i don't think homosexual acts are sinful.
If you've read this thread you will realise that many people here do not consider someones' sexuality as unnatural. To say people are homosexual because it is simply something they enjoy fails to recognise the struggles many people have had coming to terms with their sexuality.
Second I find the use of speech marks in the phrase "christian" homosexuals implying that homosexuals are not Christians. On this Ship we do not take it upon ourselves to decide who is or is not a Christian.
Alan
Purgatory host
So, regardless of the rhetoric or who agrees with whom or who doesn't agree with whom, God will judge each of us justly. The justice may not have anything to do with anyone's rhetoric on this thread. Or it might. Regardless, our souls are in the balance.
If you aren't 1000% sure of how things will wash out, then change. Even if 95% of people think you're a kook for changing. If on the other hand, you are 1000% sure, then don't change. Even if 95% of people think you are a kook.
The bottom line is:
Kook is okay. Sin is not.
We should avoid sin. Since homosexuality seems to be in the gray area, then just watch it and stay in the white. People are obviously concerned for your everlasting souls.
But, Homosexuality definitely is not a reason to push someone out of the church. And it definitely isn't a reason to say "Oh gross, that must be crushed." And most definitely, homosexuality is not a reason to abandon God's grace or say someone has abandoned God's grace.
We shouldn't sin and we shouldn't judge like we are God.
Hit me please! And thanks in advance. I needed that.
Second I find the use of speech marks in the phrase "christian" homosexuals implying that homosexuals are not Christians. On this Ship we do not take it upon ourselves to decide who
Alan, I will in the future avoid the use of speech marks in the way that I did, thankyou for pointing this out to me. However, just because people struggle with a sexual issue doesn't mean it isn't unnatural, the fact is that homosexuality is not found in nature; hence it is "unnatural".
Joan, simply because I do not see eye-to-eye with you on this matter does not me that I am trolling. I have known several homosexual people, some of whom I have considered friends. That doesn't mean I accept what they do as being normal or in any way condone their actions. I DO NOT hate people - homosexual or otherwise. However, I do believe that ALL sin is an abomination to God, and I do believe that the bible treats homosexual activity as a sin. I know you will disagree with this and I don't write it simply to be unpleasant to you. It is simply what I believe in my heart to be true.
The problem with saying stay away from homosexual practice 'just to be on the safe side' is that there isn't a 'safe side'. There's no default practice that God's calling us to. It's flatly unnatural for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual practices, so steering clear of homosexual practice would mean celibacy. This isn't something to go for just because we can't do anything else - it should be a positive choice in its own right (ask any religious). There is no 'white' for a homosexual to stay in.
This actually ties up with what canuckle said, that we should "seek to break free of their unnatural lifestyle and turn their hearts toward God.". Putting aside the sanctimoniousness of his/her post, this is actually exactly what I have done by coming out. I've broken free of the unnatural lifestyle of first pretending to be straight, and then when that didn't work pretending that I was not a sexual being and not interacting with people sexually. My heart was turned towards God when I broke free of that pretense and oppression. Being homosexually active is something I see as a natural consequence of the way I am (not just as gay) - I am not called (at this time) to celibacy. Denying that side of a relationship would be denying what I feel God is leading me to, and has healed me enough to be able to do at some point. Avoiding sexual contact would be, I feel, wrong, and wronging God. For me, coming out was sacramental: it was a visible sign of God working within me. I mean more than that, but I don't have the words.
It feels like I've rambled in this post. I hope it makes some sense nevertheless.
please go back to the beginnning and take a look at my links on homosexual animals.
its perfectly natural.
which, as others have pointed out means nothing about its morality in the first place. but thats besides the point.
Anyways... if you had read the thread, you'll realise you're only the second time I've questioned if someone's a troll, out of all the people who've disagreed with me. It's a perfectly reasonable question on a thread such as this when someone comes in who looks as if they haven't read the thread, who hasn't posted anywhere else, and who says that anyone who disagrees with them is in denial because they want to carry on with something they like. I have to say I laughed out loud when I read that, it's not an argument that I find easy to take seriously
Read the exchanges with Drake, as this seems a bit familiar: his first posts were saying "come on guys you know I'm right". The point is we're debating - we're all entitled to our own views and to have those views taken seriously, rather than told we're trying to justify something that we know in our hearts is wrong because we enjoy it. It's common debating courtesy to engage with the issue, not try and psychoanalyse people. I've restrained myself a lot on that score
BTW, welcome aboard. Have a tramp around the boards, there's a lot more here than just homosexuality.
You say you've read this thread but then you raise exactly the same positions about homosexuality being unnatural or not occurring in nature which were responded to at length several pages ago here.
Similarly, the position that all homosexual activity is prohibited by scripture has also been argued against intelligently and in detail on this thread.
This is a debate board and not a place for you to simply announce, as if from on high, that you think something is 'unnatural' or not 'normal' or a 'sin' or 'abomination'.
If you want to debate, then please give original and cogent reasons why you find the previous rebuttals of your positions unsatisfactory.
If you don't want to debate, then why are you posting on this board?
Louise
Joan - thanks for the welcome. I have lurked the boards for some time now, and although this isn't the first one I have posted to it's true that i haven't been very active. I suppose that in some sense my psychoanalysis, as you called it, of people justifying what they are doing so they can keep doing it is my way of trying to understand a behaviour that is so (in my mind) wrong. Anyway, as you can plainly see I have some very deep seated views on the topic which are not about to be changed anytime soon. But, as I alluded to in an earlier post, I am a sinner too and have my own sins to struggle with, so I don't view homosexuals to be any different from myself on that level at least. I do recognize that my viewpoint is offensive to you, but I do think it needs to be expressed at times.
Gary
I never said that one should avoid homosexual practices. I just said, just watch it and stay in the white. If to you there is no white, then that is fine. Stay in the lightest shade of gray as you can. I am not going to tell you what that is.
I am not God and neither is this Canucklehead. I am not agreeing nor want to be put in the same pot with him/her. On other things sure, but this - not the same Corningware for me.
Let me clarify, as it seems that I didn't write like my mind thought I was writing ...
We should avoid sin. Since homosexuality seems to be in the gray area, then just watch it and stay in the light gray area. I do not know what that means for you. It may have to do with practices, it may not. Again, I say I do not know. But somewhere there is a line over which it would be a sin, natural, unnatural, feels right, feels wrong ... regardless there is a line. God and you alone know what that area is for you. Follow that and have no fear.
Even if Canucklehead says he knows, he don't. Only you and God know. Stay gold and avoid sin. That is all we can try to do. Right?
That is all I am saying. No judgement here. I got too much to clean up over here. My backyard is awfully littered with wood. As you detect those things, please let me know and I'll think about them.
I'll take another please. And thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[
people (on the boards and elsewhere) keep mentioning "committed couples," particularly monogamous ones, as their example of morally acceptable gay relationships. [...] When I see the assumption that we're talking about monogamous couples, I feel baffled and frustrated, because to me that's not the issue, and is completely irrelevant to my own life and to the lives of most of the other gay men I know. (I'm quite unlikely to meet monogamous gay men in the social venues I am part of, so I have no real idea what the proportion of monogamous to non-monogamous gay male relationships are.) To me "committed" also doesn't mean "exclusive," and so I felt I had to comment.
I suppose I'm one of the people who has quoted the example of a committed gay couple as an 'morally acceptable' relationship. Though I wouldn't use the phrase 'morally acceptable' in this context as it sounds rather grudging. It would sound as if I was saying, 'Okay, I'm willing to tolerate your being a practising homosexual so long as you do it in as respectable and heterosexual a way as possible, right down to the white dress and joint mortgage,' which is not what I have meant to say at any point, and apologise if it sounded that way.
I quoted the example because it's one I'm familar with: pretty much all my gay friends are 'non-scene', and so I don't have any experience of the sort of situation you describe, Chastmastr.
From my position of extreme ignorance, I have no idea how the dynamics of a non-exclusive sexual relationship, gay or straight, would work itself out in a loving way, having been brought up in a culture that sees long-term monogamy as the ideal.
But I'm sorry if the terms of this debate have been framed in a way that excludes a wide section of the gay community. Please don't stop posting on that account! We need to know if there's an aspect we're ignoring.
(Looks as though I'm not leaving this thread after all. )
quote:
Originally posted by Elaine from the bar:
[QB]From my position of extreme ignorance, I have no idea how the dynamics of a non-exclusive sexual relationship, gay or straight, would work itself out in a loving way, having been brought up in a culture that sees long-term monogamy as the ideal.QB]
From my experience of answering a Lesbian Line for five years I'd say that for most lesbians non-exclusive sexual relationships don't work at all, and from listening to straight friends who experimented with it I'd say the same. But gay men seem to be very different with regard to being non exclusive anda happy couple. Lesbians tend more to be serially monogamous than having several partners at the same time, but that's another problem.
Maybe it is not such much a problem of being gay or straight but of being a man or a woman.
Abo
higamous hogamous,
women monogamous,
hogamous higamous,
men are polygamous
but i don't think thats true all the time anyway. no wide generalization ever is.
). It's the outward consequence of an inward state, rather than an action divorced from an internal being.canucklehead - not reading a thread properly and then posting isn't a great idea. You just piss people off by coming out with stuff that's been dealt with before. It also lays you open to accusations of crusading/trolling
Because I believe that this is what gay Christians are called to. In the same way that straight men might like to have multiple partners, or casual sex, but their Christian ethics and beliefs mean that they aim for the ideal of monogomy - which has, as far as I know, been the church's teaching on marriage since the days of the Church fathers.
And it's not about 'aping' heterosexual partnerships - I simply believe that monogomous and faithful is the Christian "norm" for relationships, be they gay or straight.
Jeffrey John makes an excellent case for this in his book "Permanent, Faithful, Stable: Christian same-sex partnerships", published by Darton, Longman & Todd, which I highly recommend. It's a small book, and only £3.50 too.
And yayy Joan for your own news!! *Cheers loudly*
Peace,
Kirsti
Thanks for letting me clarify my point.
By the way, I didn't say I was for or against homosexual practices. And I don't think it matters where I weigh in on that.
That is between anyone who ever practices homosexual acts and God. (I did as a 8yr old kid with a friend). Determining if it is a sin or not is between every person and God. It is not for me, a crowd of people or anyone else to say what is a sin for anyone. The Church is our source for the truth (that is if we believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit). If the Church is fine with it, then go baby go, there should be no sin and it is good. If it is gray, then be cautious - be bold too and live well and hard.
My point was: We all bring our skin to judgment. That's just the simple point.
P.S.
I love homosexuals. I have an uncle who is gay (he gave me 5 cousins too, before he came out). He is a great guy who impresses me with his understanding and compassion. I have a brother in law who is gay. A friend is also a homosexual. They are great people. And my dear ol' mom thought I was a homosexual until I was in college and started to date. But that is beside the point.
Friends regardless. Snif.
but to return to the ideas of what is "morally acceptable"...and multiple partners...i was wondering what do people think of the fundamentalist mormans who practice polygamy/polygny? there are estimated to be 50,000 or more polygamists in utah. and some say there are many more but they are urged to be discreet...many utahans(?) are descended from polygamists. apparently in the 50's the us govt tried to prosecute a bunch of polygamists in utah in Short Creek() and separated their children from them and threw the men in jail...but the country made such an outcry the govt., never did that again. even though it is technically illegal. (strange, that.) so some people have figured a way to exist with multiple partners within a context of scripture. it seems they base their beliefs on the old testament and J. Smith's revelations. what are the actual Christian teachings forbidding multiple partners? (seems like a stupid question, i know...but then, i really don't know.)
RuthW
Purgatory host
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
joan, maybe he thinks that everyone whos been on the one side of the debate is gay?ahem.
canucklehead... i'm straight.
and i don't think homosexual acts are sinful.
(And we can even discuss our views without fighting.)
See, we really do run the gamut here at SoF.
quote:
The problem with saying stay away from homosexual practice 'just to be on the safe side' is that there isn't a 'safe side'. There's no default practice that God's calling us to. It's flatly unnatural for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual practices, so steering clear of homosexual practice would mean celibacy.
I knew a man at a previous church I attended that had been in the same University Christian Union as me. In my student days I had no idea he had homosexual inclinations (I choose my words carefully). It was a major barrier between him and his father (AFAIK) that he was 'gay'.
Now, many at that church were the sort that believed God could 'change' someone from having homosexual inclinations to being 'straight', and believed this was possible in his case. Someone must have put him in touch with a place 'down south' that he could go on a 'residential' (or more than one) for counselling and prayer. So he went.
Eventually he had a girlfriend, one who knew exactly wht he had been through. I believe they meant a lot to each other. Then they split up, which AFAIK was NOT because of his 'past' homosexuality. Then he got another girlfriend, and this time they got married (I and Mrs the G. went to the wedding).
As far as I know they are still happily married. Are they 'wrong' to ever have done this? For he is the best evidence I have seen that God can change one's sexual orientation 'permanently'. (I have read about another, more 'extreme', example in 'Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire' by Jim Cymbala). If this is so, it suggests God does want to help homosexuals to stop being 'gay'.
The whole 'ex-gay' thing is massively muddied by the growing number of 'ex-ex-gays'.
Does it?
There is a whole range of what sexuality is - a sliding scale with completely gay and completely straight at the extremes. I think most peoples' sexuality is a lot more in the grey areas than they think .
Basically, I think God wants to help us be who we are (that's certainly been my experience, talking as an "ex-straight" ).
I was part of an online community debating the whole issue of Christianity and homosexuality, with the aim of "bridging the divide" and enabling good honest communication with people on both sides of the issue. (It's at Bridges Across if anyone wants to check it out)
And I met people there who claimed that God had healed them, and who had families etc to back up their evidence. And could show God at work in their lives, and told of how deeply unhappy they were with their sexuality prior to healing.
I also met people like myself for whom God's healing had taken the form of helping us to accept both our sexuality and our faith.
I don't believe we can limit God. I do believe that the former instance - the true "ex-gay" is incredibly rare, and that for many people, the ex-gay ministries have caused an awful lot more emotional damage than they were trying to heal.
And this even applies to its founders - the two men who ran the ex-gay group Courage (I /think/ it was that one) are now living together in a committed Christian partnership, and have apologised for the damage that their ministry caused.
It's a tough area. But I don't want to deny what God is doing in other people's lives. I also would like other people to respect what that same God is doing in mine, and how I am "working out my salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who is working in me."
Peace,
Kirsti
It's such a contrast to the "debate" on the christianity & renewal site, where there just seemed to be lots of very prejudiced people, some with rather weird obsessions!
In the end, God's love encompasses all of us in our struggles. I have my own struggles with sex and relationships, and I'm sure I've been as imperfect as the rest of us; but God loves us anyway.
Thank you everyone. Aside to Joan: I'm really happy that your mother has changed her mind. God works in mysterious ways...
Steve Waling
In the original DSM, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder; same in DSM-II. In DSM-III, homosexuality was a mental disorder ONLY if it was "ego-dystonic"--which means that it is a psychological disorder if one feels this way: "I'm homosexual, but I don't want to be."
In the DSM-IV, homosexual is not mentioned as a psychological disorder at all.
The changing culture makes a difference regarding the idea of what is and is not a disorder.
Sexuality is not a 'duality' situation. Not "either homosexual or heterosexual". It's a continuum - in fact, several continua (if that's the correct plural form?
See Using the Klein Scale to teach about sexual orientation for more on this - people may have very different 'attractions' from 'behaviours', 'emotional preferences' to 'sexual fantasies'. (How else, for example, would you classify a gay Christian who believes that his sexual attractions to other men are wrong, and so has married, and is having sex with a woman, while fantasising about men?)
Kirsti, muddying the waters once more...
quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
The whole 'ex-gay' thing is massively muddied by the growing number of 'ex-ex-gays'.
Must... not... make... pun... about... whether or not... ex or ex-ex- or ex-ex-ex-gays... are "uncanny"...
Agh, too late. The comics fan (Marvel Comics' Uncanny X-Men) in me took over.
quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:
I was part of an online community debating the whole issue of Christianity and homosexuality, with the aim of "bridging the divide" and enabling good honest communication with people on both sides of the issue. (It's at Bridges Across if anyone wants to check it out)
The question of whether I count as Side A or Side B depends on definitions...
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
we're all entitled to our own views and to have those views taken seriously, rather than told we're trying to justify something that we know in our hearts is wrong because we enjoy it.
Joan,
This struck a real chord with me.
It's not immediately obvious to me (which may be my own stupidity) whether your defence of homosexual acts amounts merely to special pleading, or whether you have a genuine philosophy of what morality is, which happens to allow that homosexual acts are morally permissible.
For example, homosexual acts have something in common with incest, cannibalism, prostitution, or necrophilia in that:
• they are morally wrong according to Christian tradition
• they're about bodies and what we do with them
• there's a strong element of public disgust which can impede rational discussion.
Is there a substantial moral difference between these and homosexual acts, or do the same moral principles permit or condemn each equally ? Do you have a consistent moral philosophy which applies the same considerations in each case ?
I suppose that I grew up with the phrase "consenting adults behind closed doors". (Meaning that if there is no sin against other people, then it's not for other people to condemn homosexual acts, or incest, or anything else. God can sort out any sin against God).
While it may be stretching a point to call this a philosophical position, it is a consistent point of view which I would be happy to apply (at least provisionally, as a starting point pending further thought) to any of these sort of "issues". (I can't say that any of them as such have actually been a big issue for me personally, but the question of what morality is is an issue for everyone).
People do try to justify something that they know in their hearts is wrong, because they enjoy it. We're human; we're like that.
I don't know how far this applies in your case, and want to give you the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise...
Russ
However, the bit which I do find difficult is that my Bishop won't ordain me unless I either marry my girlfriend, or end the relationship. (We're both happy with it as it is) However, he is happy to ordain practising homosexuals.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this ???
Maestro
quote:
Originally posted by Maestro:
As I see it - the man-man, or woman-woman sexual realtionship is no more or less sinful than the one which I have with my Girlfriend. All 3 fall short of God's idea, all are sins, and all can be confessed and forgiven.However, the bit which I do find difficult is that my Bishop won't ordain me unless I either marry my girlfriend, or end the relationship. (We're both happy with it as it is) However, he is happy to ordain practising homosexuals.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this ???
Maestro
IMHO (which opinions are not all that well received on this thread) confession is not genuine unless it comes with a commitment to not comit the sin (any sin) again. To assume that forgiveness is granted when the confession does not carry with it a genuine intent to stop the sinful behaviour suggests that confession/forgiveness is more like a licence to continue to sin.
If it is not then you have no need for forgiveness concerning it.
If it is a sin then repentance involves stopping living with her outside marriage.
Paul had something to say about continuing in our sins - but I have not got a bible handy.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Joan,This struck a real chord with me.
It's not immediately obvious to me (which may be my own stupidity) whether your defence of homosexual acts amounts merely to special pleading, or whether you have a genuine philosophy of what morality is, which happens to allow that homosexual acts are morally permissible.
Yes, I do - I'm not "special pleading". More below...
quote:For example, homosexual acts have something in common with incest, cannibalism, prostitution, or necrophilia in that:
• they are morally wrong according to Christian tradition
• they're about bodies and what we do with them
• there's a strong element of public disgust which can impede rational discussion.Is there a substantial moral difference between these and homosexual acts, or do the same moral principles permit or condemn each equally ? Do you have a consistent moral philosophy which applies the same considerations in each case ?
First, I'll be terribly improper and quote myself, on the first page of this thread. I don't have an algorithm for deciding what's right cos Christianity doesn't give simple answers . I said:
quote:
How do we tell what's right? The best answer I've found (I can't off the top of my head remember where) is that we have to look at what forms of life lead to an increase in holiness and Christian living and love. In terms of relationships, do they bring people closer to God and an understanding of his love? Are they a blessing to the world around them?
The difference I see between homosexuality and the other things people try and lump it with is that between two adults in a proper relationship you can have the emotional physical and spiritual bond that I (and an awful lot of theologians) believe is a God-given gift to humanity (not saying those theologians endorse homosexuality!). There is mutuality, love, and the creation of an entity that is more than the sum of its parts. This is not to say every straight or gay relationship is like that, but that this is the ideal for relationships, and it is empirically observed to be possible in straight and gay relationships.
However when we consider things like bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia we can see very clearly that they do not have the potential to be a part of this idea of relationships. There is no mutuality, and the relationships are fundamentally self-centred and abusive. There is not the reaching out to God and one-another that characterises a Christian relationship of love. An abusive straight marriage would be similarly bad. As would an abusive gay partnership. All of them are "actions against the Kingdom": things that sin against building God's Kingdom in our lives and our world (that may seem oddly phrased, but it's something I've felt quite strongly about since September 11).
I do not believe in the principle of "what people get up to behind closed doors is their own business" if that is abusive and degrading for both parties. However I also don't agree with the idea of breaking down the doors and barging in sermonising As someone said, we've got to decide for ourselves what is sinful or not, but we have no right to impose that on other people, we have to proceed in love, understanding and openness.
A slight aside: I understand your question and that you were genuinely asking, but it could have been phrased better. Lumping homosexuality in with bestiality etc in generally a good way to upset people and raise the temperature hell-wards. Think! I don't know if you've got a partner, but imagine if someone asked you what the difference between your relationship and shagging a sheep was because they couldn't see any - wouldn't you feel a wee bit upset? Don't worry, I wasn't in this case - I think this thread has developed a thicker skin on me cos I just giggled
With Homosexual and lesbian couples there is no equivalent to Marriage. the Bishop will belong to one of three camps,
1)practising homosexuals should not be ordained (the official line)
2)I don't know whether they should be ordained or not so i won't ask the question, (lot's of variations here)
3) they can be ordained i won't make a big fuss about it but I want to make certain they are in a relationship that is committed and is near to marriage as possible.
The answer to your question maestro is that in the churches opinion you are not committed to your girlfriend until you are married.
The DDO (?) will almost certainly think that your call for ordination can not be genuine since you are unwilling to jump through the hoop of being married.
It's an interesting statement you made: "Without an something absolute I could convince myself that rape and murder are completely acceptable". That's very black-and-white: either we have a 100% sure case-iron easy-to-understand moral code, or else anything goes. There are other options - there's all the area in the middle where we're trying to get towards the absolute truth with all the resources available to us (as I've said above), and we know that we might be wrong, that we can't be sure of what we've said, but nevertheless it's all we are ever going to have to go on, and it's rational to base our moral choice on that. It's OK not to be 100% certain - it can be frightening at first not to be sure of things, but ultimatly IMHO it's necessary for our growth to relax and open ourselves to God and not imprison God, ourselves or others in our own rigidity. Not knowing everything doesn't mean that we can know nothing.
This is all very Pauline - and one of the points, IMHO, of the Incarnation and the whole New Covenant: the Old Covenant was one of strict rules, and one could say unambiguosly if something was sinful or not; in the New, humanity was taken out from the juristiction of the law (Paul) and given the Spirit behind those laws from which to work (love God and love your neighbour as yourself). This is the grown-up, frightening, empowering, disturbing, loving religion that is Christianity - it is not a set of rules that we can be safe within, it is the dynamic living out of a relationship with God letting the Spirit move in our actions, and taking risks and not being safe but being with God and within God, unbounded.
As long as what is happening between people is mutually loving then it is fine.
Unfortunately the bible does provide absolutes. The vexed question is how is this tension between society and the Churches understanding of it's identity resolved.
There are two answers
one is what the hell lets go with society
The other lets hold on to the absolutes.
To go for the middle ground which is what most people here seem to go for is tricky if not impossible.
It's not an impossible place. IMHO it's the place as Christian's we're called to be. It ain't easy - absolutism and moral relativism are both the easy options, at the two extremes. As I've said many many times, IMHO truth lies in between, if we have the courage to abandon the safety of the edges to go there, trusting in God rather than ourselves.
Nightlamp, is the statement "As long as what is happening between people is mutually loving then it is fine. " your parse of my 19.51 post?? If it is, do read it again, hon, that ain't what I'm saying, there's a wee bit more to it than that!
I would consider what you are arguing for is relativism dressed up in spirtual language.
If I am incorrect please point out the differences between my summary of your arguement and what you are actually saying in how it would apply in some ones life.
Canucklehead is arguing for absolutes but he would find some of the biblical absolutes unacceptable hence I suspect he might well relativise some of it.
quote:
Ah yes Moral relativism it's quite popular at the moment.
As long as what is happening between people is mutually loving then it is fine
Making love in to some form of absolute but love is purely subjective. The absolute becomes our own perceptions our subjective self.
Moral relativism today has no external truth it has an internal one. What Joan you seem to me doing is christianising societys concept of morality so that christians can feel happen with it. This has been a common practice of the church down the years
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
What Joan you seem to me doing is christianising societys concept of morality so that christians can feel happen with it.
Not at all, Nightlamp. What I am doing is looking at Christianity, working out what I think it says about relationships and sex and then applying that to my own life. In this way I reach conclusions different from those that part of today's society reach. For example, I believe that sex is sacred and sacramental, and the place for it is in committed and emotionally intimate relationships. Therefore I do not agree with for example one-night-stands, even when there is consensual mutuality.
In re: "moral relativity", I'll set it out again. The terminology I am using (which I think is standard, at least in philosophy - I'm a lay(wo)man as far as theology is concerned)is:
Absolutism: there is absolute truth and we can know it for certain.
Relativism: there is no absolute truth: "anything goes".
Pessimistic realism: there is absolute truth but we can never get to it so we might as well act like relativists.
Fallible realism: there is absolute truth, but we can never know it for certain, BUT we can evolve in our understanding of it and get closer to it.
I am a fallible realist, in my life, my work (physics and philosophy) and my relationship with God.
I hope this has cleared up the "relativist" confusion.
In re: "Making love in to some form of absolute but love is purely subjective."
It seems that "love" being referred to here is not the Christian understanding of it, but rather the sort of wishy-washy pink-clouds-and-singing-bluebirds Hollywood idea. The Christian understanding is very much absolute: "God is love" (my emphasis, not Paul's!); Christian love is the centre of Christian morality ("love God and love your neighbour as yourself; on these hang all the Law and the Prophets"); and this has been the experience of mystics down the ages, who perceived God as the Love at the centre of the universe - in Dante's words, "The Love that moves the Sun and the other stars". Love is the first gift/fruit of the Spirit for Paul, and his love is definitely not limp-wristed!
Leaving my own words for now, I'd like to quote from my (ie CofE) House of Bishops statement 'Issues in Human Sexuality' (that concluded against homosexual sexual relations) to show the view of relationships I'm coming from (it's the start of Chapter 3):
quote:
It would seem appropriate at this point to set out an account of the Christian ideal or vision for human sexuality as this has developed within the context just described [ie Scripture]. Because secual love is a wonderful gift from God, then through it, if all goes well, a man and a woman can be united in a relationship which for depth, intensity and joy is unique in their experience. They can find a strength and support in one another which helps each of them to mature as individuals. They can form a partnership which is both a blessing to the whole community and also the stable and loving environment in which children need to be brought up. Being much more than simply physical organisms, they share their lives with one another at many different levels - bodily, emotional, intellectual, social and spiritual. To share at the bodily level alone is to make a relationship far less than it could be. But the body makes a unique contribution. Because full sexual relations are intimate, and can be ecstatically happy, they can make the partners supremely precious to one another, and so help them to treasure their sharing at all other levels. In this way an incomparable union can be built on the physical foundations.Because of this affirmation of the body one basic principle is very definitely implicit in Christian thinking about sexual relations. It may be put this way: the greater the degree of personal intimacy, the greater should be the degree of personal commitment.
Discuss (please write a minimum of 2000 words)
Sex is more than biology.
I would suggest that everyone who is busily saying that the Bible absolutely forbids homosexual practise, go back over the earlier parts of this thread. Whilst I'm not sure that I agree with the interpretations given by some of the comments, they are all certainly scholarly. In terms of the Bible's teaching this is NOT as much of black and white issue as GLE people (like me) are taught.
Also, in reference to comments about gya people being "healed" and becoming straight. I'm not too sure about this, but I believe there is a difference between people who are gay by nature and people who are gay because of past hurts etc. The latter type of people are perhaps going against who they really are, and can/should be healed. The former sort are a different matter.
All the best,
Rachel.
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
The difference I see between homosexuality and the other things people try and lump it with is that between two adults in a proper relationship you can have the emotional physical and spiritual bond that I believe is a God-given gift to humanity...This is not to say every straight or gay relationship is like that, but that this is the ideal for relationships, and it is empirically observed to be possible in straight and gay relationships.
However when we consider things like bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia we can see very clearly that they do not have the potential to be a part of this idea of relationships. There is no mutuality, and the relationships are fundamentally self-centred and abusive.
...I do not believe in the principle of "what people get up to behind closed doors is their own business" if that is abusive and degrading for both parties...
...Lumping homosexuality in with bestiality etc is generally a good way to upset people... ...but... ...I just giggled
Dear Joan,
Glad you're able to giggle, and thank you for what I would ordinarily describe as a straight answer...
Funnily enough, I did put bestiality in the original draft, but edited it out before posting.
I think we're at the point of distinguishing what is moral from what is classed as socially acceptable. God can see into our hearts, and can judge the extent of sin in our intentions and the quality of our relationships. Society has to go by what things look like from the outside.
Few would argue with you that a spiritual and loving relationship is good, and an abusive and degrading one is bad. The difficulty comes when different people have different perceptions of what is uplifting and what is degrading.
I think the logical conclusion of your argument is that any form of perversion between any two people (of whatever legal relationship) is OK provided that the two of them view the act and the personal relationship between them as loving and uplifting and non-abusive.
You may argue that there are some practices that you find difficulty in believing are consistent with a mutual and spiritual love. But some people feel like that about homosexual acts...
A relationship between someone who is one year below the age of consent and someone who is one year older may be loving and spiritual and fulfil your ideal in every way. But that doesn't necessarily mean that our society would be better without an age of consent.
Russ
quote:
Russ stated:
You may argue that there are some practices that you find difficulty in believing are consistent with a mutual and spiritual love. But some people feel like that about homosexual acts...
Isn't this a natural result of the fact that most people /do/ just think of 'sex' when the issue of homosexual relationships comes up? (as has been evidenced and pointed out over and over again in the preceding 5 pages)
For me - I can't separate out the 'acts' from the relationship. My love for my partner is an entirity. Mutual, spiritual.
The other examples you gave (and I heard a sermon at my church many years ago which also lumped homosexuality together with bestiality and incest) - don't have the same potential for mutuality. One cannot have an intelligent conversation with an animal, no matter how 'hot' the sex. And, as all the literature on incest and abuse points out, that is about power and control; the adult using the child, rather than about sex.
I think also with this argument of 'revulsion' we need to be very careful not to be imposing cultural conditioning on the situation. A lot of revulsion can be predicted by the society and culture we're in. So, here in England, and probably in America too, the idea of eating horsemeat gives us instant revulsion. "Ew! Unnatural!". And yet to the French, it's entirely normal.
I don't quite see how the age of consent laws apply in this situation. Sorry. I may just be being incredibly dense this morning.
No, Russ, because I'm giving a definition of what is a perversion or not.
Also, it doesn't only matter what the people involved think. It's what the relationship actually IS that matters. Is it abusive and degrading, is it sinning against God and God's love, does it increase the holiness of the participants and those around them? This is the best way I can see of telling what is a perversion or not. Ultimately it's not about what people feel about the relationship, it's what God feels about it. How do we find out what God thinks? Read my post above about fallible realism.
Also: "You may argue that there are some practices that you find difficulty in believing are consistent with a mutual and spiritual love. But some people feel like that about homosexual acts..."
This is where I differ from such people: theirs is a feeling, mine is an argument. As I've said before, I have 'ugh' feeling about heterosexual sex, so I know what these people are feeling. However it is just that: a feeling, a gut reaction, and not a consequence of a theological or spiritual position. If you wish to give the arguments why some people feel that way then we can have a discussion. If not, other peoples' gut feelings are not an argument or a response to an argument.
last week i attended the funeral of a 27 year old fireman who went into the twin towers on 9/11 and was carried out 40 days or so later. as he was unmarried and left no children, this was genetic suicide on his part. but i do not think that most of us would say that it was immoral or displeasing to god.
(btw, i didn't know this young man personally, but he was from my area of queens, and the fire dept. is encouraging the general public to attend firemen's funerals, as the dept is spread so very thin now)
celibate priests and nuns are commiting "genetic suicide" too, come down to it.
By the way, (and now I've forgotten who said it, maybe Russ?)I don't actually have a problem, per se, with the idea that homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality. Clearly, as we generally aren't going to reproduce (without a willing lesbian or straight girlfriend), there is a level where heterosexuality has, if I may express it this clumsily, a higher potential calling. However, so what? I don't think it means that homesexual love is a lesser calling. Who knows what God might have in mind by creating gay people? The Orthodox (or at least something Orthodox I read recently) posits that all sex is a result of the Fall (not that it's not good and fun); it was not part of the original plan. I think the Church and society should encourage and support love and commitment wherever they find it. I'm probably rambling. My window is all shrunk up and won't get big and I can't see much of what I'm typing.
Staggering Ever Onward,
Jeff
I'm not sure what's going on here - it feels quite frustrating because I feel like you're not engaging with the debate as we're having it. I cannot see how your post a) fits in the with thread or b) says anything that we haven't already covered. Do you want to talk about how you've seen the debate covered in the past? If so, say so - at the moment it feels like people are only reading what they expect/want to read, and not what's actually being said.
If it's that you're not clear about the natural/unnatural argument that we had earlier, say that too - please don't phrase it as "you haven't dealt with this".
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Is any new ground being covered here that hasn't been covered in the archived threads mentioned at the very beginning of this one? Or is this thread just running around in circles, chasing its own tail? I mean, the natural/unnatural argument alone has been covered at least twice in just this thread!!
oh, we're running round chasing our tails - most definitely.
I think there are some things we haven't covered in this thread though - but most of those must be in the archives somewhere - Gay marriage, Gay priests, Gay parents etc. Is anyone going to have a shot at reviving this thread, or shall we continue to circle?
OK - here's a starter for 10. Given Joan's concept - also expressed in her quote from the House of Bishop's statement, that "the greater the degree of personal intimacy, the greater should be the degree of personal commitment", what is a good attitude to Gay marriage. If I'm honest, my "primitive ugh" instincts cry out against this. However, I can (just about)argue myself to a place where I seeno Biblical prohibition against homosexuality, so within the House of Bishop's statement, allowing gay marriage would seem an obvious conclusion.
What does anyone else think?
All the best,
Rachel.
Speaking personally, I sincerely wish that at some point I will get married.
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Just to clarify quickly - the House of Bish's concluded AGAINST homosexual unions. I quoted them because our views on relationships are the same - they used the natural law argument which I presented waaaaay back to say that.Speaking personally, I sincerely wish that at some point I will get married.
I know that the House of Bishops is against homosexual unions. I just thought it was a jolly neat description.
Also, I think everything we've discussed here has been gone over in the archives as well, and we haven't been yelled at yet. I was trying to find a new tack for a thread I found interesting which has reduced itself to continual repition.
All the best,
Rachel.
just why the "primitive ugh" response? speaking just for myself, i couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in bed. in fact, straight as i am, i can find gay porn, both male and female, a turn on. and apparently many men find the thought of lesbian sex a big turn-on, hence the "obligatory les scene" in most porn flicks.
so why do some people get this "yuck" response?
i asked this before and didn't really get an answer, so i'll ask it again, and i'm serious in asking... why does anyone care about it? even if you think its immoral, theres not this sort of public outcry about other things considered immoral. theoretically divorce and remarriage could be considered as immoral... certain adultary usually is. but you don't see he sort of mad outpourings of vitriol heaped upon those things that you do on gays. so whats the fixation so many have with gays?
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
so why do some people get this "yuck" response?
Just a theory, but I suspect that the "yuck" response is just a shared cultural stigma. A fad, if you will. Just a couple centuries ago, good, decent Christians would yank down their trousers and relieve themselves on the street. Compared to ducking the contents of chamberpots tossed from upper storeys, sodomy seems a little less distasteful.
This same theory rambles on to compare the horrors of movie violence to eagerly-attended public executions - but that's another rant.
Nobody ever claimed that society was an especially clever entity. I'd go one step further, to postulate the opposite.
...I don't need to quote what numerical type I am, as listed waaaay back on page one in order to join this thread - do I?
I felt that this thread was the best to put it on.
Angel
eg. if you ask somebody how they feel you probably wont get a good answer, but after tehy give you that answer what they feel may transform into that answer. If a councellor probes then they get a different (supposedly better) answer, which is more correct because it fits in with the current thinking on why these things happen.
Sorry its rambly
But ]Inanna[/B]: What, may I ask, is wrong with a "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach? And why, after having accused me of being too preoccupied with physical acts do you then focus on whether or not "sodomise" means only "to have anal intercourse"? I thought the word referred to homosexual acts in general, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Anyway, you must surely acknowledge that, whether we like it or not, the Bible consistently warns against homosexual behaviour of any kind, and that this must surely mean that this is because homosexuality really has no place in God's ultimate purpose for his people. God knows that such practices are ultimately destructive, spiritually if not physically, and therefore he warns us against them. What was Paul really saying in Romans ch.1, if he was not naming homosexual/lesbian behaviour as a step well down the road humanity has taken away from God?
Sure,there are many people in the world who through no fault of their own find themselves with this preference. They deserve all the love and support we can give, because many of them will never be able to change, nor should we expect them to. There are many people who through no fault of their own are schizophrenic, or manic-depressive, or have Downs Syndrome or some other debiltating disorder. Does this mean that these things should be regarde as part of God's ultimate purpose?
I guess I've just proved my own point, that all this is too close to home for me to deal with it without getting wound up! But I stand by my views on this one. Let us in Christ love and accept one another whatever the differences, but let us at least be clear about what is or is not part of the New Life to which Christ has called us. I still say that the Church should be able to find a way to declare God's love and God's holiness at the same time!
Enough!!
(Oh, even though I'm sure you didn't mean it, when you equate homosexuality with a range of physical disabilities it does sound deeply patronising. I'm not sure that anyone likes to be patronised.)
quote:
What, may I ask, is wrong with a "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach?
Because the implication is that someone's relationship, which can be one of the most precious and meaningful things in their life, is something sinful and dirty that they should be ashamed of.
Because that approach can force people to choose between their relationship and their faith. How many heterosexuals, if asked to choose between their husband/wife and God could honestly say they'd walk away from their marriage. Every individual who loses their faith through other people's judgement of their actions is a tragedy.
quote:
There are many people who through no fault of their own are schizophrenic, or manic-depressive, or have Downs Syndrome or some other debiltating disorder
Please don't tell me you're equating homosexuality with mental illness. There's a definition of mental illness that I read somewhere that runs along the lines of anything that impedes an individuals ability to function. A strong relationship, be it same sex or not, enhances life. Mental illness most definately does not.
As to whether these conditions are part of God's ultimate purpose, well, the question of why there is suffering when our God is a God of love is well out of the remit of this thread.
Emily
I couldn't care less who anyone around here nails, so long as it's another consenting adult. However, if you're going to use piss-poor logic to back up your argument, then deal with it when people turn it back on you.
quote:
He is not comparing homosexuality to mental illness, he's taken the ABSURD argument of "well this is how I am so clearly it's sanctioned by God" to its logical conclusion
I wouldn't say that's an absurd arguement. Its not one I happen to agree with, but I can see validity in it. If you grant the assumption that we're all created by God then you could argue from there that however we're created is how God wants us. The alternative is either that we're deliberately all created flawed, some are created more flawed than others and some are created so flawed that they can never reach God. Or that something got in the way and prevented us being made right. Again, it all boils down to the arguement that if God is loving then why is there suffering. Which is bigger than this thread.
It's certainly no more absurd than an alternative arguement 'anything I don't like/makes me uncomfortable/I don't understand/I don't agree with can'tbe sanctioned by God.'
However, I haven't proposed either arguement, and I haven't read anyone else do so either. I do argue, though, that whether something is sanctioned by God is very difficult for any of us to figure out. The only way to do it is through time, thought, prayer and study of the bible. Noone (unless they're directly invovled) has the right to judge or condemn the conclusion another's conscience has reached. On homosexuality or any other issue.
For what its worth, as someone with mental health problems, I do feel that they are sanctioned by God. I wouldn't be half the person (or half the surgeon) I am without having had those hurdles to overcome. So I guess I agree with the logical conclusion of an absurd arguement.
quote:
Sure,there are many people in the world who through no fault of their own find themselves with this preference. <middle bit cut> There are many people who through no fault of their own are schizophrenic, or manic-depressive, or have Downs Syndrome or some other debiltating disorder.
That sure sounds like a comparison to me. Of course, you're entitled to read it any way you like. I guess the only one who can really tell us whether or not it was intended as a comparison is Elijah on Horeb
quote:
However, if you're going to use piss-poor logic to back up your argument, then deal with it when people turn it back on you.
Erin, I couldn't agree more.
Emily
One of the many things I find wrong with this unwholesome and trite little saying is that it is unbiblical. Which is ironic as it is only ever said by those who seem pretty keen on quoting the bible when it suits them. Of course one may infer some biblical depth to it but then you can most things.
Elijah also said “Anyway, you must surely acknowledge that, whether we like it or not, the Bible consistently warns against homosexual behavior of any kind”,
I surely do not acknowledge it. I have heard this many times, why have you not heard the contra arguments? As far as I am concerned the bible seem to be abundantly clear about fornication, rape and prostitution ( usury, stealing, inhospitality etc etc ) and stunningly vague about homosexuality. So I find the tone of Elijah’s post (un-intentionally ?) ironic; Giving so much emphasis to a non-biblical quote and placing a similar emphasis on parts of the bible I would strongly disagree with.
The whole post in its “not wishing to offend” tone has offended me not least because it seems to be just an attempt to have the last word, in such a way as to say “ well done but here’s the truth”. Which does not the the previous discussions any justice.
P
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
ok, i think i have an issue that hasn't really been discussed yet.just why the "primitive ugh" response? speaking just for myself, i couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in bed. in fact, straight as i am, i can find gay porn, both male and female, a turn on. and apparently many men find the thought of lesbian sex a big turn-on, hence the "obligatory les scene" in most porn flicks.
so why do some people get this "yuck" response?
i asked this before and didn't really get an answer, so i'll ask it again, and i'm serious in asking... why does anyone care about it? even if you think its immoral, theres not this sort of public outcry about other things considered immoral. theoretically divorce and remarriage could be considered as immoral... certain adultary usually is. but you don't see he sort of mad outpourings of vitriol heaped upon those things that you do on gays. so whats the fixation so many have with gays?
just to clarify, i'm a newbie so excuse my newbie-ness. I'm trawling some of the threads on the message board to try and help my understanding of certain areas because I find most things in life very grey these days and though I became a christian when I was about 14-15, i felt i had more answers then than i do now (37).
i don't think ( well with me anyway ) it's so much a yukk factor as an I don't understand factor, that isn't just an issue with gay love, there are plenty of things that we don't understand as we are all different in character, feelings etc. etc.
however i have 2 young lads and though i have acceptance of my gay friends/work colleagues, i know deep in my heart i would prefer my lads to have hetty relationships and though i'm pretty sure i would be loving and accepting as a father if either or both were gay, i just know that i would prefer the whole hetty thing to work out for them
not sure if iv'e added to the debate,
i think i'm rambling....
apologies if iv'e upset anyone as i'm just running the race like everyone else
Thus, for instance, I have a voice that is strictly an aesthetic reaction (yukk, as mezzaninedoor expressed).
Then there is a voice that comes from my civic/political side, which says that the state has no business making distinctions and treating people different under the law.
Then there's the amateur psychologist that says it's just too EASY to be right. What I mean is, that learning to get along with a person of a different gender is an entirely different project than learning to get along with a person of the same gender. The heterosexual relationship is a challenge (and thus a growth opportunity) in a way that the homosexual relationship can never be.
And there's the part that respects the faith of the early church fathers (and mothers!), who say that sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage are wrong. And this voice has great power with me (after all, I'm Orthodox).
And then there's the part of me that looks at the relationships I've seen between people of the same sex, and this voice says that the difference isn't all that great, in terms of human interaction. People are people, and we all struggle with the same set of questions and difficulties regardless of whom we're attracted to.
And some of the homosexuals I know or have known are family, and family is family no matter what. They are still part of my life, they remain part of my prayers (and I do NOT pray for them to become heterosexual!), and ultimately a part of me.
Another voice notes that many of the people I have met who claim to be homosexual have a history of sexual abuse (i.e. they were victims), and then there are others without that history, and that voice wonders if there isn't a difference between people who are born homosexual, and people who are driven to homosexuality because of sexual trauma. And other voices point out (quite rightly) that this is the sort of question you can't even ask in the current world setup.
So (and if you're still reading this far, and haven't written me off as a homophobe or anything else equally undesirable, bless you!), I don't really have "an" opinion on the question. My inner voices are too numerous and quite in conflict.
Thanks for listening.
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:Then there's the amateur psychologist that says it's just too EASY to be right. What I mean is, that learning to get along with a person of a different gender is an entirely different project than learning to get along with a person of the same gender. The heterosexual relationship is a challenge (and thus a growth opportunity) in a way that the homosexual relationship can never be.
I'm sorry, I had to respond to this because it is just so patently wrong. Firstly, learning to share your life with ANYONE is a challenge! Imagine you, as a heterosexual, spent the rest of your life with a man rather than your wife, doing everything apart from having sex. Are you really saying this would not be a challenge??
Secondly, please explain why I (and this is a common gay woman experience) have always got on better with males than females, and felt more at home with their friendship?
Thirdly, I have TRIED to like men sexually. One tends to do this when everyone's telling you that unless you do then you're warped. When it doesn't work you invent all sorts of things to blame the failure on yourself - exactly like this, you think you're just not mature enough to face the challenge etc etc etc. This in my case went on for over ten years.
Fourthly, the general populace, especially teenagers, are not noted for actively seeking out challenging emotional situations. If homosexuality was the sort of default easy relationship, why on Earth isn't it the first one everyone tries, and hence a LOT more common?
Fifthly, have you ever read Bridget Jones' Diary? Bridget's mother has this exact view, and it was hearing the self-flagellating voice in my head coming from her mouth that finally enabled me to laugh at it and go on to face the real challenge and grow. I can't find the reference, but it's something along the lines of
B's Mother: oh dear, but it's just laziness: they can't be bothered to relate to the opposite sex.
Bridget: Mum, Tom's known he was gay since he was ten.
This isn't meant to bash your post - thankyou for it.
), it's just too EASY to be right when you've got society behind you, I mean those heterosexual relationships are so easy because you've got the approbation of society, you've got institutions and role-models to prop you up. The homosexual relationship is a challenge (and thus a growth opportunity) because there are no roles to play, no support from outside, nothing that can take the place of real love and sheer hard work to make the relationship work. Heterosexuals can just go with the flow and do as they're told by society, and never use the relationship to explore themselves, the other person and God.
There are, I think, two important theological points to be made on the question of homosexuality. It is often assumed that the "conservative" camp (no pun intended) have 'orthodoxy' (whatever precisely one means by that 0-so-elastic term) on their side. BUT...
Firstly (again), if we believe that in the Incarnation God has assumed and deified humanity in its entirety, then he has done so to ALL of humanity, ALL its faculties ("what he has not assumed he has not healed" - S. Gregory, concomitantly what he HAS assumed he HAS healed). This presumably goes for the sexual faculty. Moreover, the Christian hope for universal salvation demands that the 'results' of the Incarnation are transmisible to all. This being so it must be the case that the sexuality of homosexual people is taken up in the Incarnation and redeemed. It would seem bizarre if there were a redeemed faculty incapable of expression (Kenneth Leech's book 'The Eye of the Storm' makes this point very well.)
Secondly, in saying God CANNOT call lesbian and gay people to loving relationships are we not limiting God? We all have vocations, who are we to say that the vocation to a loving gay relationship is not of divine origin? Karl Barth, hopeless reactionary that he was on this issue, nonetheless makes a pertinent point - "the essence of morality is precisely the same as the essence of sin" (CD III/2) - both limit the sovereign freedom of God.
Love to you all. xxx
Welcome to the Ship of Fools, however, it is difficult to follow who's saying what in a debate when more than one person uses the same id (not to mention confusing when trying to refer to them - see the first line of this post!). It would have helped if you'd registered under your own id before posting, and since registration for the boards is free and quick I see no reason why you didn't do so.
Alan
Purgatory host
).
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Well, actually, yes it is.
OK, my bad - it took several days when I joined up...
PS, in re:
quote:
"When did ignorance become a point of view?" (Adams)
Not Joan asks: is that Gerry or Douglas?
You joined when we were under moderated requests, that's why. I took that off some time ago.
And it's Scott. It's the name of the latest Dilbert book.
</tangent>
Keep in mind I was speaking about my own thoughts and feelings, not about objective reality. I'm not willing to make broad, sweeping claims about objective reality in this area, as I noted, because my own thoughts and feelings about it are all over the map.
Rdr Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by Atticus:
Right, everyone else on earth is NOT predisposed to sin. C'mon.
That's right. We're all predisposed to sin. Turning away from that predisposition is the very essence of the Christian religion.
a propos this thread in general:
What a mercy that practice is more fun than theory!
I just registered and boarded SOF earlier this week. I've read the first two and the sixth pages of this thread. I wish I had time to read all pages, but I'm a middle-aged first-year divinity student somewhat overwhelmed by all the studying I have to do.
Anyway, on this day (known to some of my Anglo-Catholic friends as the commemoration of St. Charles, King and Martyr), I plunge in to this particular fray. At the moment I don't feel inclined to launch into a long description of my views on this subject. I do feel moved to say I'm impressed and heartened by the extent to which the people participating in this thread strive to debate in an atmosphere of Christian love. I do have thoughts on this subject and they're greatly influenced by the fact that I'm a gay man who--through reading, thinking, discussing, and an enormous amount of praying--has come to believe my sexuality is a gift from God.
Having said that, I'm also someone who is enormously pained by the ways in which disagreements about Christian faith and sexuality have rent the church universal. I grieve at the extent to which people on opposite sides tend so readily to demonize each other.
So, I'm heartened by most (though to be honest, not all) of what I've read on this SOF thread. It seems we're striving to be pilgrims here, trying to remember to love each other as members of the Body of Christ.
Sorry, I didn't mean to get preachy. (Am I breaking the rules?) I simply wanted to articulate my strongly-felt gut response to my first visit to this thread.
By the way, Joan the Dwarf, I can't refrain from expressing my admiration for your postings. You're brilliant!
I'll shut up now.
Dan (who's reading I Corinthians and St. Anselm this week, among other things, and finding his head swimming from time to time)
I hope you find the challenge interesting!
Sieg
a) intellectually demanding
b) oozing with Christian love and compassion
Am I right? And, if so, does it prove I'm possesed by a demon of divination?
Lord, we just want to just cast out just this just false demon that's just possessing our just brother, Huw. Lord, we just want to say that just you're so great, just like wow... (cont for 94 hours)
Oh Lord, I call down HELLFIRE on whoever ressurrected this VILE thread. Oooooooh Lord, may this thread DIE!
YE EVIL THREAD, DIE DIE DIE!
*hyperventilates and carries on for three hours*
quote:
Oh Lord, I call down HELLFIRE....
Wouldn't HELLFIRE come from the other direction?
If you don't have any such comments to make please say nothing. I'm leaving this thread open incase anyone wants to add to the discussion, if there's any more off-topic posts then I'll close the thread.
Alan
Purgatory host
And for my last word, When I was about 14, I fell in love with a young girl who is black, I am not. Because of family, and church pressure "Do not become unevenly yoked" we were forced to split up. My point is be careful of using the bible to condem someone elses relationship as sinful, you may have to answer for it later.
quote:
Originally posted by alexliamw:
It is not a choice they make! Any homosexual will tell you this.
But I agree, this belongs in Dead Horses.
quote:
alexliamw said How can this be said at what claims to be a modern, forward-looking event? The church has alienated enough people without this problem making it worse. If Christianity hopes to be acknowledged as accesible and modern, it has to take all this on board.
Well i shall answer this question and not flog this horse any more.
In a major bit of being simplistic christianity holds on to various absolutes ie Jesus was the Son Of god Trinity ect and these are reavealed in the bible and the creeds.
The problems partly lies where do the absolutes end and start. One group (the evangelicals well more or less) holds on to more absolutes and another group (modernists terrible label then there you go) hold on to fewer absolutes.
The former group hold on to a more literal interpretation of scripture than the latter.
The evangelicals say that practicing homosexuality is wrong because that is what the bible says and how we have traditionally understood it.
The modernists say well the bible was a text for its time and the writers didn't understand what it was to be a in a loving homosexual relationship.
Both have a failing the evangelicals almost always have actually cut away at one or two absolutes already and just happen to have kept this one. The modernists actually have a problem of defining which absolutes should be kept and which should not.
In the UK at the moment the evangelical wing of the church is more dynamic section of the church hence many up tempo events are run by that particular branch of theology.
I hope that helps if you wish to read the details of the arguement please read the thread!!!
quote:You have probably been told that such events are modern and forward looking because they have modern music instead of sixteenth century motets. But theologically such events are often very conservative, some still being in the dinosaur age, or at least positively mediaeval. There is a huge difference in being radical in your choice of music and radical in your theology. Christians often confuse which they mean.
Originally posted by alexliamw:
At New Wine Youth, I attended a talk on sex and Christianity. Within this, I was shocked to hear the whole panel expressly state that they believe homosexuality is wrong. How can this be said at what claims to be a modern, forward-looking event?
quote:Mr. Pink I think you will find there is a large section of the heterosexual community eg. the clubbing crowd who are just the same
quote:Christina, if you scroll up just a little bit and read Mr Pink's previous post, you'll see that he talks about having come out. Just between the two of us - he might just be, you know, well, ummm g - a - y himself.
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Mr Pink,
What a strange handle for a gay basher!?
MMMmmmmm! Seems you're the kind of person that Paul's gay friend was talking about.
I'm sure you'll be used mightily to win many gays and lesbians to Christ, with your attitude.
Christina
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:Perhaps because we want to be different?
Originally posted by MR PINK:
Interesting posting Paul.
I agree in theory r/e the break with acceptted society howver if Gays want to be different why are they fighting to have the same rights as hetrosexual couples e.g pension rights, next of Kin ect?
As someone who "crossed" the great divide why does it seem to me that a large percentage of gays have the emotional maurity of a gnat and still act like my four year when they don't get their own way. Have appaling musical taste and are quiet happy to be ripped off by the culture they support?
quote:Screw your friends - not literally!
Originally posted by MR PINK:
I'm considered something of a freak by my "gay" friends as I'm in a mongomous realtionship & don't subscribe to live today & don't worry about it school of thought.
One of the major sticking points is my kids. Most of my gay friends think they should know by know however both me & their mother don't think so. therefore I'm regarded as a hypocrite for being openly gay in the adult world & "in the closet" with my offspring.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:I don't like that phrase but I stand at the conservative end of the argument and believe that Snx of any form outside marriage is not God's ideal. (I neither have the time or energy to define sex or marriage).
Mersymike sai , perhaps even worse, the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' brigade (I'd rather just have 'hate' - at least its honest)
quote:Unless, of course, it's true, and then I suppose we'd be stuck.
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
It is about time Christianity grew up and ditched this "homosexuality is a sin" nonsense before it entirely discredits the religion
quote:A lot of reasons why everyone else is to blame. "It's not my fault!"
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
I would say there are a number of reasons why the gay community in general is more promiscuous & generally hedonistic than the wider community.
First, not much more than 30 years ago the community faced very real problems of legal oppression <snip>
Second, society, the establishment and Christianity has been anti-gay for centuries. <snip>
Third, <snip> How are gays and lesbians brought up? Often they are just told that they are perverts and that is that. They are given no advice on adult relationships by either their parents (unless they are very lucky) or their school <snip>
Fourth, there is no marriage institution for gays and lesbians. <snip>
Fifth is peer pressure and cultural pressure. <snip>
Therefore, promiscuity in the gay community is basically a product of the culture and society of our times. <snip>
Right now I think the way our society/culture is as a whole is that many gays and lesbians are discouraged/forced away from a monogamous relationship. <snip>
quote:to which ChastMastr replied
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
It is about time Christianity grew up and ditched this "homosexuality is a sin" nonsense before it entirely discredits the religion
quote:I can't believe you said that, but, yes.
Unless, of course, it's true, and then I suppose we'd be stuck.
quote:I think you are misguided but I don’t hate you. You have not seen the things I’ve seen, so I can forgive you.
I bear no one hatred please do not judge me.
quote:No mate – then we loose our faith. Are you really that blind to the knife edge along which so many tred?
Unless, of course, it's true, and then I suppose we'd be stuck
quote:Very good reasons however. If we abolished marriage for heterosexuals, for example, would that stabilise or de-stabilise heterosexual relationships? Unless we acknowledge these reasons and deal with the issues that lie behind them we will not be able to move forward. Ultimately, of course, we all need to take responsibility for our own relationships but we also need to lay to rest the ghosts of past oppression.
A lot of reasons why everyone else is to blame. "It's not my fault!"
quote:We shall see, as he has been confirmed as the 104th occupant of St. Augustine's chair.
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If Rowan does get chosen for Canterbury, perhaps his gentle, considered views on this issue may start to change some hearts and minds, by his example
quote:why?
Dorothy's Friend says It is a very condescending argument
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Hi Merseymike,
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I suppose this does come down to definition again - what do we mean when we say liberal or conservative ?
I mean, if one equaltes 'liberal' with the 'Sea of Faith', then I'm not liberal. If one says 'well, the core of Christianity is the Resurrection and the personhood of Jesus, but liberal Christians, whilst working within these orthodoxies, believe the Bible is not literal truth or inerrant or a 'fax from Heaven', but requires interpretation in the light of culture, history, knowledge, reason and experience ....then I am a liberal.
Does that help ?
Put it like this, I think most conservatives regard me as a liberal! But, then, conservatism appears to be largely about what you think about seven-day-literal-creation and your views on gay people these days.
I certainly feel more comfortable with liberals, but perhaps thats because they don't begin with condemnation.
Liberal catholic is the best way to describe me.
Mike
![[Flaming]](graemlins/angryfire.gif)
quote:I'm sorry, but a huge amount of poverty and death in Africa and parts of Asia at the moment is due to a sexually-transmitted disease (HIV/AIDS) which is killing huge percentages of the populations of some countries, and leaving millions of orphans. Yes, I know that the transmission is nearly all heterosexual, but it's largely due to people ignoring (or being unaware of) the Biblical ideal of faithful marriage to one partner. I think Jesus is rather concerned about sex in this context.
and children dying, and abuse going on and on, and poverty, and war, and all those other things that seemed to bother Jesus so much more than sex
quote:OK. Fine. Talk about promiscuous sex, talk about sex outside of marriage. But do not equate that with homosexuality. The VAST majority of same-sex people I know are not promiscious. Are looking for, or are in, commited, monogomous, faithful, stable relationships. I imagine that the same-sex couples seeking to have their relationships blessed in church will be couples who hold Christian beliefs. And who have absolutely nothing to do with the situation you mention above.
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Yes, I know that the transmission is nearly all heterosexual, but it's largely due to people ignoring (or being unaware of) the Biblical ideal of faithful marriage to one partner. I think Jesus is rather concerned about sex in this context.
quote:Sure. But what my rant was about is that, on one level, I don't understand why it's an issue. Why should anglican priests be concerned with the gender of the person I'm having sex with, when that sex is taking place in the context of a committed faithful relationship? Why is the church threatening to split over this, and not, say, the fact that many Anglican clergy and theologians will deny the bodily resurection of Christ? Or that many sections of the Anglican church hold very different views as to the authority and literal-ness of Scripture? Or the expectations of how the Holy Spirit will manifest? If the Anglican church is going to split, why the ^$^$"$ is it over something about which Jesus never said a single word?
I also see that He would be rather concerned about an issue which seems set to divide the Anglican Communion, which George Carey does not want to see torn apart because of the refusal of certain individuals (bishops, etc.) to accept what was agreed by a majority of Anglicans (or their representatives at Synod), and what he, as Archbishop of Canterbury, has authority to support.
quote:i doubt he cares much about that at all. all these divisions are man-made, not god made, and i can't see the divine giving a darn, except for as it affects the well-being of each individual member.
I also see that He would be rather concerned about an issue which seems set to divide the Anglican Communion,
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Oh good, someone else who has discovered George Hopper's work. I stumbled upon his book a couple of years ago while I was searching on the Web for references to Simon Harvey's suicide, alluded to by George. Simon was a very close friend to me at one time, who committed suicide in his mid twenties, and only years later did I learn (via a TV programme about him of all things) that he had been gay, and it was his failure to reconcile this with his evangelical faith that had ultimately caused him to take his life.
Originally posted by Merseymike:
This is a reply to Vague's post on the closed thread. I will also send to him privately
Hi. I think that I would first, direct you to former discussions. Then to George Hopper's book, Reluctant Journey, which you will find on www.gseh65.freeserve.co.uk .
quote:Merseymike, your comments that in Scripture there was no such thing as homosexual orientation add further light to this area for me. I'm still not convinced, but I'd be rather slower to condemn than I might have been before. Having known someone like Simon Harvey, who was one of the finest Christians I've ever known, and to see what this did to him, really does make me think.
It was most thought provoking to read your booklet on the WWW. It is interesting to see how the various biblical passages may not necessarily mean what we think they do. The fact that your approach is firmly based on scripture, gives it much more credibility to me than much of the 'liberal' pro-gay lobby.
Nevertheless I cannot agree with your conclusions. If God accepts loving intimate relations for gay people, why did he not institute a form of marriage for these to be exercised in? In the heterosexual community, for our sexuality to be expressed within the will of God it can only be within marriage. I realise that people fail to meet these ideals, but I see gay sex in the same light as heterosexual sex outside marriage (ie fornication adultery etc). Heterosexual people who are not married are required by God to remain celibate, and the same goes for homosexuals. I agree that its tough for them, and we need to accept them in the church etc, but not to condone a physical relationship. So I guess my basic position has not been changed by my quick reading of your publication, but nevertheless I found it most informative to see how others can come to a different position by careful study of the scripture. Certainly something I will bear in mind in the future when I come to look at theses passages again.
quote:Excuse me Erin, but where are these things condemned? (really getting worried now!
I guess my question is this: are you concerned about "condemned" (sodomy, oral sex, masturbation, etc.) sexual practices in the bedrooms of married heterosexuals?
![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
)
quote:MM I only noticed this thread was live again after starting "is Frodo gay?".
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Using the old adage 'love the sinner, hate the sin' , in the case of this topic, simply doesn't work, because the Bible doesn't clearly distinguish any such thing as gay sexual orientation. I have always felt that a more appropriate conservative interpretation is that it simply isn't a concept which should exist in God's order, if we assume that is what the Bible describes. The Bible doesn't actually clearly distinguish between 'being' and 'doing', because those concepts were not available for them to do so. This is the basis of thinking behind the exgay movement and those who seek to change what they view as a flawed orientation. However, I do recognise that few British evangelicals hold that view.
.
quote:Perhaps I may venture to say that the bible has no concept of the Copernican theory of the motion of the planets nor does it provide a scientific understanding of sexual orientation. This does not negate the claim that God created the universe and the very laws of physics that we use to describe creation. The bible could be said to lay down laws and guidelines how we should live and treat each other. It is not unreasonable to believe that the bible only sanctions monogamous heterosexual lifelong partnerships. For all we know Jesus could have been Bi or Gay and could have chosen to be celibate for that reason. There is no evidence one way or another because the Bible, as you said, has no understanding or sexual orientation.
Now, many people who use the argument that, to quote the tired old slogan, we should 'love the sinner and hate the sin', use contemporary concepts of sexual orientation to separate the doing from the being. The Bible doesn't. The concept of sexual orientation is now widely accepted as a reality, as you do here, Vague, but if you are to do so, you are already accepting that the Biblical vision of sexuality as universally heterosexual in design is flawed - and if you wish to accept it, then the logical position is to condemn both being and practice, for there is no gay sexual orientation in the Bible.
quote:I would also point to the passage starting at 1 John 4:16. (God is Love). John shows us what we should all aspire to.
Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children, and live a life of Love. Just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Tiffer quote:Has anyone ever found heterosexuality to be a help in their Christian walk?
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Has anyone here ever found homosexuality (in one form or another, whether sublimated or not) to be a help in their Christian walk?
quote:Not very much for lesbians, I'm afraid, ChastMastr
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
... (Not even getting into the whole "Jesus as our Bridegroom" aspect, which could still be relevant.)
quote:Oh I missed this. My italics. Kindly don't include trans* people in discussions of homosexuality as if they, as a class have gay orientation. And I don't ask this because there is some shame in being gay - rather that it is an offensive failure to understand the condition known as transsexualism. Transsexual and Transgender people express all sexualities: straight, bi, gay. Gay and Bi TS people are ordinary men and women and are quite ably represented by the LGB part of LGBT.
Originally posted by Vague:
The problem is how to overcome and heal the pain felt by those who feel they are rejected and demonised without a complete denial of either the Evangelical's convictions, or dehumanising the LGBT person because of what maybe a fundamental building block to their sense of identity.
quote:Um, I don't know what it's like where you are, but here in the US we get a lot of people who are upset when the T is left out of the LGBT. I don't know if there are different "parties" on this issue in the T* community, or if it's an international issue, or what, but much of the time people in the trans* community here are upset by being left out rather than put in. There are always angry "letters to the editor" by people in the local trans* community whenever a gay-rights or anti-discrimination law is under discussion and trans* rights are not included -- is it different outside the US?
Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
quote:Oh I missed this. My italics. Kindly don't include trans* people in discussions of homosexuality
Originally posted by Vague:
the LGBT person
quote:Now I've never heard of this book, let alone read it, but I just wondered if others have, whether you are pro or anti acceptance of homosexual practice for Christians, and whether indeed this particular author's treatment of the subject does throw any light on the minefield that is this subject.
I do not, however, know how any reasonable person could read Robert A. J. Gagnon's 500-page book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001), and not conclude that any exegesis evading the clear meaning of Paul is evasive indeed. Nor from now on can I regard anyone as qualified to debate homosexuality who has not come to terms with Gagnon's encyclopedic examination of all the relevant passages and all the exegetical hypotheses concerning them. I have not always agreed with James Barr, but when on the dust jacket he describes Gagnon's treatise as "indispensable even for those who disagree with the author," I think he is absolutely right.
quote:IMHO, if Packer really thinks that in order to apprehend the meaning of one very tiny aspect of Scripture, one must read a 500-page book, something's awry with Packer's theology. Is smacks of elitism to me.
Nor from now on can I regard anyone as qualified to debate homosexuality who has not come to terms with Gagnon's encyclopedic examination of all the relevant passages and all the exegetical hypotheses concerning them.
quote:Does anybody have a copy of this booklet or know where the website has gone off to? I've tried now a couple of times to access it and haven't been successful.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:Oh good, someone else who has discovered George Hopper's work....
Originally posted by Merseymike:
This is a reply to Vague's post on the closed thread. I will also send to him privately
Hi. I think that I would first, direct you to former discussions. Then to George Hopper's book, Reluctant Journey, which you will find on www.gseh65.freeserve.co.uk .
) ) but 50 posts will elevate you to the status of shipmate!
. I have been invloved with a couple of other on-line discusion groups but not any quite like this. quote:Welcome, Dorothea. An argument very similar to what you "realized" is made in Miner &
Originally posted by dorothea:
...the sermon dealt with the incident in Acts 11, v 5-10, in which Peter has a vision in which things previously considered unclean (in this case types of meat) were made pure. Sitting in the pew, I had a sudden realisation (see what I mean about the Charasmatic streak?)that this piece of scripture could have far wider implications. ...
but y'know what I mean.) I don't know what's happening in other parts of the world, except that American Episcopalians seem to be quite inclusive and that some Anglican Bishops in Africa are pretty anti.
quote:At the General Convention of the ECUSA this summer they will vote on blessing same-sex unions. So we'll find out just how inclusive we are. The director of Claiming the Blessing came and spoke at our parish in the fall, and she was very optimistic about the chances of this passing.
Originally posted by dorothea:
I don't know what's happening in other parts of the world, except that American Episcopalians seem to be quite inclusive ...
![[Love]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Can be, yes. But in my own case I think I'm better off without them.
Originally posted by dorothea:
Are you saying his (Christian?) friends actually rejectd him after he came out? If so, how very sad.
*hug* ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:I've been involved with Alpha for quite a while. And I absolutely disagree with Nicky Gumble on three of his seven Questions of Life. Hmmm... maybe I should start a Purgatory thread on that...
Originally posted by dorothea:
It's good to know that Alpha style responses to this issue are not the only type of responses from those who hold the faith.
...
quote:Yep!
Originally posted by Wood:
Just a post to ask if any of you have heard of American Evangelical gay rights activist Rev. Mel White.
quote:Sure. Soulforce is just a ways down the freeway in Laguna Beach. In 2000 the Presbyterians had their annual meeting here in Long Beach and Soulforce protested. The More Light Presbyterians had their worship service in the church I work for.
Originally posted by Wood:
Just a post to ask if any of you have heard of American Evangelical gay rights activist Rev. Mel White.
He runs an organisation called Soulforce.
quote:Just goes to show how revolutionary it can be to read what the Bible actually says!
Particularly interesting is his pamphlet What the Bible says and doesn't say about homesexuality which gives a pro-gay argument from an Evangelical standpoint, without IMHO any of the "interpretational gymnastics" that some have been accused of.
quote:
He's set up Soulforce to apply the non-violent principles of Ghandi and Martin Luther King to the right wing Christian world. He and his partner have moved to Lynchburg, so they now live right opposite Jerry Falwell's church. They sit in the front row and smile up at him each Sunday.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
)
quote:It is ... but to me, the greater value is that fact that he and his partner are taking time to befriend individual members of Falwell's congregation; inviting them to dinner; and letting these people see that a gay couple is not something of which to be afraid.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Priceless! That is PRICELESS!
quote:Sometimes, perhaps, but I don't agree with the kind of disruptive behaviour they seem to be engaging in. I also don't agree with their theology, but I don't think it would be any more appropriate for more traditionalist sorts to do the same kind of thing at, say, the Metropolitan Community Church. It would be appalling and (for me) embarrassing if that happened, even if it were with regard to doctrines I agree with.
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Non violent direct action is a long standing and honourable tradition, and sometimes it has a place.
quote:You see, I think that the fact he's working within an evangelical framework is his greatest strength, given that it is the only way to reach the people at whom his material is aimed.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I don't know what ChatMastr thinks is wrong about Rev. White's theology. I think he's working within an evangelical approach to scripture/ doctrine which I personally don't agree with. However, within that framework he's doing good work, all power to the man.
quote:Well, he believes that sexual intercourse between two members of the same sex is permitted to Christians. (I'm more Catholic doctrinally as well, but the former is what I was referring to specifically; hence my statement (emphasis mine) that I "don't think it would be any more appropriate for more traditionalist sorts to do the same kind of thing at, say, the Metropolitan Community Church." I wasn't referring to his evangelical theology but to his doctrines of sexual morality.)
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I don't know what ChatMastr thinks is wrong about Rev. White's theology.
quote:MerseyMike, this is Dead Horses, not Hell. I'd appreciate your not accusing me of using "feeble cop-outs," thanks.
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think thats a totally bogus argument, since there was no distinguishing between 'behaviour' and 'orientation' in Biblical times, also, are you suggesting that 'intercourse' ( also not defined) is taboo, whereas S&M is OK ?
If so, thats one of the feeblest cop-outs I have ever heard!
quote:Actually, my position, apart from the intercourse issue, is almost precisely the opposite of the ex-gay movement.
Originally posted by Merseymike:
no real difference between your position and that of the ex-gay movement, then - I don't think you wouldbe eligible for the groups you mention, as they are for people who fully affirm gay relationships.
I would hope they would be monogamous and faithful ones as well!
For one thing, my identity (at least on an earthly level) is indeed very much, and intentionally, bound up in the gay and leather communities. They are the tribe (or tribes) I belong to. Whereas the ex-gay groups I know of have, as part of their specific beliefs, the desire to reorient people's same-sex attractions (leading to opposite-sex marriage in particular), I believe in not only sublimating them but even in channeling them. Exodus, one of the better known groups, quote:I certainly don't think I fit into that.
views homosexual expression as outside of God's will. EXODUS cites homosexual tendencies as one of many disorders that beset fallen humanity. Choosing to resolve these tendencies through homosexual behavior, taking on a homosexual identity, and involvement in the homosexual lifestyle is considered destructive, as it distorts God's intent for the individual and is thus sinful. ... [Exodus wants people to]grow into heterosexuality.
quote:Hmmm.
Generally, we seek relationships that are whole and not just the expression of genital sexuality. Most of us almost instinctively reject sexual activity that is selfish or manipulative, that harms or exploits. Some prefer to reserve sexual lovemaking for one person in the context of a lifelong commitment, and many regard lifelong fidelity in a monogamous relationship as the ideal to strive for. Other couples have remained faithful to one another while allowing for some sexual expression outside their relationship, and some attempt completely open relationships. Others of us are sexually active as singles, either because we choose to be single, or because we have not yet found a companion. Some of us abstain from sexual activity for a variety of reasons. ... Diversity of sexual and genital behavior is more visible and more openly discussed in the gay and lesbian community than it is among heterosexuals. We differ among ourselves in evaluating some of these practices. As we discuss them together, we are challenged to recognize the quality of each relationship and to find within it the presence of God. In doing so, we find that we can come to a greater understanding of sexual rituals that are not part of our own lovemaking. We see this as a valuable way of continuing to learn from one another and to care for one another.
quote:which would sound as if, despite the above about abstinence, I might not fit.
The primary mission of Dignity is to respectfully dissent from the position of the Roman Catholic Church that homosexuals must be celibate to be followers of Christ.
quote:which does sound like my membership in the Episcopal Church would not be an obstacle.
Although its primary interaction is with the Catholic Church, Dignity Chapters welcome men and women of all spiritual traditions. We are a bridge between the Leather Community and the Christian Community.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicub:
My hubby was involved in chartering Philly's chapter of the Defenders.. I think the DC chapter is quite active. Your ECUSAness wouldn't be a problem -- they were trying to get me to join until my partner decided to leave the group for various reasons -- but I wouldn't expect to find much agreement with your stance on sexuality either. I know that won't come as a shock.
Nope! But what I know of my local group doesn't really make me rush in to join; it's more like a lot of other local leather clubs I know (I'm a member of my local bondage/SM club, but not a "leather club" per se -- most of which seem to be run on the fraternity model, with pledges and the like, etc. and not much of the sorts of things I'm interested in). They're nice people but I honestly expected something like a gay version of the Hermanos Penitentes. You know, special ceremonies at Lent, etc. But while they may do many things which help the community, it does not quite seem like my cup of tea.
quote:I think they're mistaken, as I imagine most of them would think me mistaken.
Originally posted by dorothea:
By the same token, Chast,if you don't mind me asking, what's your opinion on gay Christians who do feel comfortable with same sex intercourse?
quote:Um, in David's defence here, while I consider his position to be inherently contradictory, I do think it's possible to hold an inherently contradictory opinion and still have integrity.
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I don't consider that a position of integrity.
quote:That's fine. We can disagree.
Originally posted by Wood:
I know it's been said many times before, by many other people, Chast, but I honestly don't see how fisting doesn't count as sexual intercourse.
quote:Quite clearly to you; obviously, not to me. Please also note that I have been using the term "specific sexual practices" so as to make my position clearer.
Originally posted by Merseymike:
And Wood ; I agree as well - quite clearly, these activities are 'sex' and to try to define them as something else merely to ensure that your own preferred sexual activities are not 'sex' , so preserving your integrity, is sophistry.
quote:MerseyMike: No offence, but is it really that difficult to simply say, "I disagree. I think you are wrong" rather than:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Dorothea ; its for the above reason I find CM's position laccks integrity. As much as I disagree with them and know that they can often lead very lonely, unhappy lives, those who remain celibate because they believe their faith tells them to do have integrity. Those who work for change within the church, the same. Those who preach that only the sex they like is OK for Christians (and that sex being violent and bereft of Christian values) - well, I don't consider that a position of integrity.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
) or they say "... do you kiss?" and I have to clarify. It's amazing how many people have such varying notions. So I have to say I don't do genital penetration of any bodily orifice and that generally clears it up. quote:I appreciate that, MM -- and I thank you.
I mean intellectual rather than personal integrity. I am sure he is sincere in what he believes. but there seems a dissonance which I cannot reconcile.
quote:It's much easier taking a biological line - you could say that if there aren't gametes and so at least the possibilty of involved it isn't sex (which it isn't, in a biological sense). So no homosexual act would be "sex". Or indeed no act involving a woman past the menopause. They would all be something else - whether right or wrong is another question.
Originally posted by thegreent:
im not sure i *really* want to get into this discussion but.....
CM - can you reply to iannas comment, as i think by your definition its pretty impossible for lesbians to 'have sex'. Particularly as, again by your definition, in theory its ok for doctors to 'go there', but i certainly dont think thats the same as it is with my husband.....
quote:Yes, this is an interesting conundrum. I may have missed something; it's not been as direct an issue for me but I've wondered about it. If deliberate stimulation to orgasm is indeed permitted outside of male-female marriage for Christians, the question of appropriate contexts, methods and so on does arise. (Back before I concluded in November that such was permitted, of course, it was less of an issue.) But also as I say I am not concerned with the definition of "sex" or of "have sex" but about what is permitted/forbidden.
Originally posted by thegreent:
CM - can you reply to iannas comment, as i think by your definition its pretty impossible for lesbians to 'have sex'.
quote:This would follow, yes. Though I do also look to Tradition (or traditions, depending) for how to interpret the Bible.
Originally posted by Inanna:
CM.. so you basically don't believe that the Bible prohibits lesbian sex? Since none of that involves a genital penetrating any orifice.
quote:Well -- I think I've been pretty clear -- and I hope, with proper respect and politeness -- that my worldview has a lot of what many people would classify as "inherent sexism" to it. (I did finally reach the conclusion back in December that I believe a woman can indeed be validly ordained to the priesthood and the the bishopric, but I did not reach it via means which had anything to do with gender issues per se at all...) Whether there are flaws is, I suppose, what we're discussing.
Originally posted by Inanna:
thinking there's an awful lot of inherent sexism and flaws with this way of defining things .. it certainly wouldn't work for me as a consistent guide to live by.
Nor am I trying to be offensive to anyone. I try to choose my words with care but I know I don't always succeed as I'd like. quote:Well, I'm sorry you think that way. I've worked very hard, even with converting to Christianity in the first place, at not letting my personal wishes interfere with being honest with myself and trying to reach the truest conclusions I can. When I first became interested in Christianity, I had to be very severe with myself lest it turn out to be Just Another Hobby like Dungeons and Dragons or whatnot, a pleasant fantasy world to escape into. The same goes for the paranormal, and the same with this. It's been damned difficult; I'd wake up in the morning and start not only thinking about what the story of Abraham and his almost-sacrifice of Isaac meant about the nature of God's character, but worrying, and forcing myself to face that dread as logically and rationally as I possibly could. Actually trusting Jesus rather than merely (important though it is) reaching a rationally valid set of conclusions about His existence and Nature is something else, of course. And all of this applies to this sort of thing as well. I don't, by the way, even though I think other Christians who do have {sex/whatever we call this thing} outside of faithful male-female marriage, say that I think they're chucked into Hell or something; I trust that Jesus is dealing with my errors, whatever they may be, and with their errors, whatever they may be, on an individual basis, and I trust and hope very much that He's aware of all the blind spots we each have, whether it's mine about my notions of chastity, or someone else's about sex, or some other person's about fasting, or loaning money at interest, or whatever. And if I reach the conclusion that some thing I do, or set of things I do, is actually forbidden to me (as a Christian in general or in some David-specific case), then I'll just have to stop.
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I still but can't help think that its a convoluted way of justifying what you want to do and like doing as 'not sex'. CM.
quote:That's an excellent question also. How much does the tongue count as a sexual organ? Does it count as a sort of oral "penetration" by the vagina? I am not comfortable even with the penile equivalent for the reasons I mention above, as while it might not strictly involve oral penetration, it's still too close for comfort for me. I haven't made a list (and don't have a desperate longing to right now) of "things which may be too close for comfort for me but which may not technically fit into the precise categories I've given."
Originally posted by Inanna:
Male partner goes down on female partner: no genital penetration of an orifice, so it's OK and not prohibited outside of marriage.
quote:That's okay.
really really not convinced.
I don't really expect everyone, or even anyone, to be. But I figured I should answer people's questions. I hope I've done so in ways which aren't rude or inappropriate.quote:OK, I have been reading this thread, purely out of interest, and do not wish to get *involved* but, I do have a question... what happened to making love? Certain people here seem to refer to the act of 'sex', what about lovemaking... In my very humble opinion, they are two different things...
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I think the word "sex" in this context can be misleading, see above.
quote:
Originally posted by dolphy:
what happened to making love? Certain people here seem to refer to the act of 'sex', what about lovemaking... In my very humble opinion, they are two different things...
I am thinking of the "permitted or forbidden" issues surrounding specific acts, but of course everything is affected by attitude toward the participants, and love is the heart of the law. I don't think it intrinsically makes something forbidden permitted, but I definitely think it helps -- and if one does these things without genuine love and charity for those involved, then no matter how much it fulfills the "rules" of who puts what in what orifice, it's still morally defective because the attitude lacks that love.
" thing as much as it probably looks like, though I used to... I want to learn what I can from the present era as well as from past ones, even though I try to give Tradition highest weight...) (And of course it takes forever to write all this because it's not simple or quick for me; I think it's pretty complex and well-balanced, in a good way, but explaining it, and how I got from Point A to Point B, is also going to be complicated. Even becoming a Christian was complicated for me... much less a celibate (by my understanding) gay leatherman Christian who's OK with even odder things than that...
quote:
Surely the most important thing is that we find what is most comfortable and acceptable mutually between ourself and our partner.
quote:That is SOF T-shirt-worthy.(And I mean that in the most respectful of ways.)
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The idea that any of us can be consistent, logical, coherent, plausible, convincing about sex (to ourselves and each other) strikes me as the funniest thing ever!
I wish it would work, but obviously it won't because the church is defining sex much more widely than CM. quote:Beautifully and succinctly put, Arabella.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
it angers me that the church hierarchy just sees sex where I see a 10 year (and climbing) relationship that is plain wonderful, enduring and loving.
quote:I don't understand -- if you mean that I reached a different understanding of what's permitted or not, I would (and indeed have done, see previous posts) change my behaviour. In fact, what I concluded I was permitted to do was itself the result of a very long time of reading, study, prayer, etc.; before that I tried very hard to avoid doing anything of the sort, and I still think -- given that I did not believe it was morally OK at the time, and "whatever is not of faith is sin" -- that it was right for me to fight against it until the time came when my beliefs changed.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Just as a matter of interest, CM, if the doctrine of the church was changed to reflect this wider definition, would you then become celibate under that definition?
quote:No, what I meant was that if the Vatican came out with a definition of prohibited sex acts that went beyond genital sex and described explicitly what wasn't acceptable for a good Catholic (say for an example that affects me, tribadism or that affects you, fisting) would you abandon your current sexual practices?
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:I don't understand -- if you mean that I reached a different understanding of what's permitted or not, I would (and indeed have done, see previous posts) change my behaviour.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Just as a matter of interest, CM, if the doctrine of the church was changed to reflect this wider definition, would you then become celibate under that definition?
quote:I'm more of an Anglo-Catholic than a Roman one -- sorry if I have been unclear. I don't consider the Vatican's rules binding; if I did, I would follow them (and attend a Roman Catholic church regularly, of course).
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
No, what I meant was that if the Vatican came out with a definition of prohibited sex acts that went beyond genital sex and described explicitly what wasn't acceptable for a good Catholic (say for an example that affects me, tribadism or that affects you, fisting) would you abandon your current sexual practices?
I'm just interested, although I have to say that I don't understand your arguments relating to gay sex at a gut level. What you advocate sounds very like what my more fundamentalist straight friends call "Christian" sex - anything but vaginal penetration - which you can have before marriage. Interestingly, it allows for anal sex, which I gather does happen on occasion. It sounds to me like obeying the letter but not the spirit of the law.
quote:For me, it's because of the contradiction this paints. You often state that you don't believe in sex outside of heterosexual marriage - and yet, for many people, fisting and the like is an activity which would be construed as, at the very least, sexUAL.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[qb]I still don't quite get why people keep bringing up fisting...
quote:Which is why I'm trying to use phrases like "certain sexual practices." As I say, I've met people who even define hugging and kissing as "sex." And others who don't define oral sex as "sex." Which is why I went through that whole tedious thing with references to {it} before. I would define "sex" that way but since this really does lead to lots of confusion (I'm not even thinking of the Ship but of people I meet in the gay community) I'm trying to be more specific.
Originally posted by Inanna:
quote:For me, it's because of the contradiction this paints. You often state that you don't believe in sex outside of heterosexual marriage - and yet, for many people, fisting and the like is an activity which would be construed as, at the very least, sexUAL.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[qb]I still don't quite get why people keep bringing up fisting...
quote:Oh! All that, I think, can be found on the two leather threads referenced above. And I should note that saying I think fisting is morally permissible is not the same as saying I think fisting is on exactly the same level as a peck on the cheek. It could be on the outer edge of what's allowed, depending on the situation, I suppose.
Hence I was interested in how you reconcile "I'm celibate" with "I think that fisting's OK and am undecided about mutual masturbation". (Is that last statement true? I can't quite recall exactly what your..er.. position is on this one.) This has nothing to do with your views on the leather scene btw, at least not as I'm understanding it, though I can imagine that for you it's hard to separate the two sometimes.
quote:And I understand and respect your choice even if I don't view things the same way you do.
I find it interesting because Terry and I are currently exploring what counts as "celibate" as we move in together and wait until we are married. I think we've drawn the line at anything beyond holding hands and cuddling - so I wouldn't feel comfortable describing an activity so genitally-focused and intimate as fisting, or the like, as compatible with being celibate.
quote:Good Grief, Gregory. Have you been taking Correctness Pills or something? You keep saying these things I agree with.
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
He is entitled to argue for his position without judging others ... even though his position is incomprehensible to many. Time was when Christian heterosexuals regarded anything other than the missionary position as out of order AND TAUGHT OTHERS THE SAME.
quote:Presumably not the missionary position?
Originally posted by Scot:
Since when does the civil liberties (including gay) community insist on acceptance of some sort of standardized position?
quote:And not even that, if you weren't taking the hex off it by diligently trying to procreate.
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
<snip a little> Time was when Christian heterosexuals regarded anything other than the missionary position as out of order AND TAUGHT OTHERS THE SAME.
quote:or this
All Christians should believe that genital sex outside heterosexuality is wrong.
quote:There are lots of things about Chastmastr that I don't understand, but I really admire his insistence on an integrated life. I can't see any value in a libertarianism which applies in the civil realm, but is ignored (or actively reversed) in matters of theology and morality.
All homosexuals should believe that genital sex outside heterosexuality is not wrong.
@Arabella
quote:I have?
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
He's already said that he doesn't associate with other gay and lesbian Christians particularly, because of his views.
If I sent a confusing message, my apologies... actually, other than on the Ship, at ShipMeets, and attending church, I hardly hang out with other (self-proclaiming) Christians at all, gay or otherwise. But that has more to do with attitudes in general, particularly tolerance, as well as -- erm -- intellectual stimulation. (Indeed, when I was temporarily going to another church than the one I have returned to, part of the attraction was that it was more overtly "gay-friendly" -- but the few gay people I met weren't any more "hey, let's go out for pizza!" than the straight people at the other church. It would appear -- alas! -- that "meeting new friends at church to hang out with" (whether gay, straight or what-have-you) was something which only happened in my life when I was at the university at the religious student centers, and that recapturing that is simply not in the cards...) For some time now the Ship has been (almost) the only context I've had to meet new friends with whom I can have interesting discussions. I wish you all lived nearby... So I suppose it is no longer merely the Ship. And my wonderful cub David is very cool and intelligent. quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
No one is on the outside when it comes to God. We mustn't let our comfort constrict our vision. Get out of that comfort zone!
quote:Hey, I agree! My partner once wrote a letter to a more fundamentalist magazine after they published an article on how practising homosexuals could be cured. She said that she was quite happy with her life, heavily involved with her church and trying her best to do God's work in the world.
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
No one is on the outside when it comes to God. We mustn't let our comfort constrict our vision. Get out of that comfort zone!
quote:I don't use the term 'homophobic' either. In my experience the opposition and villification I have had to endure at times have had nothing to do with irrational fear - they have been deliberate and premeditated!
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Scot ; the term homophobic may have initially come from psychology and meant 'fear of gays', but it really isn't used tomean that most of the time - it simply means 'anti-gay' or 'opposed to gay equality'. Personally, I tend to prefer those terms.
quote:Interesting question though - I'd agree with the deliberate and premeditated bit, but what underlies it? I think its the "yuk" factor, which is homophobia pure and simple, whatever logic is dreamed up to rationalise it.
Originally posted by Degs:
I don't use the term 'homophobic' either. In my experience the opposition and villification I have had to endure at times have had nothing to do with irrational fear - they have been deliberate and premeditated!
quote:Yes Fr Gregory you have it. The misguided attitudes on both sides.
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I can understand that Degs; ... as an aside "homophobia" represents that condescending and awfully superior attitude that "you hate me because you're frightened. There, there now, (pats head); don't be frightened." We all know that fear can lead to hatred but not all hatred is inspired by fear.
quote:So should we all!
The hatred I have experienced is not inspired by fear, and I do not dismiss it with condescension, but oppose it with determination.
quote:I've been lurking around this thread for weeks, and was beginning to feel like a Peeping Thomasina, so I'm going to use my appreciation of this beautiful line to let y'all know I'm here.
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Degs
quote:So should we all!
The hatred I have experienced is not inspired by fear, and I do not dismiss it with condescension, but oppose it with determination.
It applies to so many who've experienced hatred. I'm inspired
quote:David
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Which is why I'm trying to use phrases like "certain sexual practices." As I say, I've met people who even define hugging and kissing as "sex." And others who don't define oral sex as "sex." Which is why I went through that whole tedious thing with references to {it} before. I would define "sex" that way but since this really does lead to lots of confusion (I'm not even thinking of the Ship but of people I meet in the gay community) I'm trying to be more specific.
... I should note that saying I think fisting is morally permissible is not the same as saying I think fisting is on exactly the same level as a peck on the cheek. It could be on the outer edge of what's allowed, depending on the situation, I suppose.
...
I should also mention that technically having no intrinsic moral problem with people doing X or Y or Z is not the same as saying "right, everyone in the whole world should go have an orgy now as long as Tab A never enters Slots B, C or D." There are all sorts of things I don't technically have an intrinsic problem with as far as my Christian faith is concerned which I don't therefore think I, or everyone, or even anyone, should go do. (Smoking tobacco or taking recreational drugs, for example.) And of course attitude is REALLY important. If I were doing various things with the wrong attitude -- or even with inappropriate fantasies -- then as far as I am concerned, in that instance, I am sinning, so I must be careful with that as well, even if I think a given practice is technically OK.
...
And I understand and respect your choice even if I don't view things the same way you do.
David
quote:Chast
I think I really ought to add something. Whatever people think of me regarding the whole sexual/erotic/sensual/etc. thing, I use exactly the same principles for everything else, or at least I try to. It's just that no one ever jumps on me about them (not that I want them to). I make references to things all the time on the Ship which people either don't pick up on, don't care about, or back away slowly, nodding and smiling at the crazy person -- I'm not sure which in any given case. But my worldview does not fit easily with any modern paradigm on all sorts of other levels as well. However, I have no deep desire to derail this thread into that sort of thing. I'll just say that I suspect if people here knew or cared that this particular issue is the tip of a huge iceberg of "weirdness" then they'd probably either... well, I don't know how they'd react. Sometimes I think I get on better with the Pagans I know but maybe that's OK.
I don't believe I am insane nor inconsistent, basically; for me it all fits together with my understanding of How The World Works, including Jesus and the rest of it. And to me, what I understand to be orthodox Christian belief is a part of it, and none of it contradicts another part of it. It may be a precarious balance sometimes but I still believe it holds together and is as close as I have yet gotten to an accurate understanding of reality.
Sorry to go on for so long.
I understand what it is to be different.
quote:David, that isn't good enough in a serious debate space.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
experiencing deja vu
quote:Sorry, but I posted the above because I believe it answers your points, though I am aware that you disagree with those answers. You say, "His argument is that fisting is morally permissible because it is not sexual." And I had posted on this page above, "Which is why I'm trying to use phrases like 'certain sexual practices.' As I say, I've met people who even define hugging and kissing as "sex." And others who don't define oral sex as "sex." Which is why I went through that whole tedious thing with references to {it} before. I would define "sex" that way but since this really does lead to lots of confusion (I'm not even thinking of the Ship but of people I meet in the gay community) I'm trying to be more specific." Yes, I used to phrase it that way some time back, but since this led to nothing but confusion, not in doctrinal debate but with other people I met in person, I found that clarifying what I mean helped quite a lot.
Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
quote:David, that isn't good enough in a serious debate space.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
experiencing deja vu
quote:Well, I am sorry that it affects you that way. But I can't change my position based on that, because I believe it is true.
your insistence that you are chaste and celibate drives me wild.
quote:Actually no. Just defining myself as gay -- and openly so, at my job, church and everywhere else -- and I generally don't go into details with my co-workers about what I do and don't do for the most part, though church people may be different -- tends to bring on the same sort of thing, because people assume I'm sexuallly active in the same way. And the bits about leather and kink are, if anything, considered even weirder, frankly, by a lot of people. People know someone is staying with me right now, for the most part (my cub to whom I have referred), and they probably assume all manner of things. Whether they would be more comfortable or far, far less if they knew we don't have genital penetration, but do "other things" is a good question, but I honestly think they'd be happier with the 'vanilla' sex.
Do you see that the way you define chastity and celibacy protects you from the painful reality that faces gay people?
quote:Oh, right, they're all thrilled with bondage and S & M too? With (though I wish to emphasise yet again that I have only done this twice in my life, didn't particularly enjoy it though I feel almost *obligated* to try it again in case I meet someone who wants or needs such exploration, as a top I found it dull and as a bottom I found it exhausting) fisting as well? If so this is news to me.
That is, by your standards (and those of many other christians) of what is allowed 'genitally' sexually a gay person must either forego sexual intimacy or commit sin.
quote:Okay. See above re the terms I am trying to use.
I have not spoken to one single gay or bi bloke that doesn't consider fisting a sexual act
quote:When did I say this?? I don't believe in putting legal obstacles in the path of consenting adults' behaviour but this is not the same thing. But I don't also believe in being pushy about what I believe with them either -- which is not the same thing as holding a belief. I posted recently on the "conversion of people of other religions" thread about needing to be truthful, yet careful and courteous, re disagreement with people because of what Christians have done in the past; so here. I make it plain (esp to possible dates - don't want to lead people on) what I believe I, as a Christian, am allowed to do, but I also don't go round evangelising for non-genital-penetration either.
Now, you will say that you have technically no moral problem of other people having 'genital sex', casuistry again!
quote:That's correct, yes. Though I don't use the term "biblically" partly because I am not sola scriptura. I also don't think one should expect people who don't believe in certain doctrines to act as if they should; as Lewis puts it, I would be quite annoyed if people in a teetotal religion tried to stop everyone else from drinking wine.
If you state publically: 'I don't believe genital sex is biblically permissible except between men and women in marriage', the corollary of this is that anyone who is having 'genital sex', who is not a man and woman in marriage is doing something that is not biblically permissible! It's a logically inescapable conclusion!
quote:I'm still not sure where this comes from, I'm sorry. Yes, I think they are mistaken. I even believe that it is, for Christians, a sin. But I don't believe it is appropriate for me to be pushy or rude to them because of it, or love them any less. The human being who has mattered more to me than anyone else on the face of the earth -- whom I could almost be considered to commit idolatry with regard to my atttitude toward, so I must be careful -- had lots and lots and lots of this kind of sex. I also consider the man -- the non-Christian man, for that matter -- to be closer to a living saint than anyone I'd ever met. My cub, whom I love dearly, will be having sex with other men because I don't believe in forbidding him that just because my own religious views forbid *me* to do it. And he is a Christian himself, but as his beliefs are not the same as mine, and he has not asked me to make it a rule for him, I think it would be inappropriate for me to do so. This principle doesn't apply to everything -- in the past he has used some drugs (this is no secret), and he doesn't have an intrinsic moral problem with it -- but those I do forbid for reasons which are not strictly limited to morality, and he accepts that.
Let's explore the implications of you saying you don't have a moral problem with other people having 'genital sex'
quote:Obviously I don't think so or I wouldn't hold them. I think there may be paradoxes but not contradictions. Or even I'm just bloody weird but you know, I am okay with that.
There's a swag of contradictions going on here
quote:I don't think so, but I think we define "fullness of life" differently. And actually I vote for candidates and such who are freeing up the laws, working for legal recognition of people's relationships, and the like. As for the church I am not sure what to say. Do you really think that the "conservative" side approves of my position? I'm one of the ones that would get held up as an example -- "see, here is what those people are like, sick perverts into leather!" -- whether I do genital penetration or not.
You add your voice implicitly to those who oppose fullness of life in gay christian relationships.
quote:Well, I'm terribly sorry people think that way. But I am stuck with what I believe is true. And I cannot change it because some people, or even the vast majority of them, think that way.
People think it is a) a great joke or b) hypocrisy.
quote:And I am sorry we disagree on this. Not sure what else to say.
It is a huge piss off to people who are genuinely struggling with chastity. You're getting your rocks off while earnestly affirming that you are chaste and celibate. That's pretty galling.
quote:And I'm sorry you feel that way too. Or think that way. Not sure what that is defined as, admittedly. I think I've posted elsewhere on this thread that I wish I could join some of the groups you would likely include in that definition but I don't know that I would agree enough with their mission statements to do so.
despite what CM says, I don't regard him as part of the affirming lesbian and gay Christian community.
quote:Well, if you mean the genuinely nasty people who actively work against gay rights under the law, I don't want them to consider me on their side, and I don't think I'm in much danger of that. But regardless I must follow what I think is TRUE. I don't expect anyone else to believe it. If others do, that's cool.
I've got a feeling that the other side of the fence wouldn't be too impressed either.
quote:I don't think I am. But I've been saying that, and will have to continue to do so unless my beliefs change. Thus far nothing I have seen here inspires that shift.
Come on CM. Stop kidding yourself.
quote:See above re terms.
You do have sex - gay sex
quote:Well, I have. Over and over and over. I don't know what else to say; from my point of view, I've answered these questions on at least three separate multi-page thread almost ad nauseam. Our views may simply be so different that we can't see eye to eye to even see the roots of our disagreements or agree on the same reasons to believe A or B or C or D, much less X, Y, Z, and pi.
From the Purgatory guidelines: "All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged."
Basically, I'm asking you to put up or shut up.
quote:But I have been reprimanded by hosts and admins in the past. And when I have, I have tried to accept that and do what they say. I have tried to modify my behaviour accordingly when this has happened before. Sometimes I do get out of line with the silly jokes in particular. But especially in Purgatory I try to remain within the rules. And I try not to be too salacious, even in Hell.
You've had a charmed life on these boards, anyone else making known their view on what is and what isn't sexually allowed to gay people so frequently and flamboyantly as you would have been slapped down a long time ago. (I'm thinking of people like Matt the Mad Medic, Mark the Punk, Martin PCNot). Why should you be treated any differently?
quote:But people also do challenge me there and elsewhere. I state my position as politely as I can, and as clearly as I can. I'm even aware of this being a weirdarse point of view. This may be fairly helpful, in fact, because I don't really expect people to suddenly agree with me, or think that it's just so obviously right that anyone will leap right on over to my postion and adopt it. I don't even know -- I've often wondered -- how I would have felt about it, say, ten or fifteen years ago, if my future self went back in time and explained it all. I'd like to think I would not think my future self a blasphemous heretic or something. I'd like to think that I'd understand and agree. But I don't know that.
Unfortunately, the Purgatorial safety valve whereby weirdarse points of view are challenged, packed up and went home
quote:Well -- sorry we disagree -- but I can't really just change my views because of things like that.
it's not gunna stop me from kicking the shit outa ya
quote:But when the deja vu is from less than a page back, on the same page, isn't that a bit too much deja vu? I felt like people hadn't even read my post.
This is Dead Horses, it's the place for deja vu. So let's go!
quote:Well, I'm sorry, but I think I have tried to give my reasons for them -- I do think they have intellectual currency -- and I intend to continue stating what I believe when it seems appropriate.
And if you're going to resort to 'this is what I think/feel, how I view things, you may view them differently' well that's fine, but don't damn well share your thoughts, feelings, and views in a public debate forum under the pretence that they have some sort of intellectual currency.
quote:Please see above re terms.
a blatantly false proposition (ie. arseplay is not sexual)
quote:No, I'm not. There are all sorts of things I believe I can't do and as I say, it would make life MUCH easier if I could.
Chastmastr is trying to have it all ways
quote:Obviously I think it does. Whatever happened to "I statements"?
in the cold hard light of day it does not compute.
quote:Probably depends on the queer Christian. But even if the majority of them think badly of me I think my position is true.
I would even go so far as to say his position is offensive to queer Christians.
quote:When did I say "fully affirm gay Christians"? If I am misremembering my posts, please show me where and I will apologise for using unclear language, but in this context I am not even sure what the phrase means.
It's inconsistent to say you fully affirm gay Christians and at the same time say that the only permissible sexual relationships are those between men and women in marriage.
quote:I am -- again -- sorry we don't agree.
It's inconsistent to say you are chaste and celibate and then to indulge in arseplay and leatherplay.
quote:Well, if any of them would like to say more, please do.
I've seen a lot of people reinforcing Chastmastr over the last 18 months, mostly people trying to understand or empathise, but the queer Christian shipmates on board have tended to stay strangely quiet.
quote:The above seems to imply that anal stimulation by fingers or toys is also acceptable from your point of view. Is that correct?
Chastmastr:
Re fisting specifically: In my view, if a doctor can do it without its being [that thing, often called "sex," which I believe is only for the marriage context] then so can someone else without its being [that]. If a doctor can reach in wearing a glove for a prostate exam, or using a device, and that is not [that], then -- in my view -- so can another.
. My commitment to some sort of sanity on Christian sexuality does not. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:I'm very sorry we disagree; there's no need to impugn my motives, though, is there?
Originally posted by Merseymike:
David ; I understand your position, but I think you are kidding yourself.
Its all too convenient.
quote:You mean, you believe there is a false premise, right?
Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
But there is a single glaring false premise in the translation of your theology into practice.
quote:May I point you, again, to what I said above re the term 'sex'? Which applies to the term "sexual"? Specifically, I said:
Please confirm if the above is your basis for determining whether anal contact is sexual or not and we can continue.
quote:It seems very much to me as if people are arguing with terminology I've abandoned, and stated several times on this thread that I've abandoned. If I have been unclear here it is, condensed:
Which is why I'm trying to use phrases like "certain sexual practices." As I say, I've met people who even define hugging and kissing as "sex." And others who don't define oral sex as "sex." Which is why I went through that whole tedious thing with references to {it} before. I would define "sex" that way but since this really does lead to lots of confusion (I'm not even thinking of the Ship but of people I meet in the gay community) I'm trying to be more specific.
quote:I know we disagree about whether it is permitted or forbidden. I don't honestly expect this to change. Definitions of "what is sex" really do seem to vary wildly among people of my acquaintance, which is why, more than debates on the Ship or elsewhere, I started making my position more specific. I would meet someone and tell him "I don't do sex" and they would assume practically anything as to what that actually meant, from my being okay with oral sex (I'm not) to not being okay with hugging and kissing (yes please!).
Which is why I'm trying to use phrases like "certain sexual practices." ... I'm trying to be more specific.
How many times do I need to state my views? I disagree with you and with MM on many things but I don't hammer you about them, and -- again, no offence meant -- I'm beginning to feel hammered at. quote:And since many people view it that way, I replied and reply:
I've been reading this thread for a bit and have to say that I think Mike and Ic, etc. are right. Bondage and fisting are sex.
quote:
Which is why I'm trying to use phrases like "certain sexual practices." ... I'm trying to be more specific.
quote:I've wrestled with that one for some time, but after the long discussion on masturbation on its own thread (gone now, alas) I reached the conclusion that it didn't have to be. I suppose it's a corollary of the other.
David, I wonder, do you link intercourse soley ti procreation?
quote:Actually it's more the other way round -- I worked at determining what I consider to be OK and then try to remain within those parameters. As I've said, I don't care much for the thing most often brought up in this discussion -- fisting -- at all. But I have mentioned it as "something I think permitted." I haven't gone into tons of detail about what I do -- in terms of physical acts -- largely because I don't want to make the discussions salacious -- so I've tried to keep that theoretical. (I have gone into much detail regarding the personal, emotional, spiritual stuff in my own life, yes, but I think saying "Oh, I like to do this and this and this in particular, ooo, this is quite nice, but I don't care much for that" would move things into a somewhat different realm and practically make it into a personal ad or something. There's a big difference between saying "I think Christians are permitted to play sports games with marsupials -- and here is a list of the games and the species to which I believe this applies" and saying "I quite enjoy playing tennis with wombats."
David I think people come down on you because you justify your own sexuality whilst describing what many people engage in e.g intercourse between homosexual and unmarried hetro couples as wrong (e.g forbidden).
quote:I think I have a commitment to that as well.
My commitment to some sort of sanity on Christian sexuality
quote:Actually if my conclusions are correct, then (barring one's attitude, which can be inappropriate in same-sex, opposite-sex, or solo) it needn't be sinful at all. My apologies if I did not make that clear.
Originally posted by Ben26:
Also, I admit to being somewhat surprised that Chastmastr regards mutual masturbation between two lovers of the same gender as more permissible (although still sinful) then mutual masturbation between hetrosexual lovers.
Which was also on the masturbation thread ages ago. (My profound apologies for, as I recall, writing all that as a long doggerel-rhyme poem, by the way. It may have not exactly made my position clearer... )quote:As I understand it, it would indeed be permissible.
Out of interest, Chastmastr, what is your position of mutual masturbation within het marriage?
quote:Bless you.
I admire your honesty in discussing something as personal as your own sexual experiences, preferences and beliefs
quote:No. This is where your 'that is how you view it, I view it differently', 'that is true for you, not true for me' rationalisations don't stand up. As I've said before, there are some things that are objective realities. You can insist all you like that anal contact is not sexual - but your position is not supported by measurable physical and physiological phenoma.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:You mean, you believe there is a false premise, right?
Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
But there is a single glaring false premise in the translation of your theology into practice.
quote:Your reply suggests this was not your intention, that you are merely defining your own position, rather then suggesting what is right for others.
David I think people come down on you because you justify your own sexuality whilst describing what many people engage in e.g intercourse between homosexual and unmarried hetro couples as wrong (e.g forbidden).
J
quote:No offence intended here, but I have never said that I view the world in terms of "'that is true for you, not true for me'" notions. I am asking you to use "I believe" statements not because I don't believe in objective truth, but because these are the rules of civil and courteous discourse, as I understand them, particularly when one disagrees strongly. If I have not made that clear, my profound apologies, but that is what I have been trying to say, so I am going to make it clear here in this post.
Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
quote:No. This is where your 'that is how you view it, I view it differently', 'that is true for you, not true for me' rationalisations don't stand up. As I've said before, there are some things that are objective realities.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:You mean, you believe there is a false premise, right?
Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
But there is a single glaring false premise in the translation of your theology into practice.
quote:No offence meant -- again -- but I have said repeatedly now that I don't claim that, and have posted repeatedly that, due to my experience of the varying definitions of "sex" and "sexual," I am stating that I avoid certain sexual practices. I don't know how I can make this clearer, and I don't know why people continue to say "but you're claiming X" when I am not claiming X at all.
You can insist all you like that anal contact is not sexual
quote:Then, whatever your motives, sorry, but I won't play. I think I've pretty clearly stated my beliefs, and I have tried, as best I can, to debate such things with courtesy and respect for my opponents. But if you refuse to extend to me the same courtesy in this context, then I really don't see why I should continue.
Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
You are being hammered.
quote:You are being disingenuous; not one person here is going out of their way to break down Chastmastr's view of sexuality.
Originally posted by Asdara:
I agree with that. I think this long ago turned into "we want to break down Chast's person view of his sexuality to see if we can" a few pages back...
quote:Don't be such a drama queen. People have been engaging in a robust debate. That happens here. Not once has anyone - and that includes Chastmastr and Icarus Coot - stepped outside the bounds of acceptable debate.
With that I will close. I weep for you and your lack of humanity if you find none of this to strike any cord within you.
quote:And the obvious counter to that is to say that they do. To take one example, there are many evangelical organisations which campaign for justice and which work in developing and developed countries with the poor.
Originally posted by hatless in the "One sin most don't feel tempted to commit" thread:
The obvious counter to this is to ask why fundamentalists and evangelicals don't equally fervently oppose gossip, usury, purpresture (bet you have to look that one up!), denying justice and compassion to the poor, etc. These are all more clearly condemned in the Bible than is homosexuality.
quote:Leaving aside whether this is the case or not (personally I believe orientation is referred to in Romans 1, although not condemned as sinful but mentioned as a consequence of sin), nearly every evangelical group and church that I know of does not oppose homosexual orientation but homosexual practice. I have no problem with celibate gay people in ordained and episcopal ministry (see the Jeffrey John thread) but would have a problem with a still practising gay bishop.
Homosexuality is actually a dodgy case, biblically, because though there are references to male homosexual behaviour, the idea of homosexual orientation, of homosexuals seems not to be there at all.
quote:If it's any comfort, I would expect the same to happen to this man as well, if he were to get on here.
Originally posted by Asdara:
It makes me think that there is not one ounce of decency in the human race left to save.
...I watched good "Christian" people beat down one of their own morally, emotionally, and to the point that he was "calling uncle" and past that point as well.
quote:Just under the wire...
Originally posted by TonyK:
I am suggesting therefore (suggestions from a Host are, of course, more than just a suggestion) that this phase of the discussion be terminated from about 20:00GMT Tuesday evening (i.e. 28 hours from now).
I’m not even really sure how many people have been reading this thread… it is in Dead Horses, after all! …quote:(10) As this is my closing statement – and I really don’t want to carry the bad blood from this conflict over into the rest of the boards – what I said about continuing to behave as I have before this started also applies to my approach to other people on this thread. I fully intend to be civil toward IC and MM, and would like to say that, even if we strongly disagree about whether either of us is right, or even whether either of us is correct regarding the definitions of “sex,” “chastity,” or “celibacy,” I believe civility and courtesy, and even friendship, is still possible in such a situation. If you think I am terribly wrong and even imperiling my soul by either unchastity or hypocrisy – then pray for me. But please, let’s not sour things here on the Ship. There’s no need to keep fighting over this; we know we disagree. And I can disagree with conservative Shipmate A, liberal Shipmate B, bi/gay/straight Shipmates C, D, and E, orthodox Christian Shipmate F, heretical (in my view) Christian Shipmate G, non-Christian Shipmates H, I, J, K, and many others; with their definitions of things, with their notions about the Bible, tradition, the Church, Jesus Himself, God, metaphysics, politics, music, and literature – all without putting them down, accusing them of having bad motives, or the like. I’d like to ask you – and I am going to even implore you – to do the same. You know we disagree, even about each other’s self-definitions, but this is not news. I would like to remain civil to both of you, on the Ship and (should we ever meet) in person, and even leave the door open to possible friendship in the future, without expecting to agree with each other.
I hope very much that I have behaved well on this thread under what I consider to be pretty rough treatment bordering on harassment. (I've even told someone who PMed me, asking my permission to call one of the other participants to Hell for their behaviour on the thread, that I'd just rather the participant in question stopped pressuring me.) No, I don't think this is resolvable, which is why I have been trying to point people to my other statements on this and other threads rather than go on and on debating. I desperately don't want to argue with MM or IC in the Cafe, or in PMs or, frankly, at all at the moment if this is the way they're going to argue.
I'm perfectly happy to debate (in an appropriate venue) this or any number of other subjects as long as the participants will do so with courtesy and respect, but it doesn't seem forthcoming from MM or IC.
I've been very happy that on the Ship I have become on good terms, if not in-person friends, with all sorts of people with all sorts of beliefs, and whenever I am tempted to think nasty things about "everyone who believes a certain way" I can almost always point to some nice ShipMate who, despite our disagreement, is a good or kind person -- so I mustn't label people with that kind of broad brush. I'm very glad of that, and am sorry I've become (on this thread, anyway) such a hot-button topic.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr, on 17 June, nearly two weeks ago:
Well, first of all -- I have covered these subjects almost literally ad nauseam. I started another Leather Thread on T & T this year and I think most people's interest had been done -- or questions answered -- on the one from the previous year. I'm trying very hard, coy jokes and references to whips and kink aside (which the astute reader will note I have done less of in recent times), not to turn any given thread into The ChastMastr Show. I'm aware of being possibly the oddest person here, with the most wildly unusual combination of beliefs, and I am sure I come across sometimes (or to some) as a very strange but well-meaning heretic of possibly dubious sanity. And I also don't want to bore or disturb people needlessly. I don't "fit" into any modern paradigm very well -- not most contemporary Christian thought, not most contemporary gay-community notions, nor (since I have been flying my flag re: the paranormal) most contemporary Pagan/"New Age" thought for that matter. So I've been trying to not be overwhelming, or trollish, or salacious; to a degree it's been a relief when someone else posts a long Lewis quote (thanks, Josephine) and I can just put in a silly little rhyming couplet (sorry, Laura) about how I agree with them, and then read the next thread.
All I can say is, I tried.
quote:“Bullied, harassed, or cowed?” Oh, please. All Icarus Coot has asked of ChastMastr is that he defend his position. To my mind, a look at the context in which IC made those two statements makes that clear:
ChastMastr wrote:
I will not be bullied, harassed, or cowed by any of this (and I do think that statements like "you are being hammered" and "kicking the shit outa ya," despite my repeated attempts at civil replies to what has been said, are attempts at precisely that, and -- just to nip this in the bud in case it is a danger -- I will not be harassed in private either).
quote:
Unfortunately, the Purgatorial safety valve whereby weirdarse points of view are challenged, packed up and went home because you are a generous loving guy (I believe that too, but it's not gunna stop me from kicking the shit outa ya).
quote:When any of us expresses an opinion on such an emotionally charged topic, we should expect – nay, welcome – that our position will be scrutinized, our premises will be challenged, and our logic will be tested. If for any reason that’s a threatening or painful process, we all have the option of being circumspect on particularly sensitive issues. While forcefully disagreeing with CM’s argument, IC went out of his way to express his opinion (an opinion I daresay is shared by just about anyone who's read any of CM's thoughtful and articulate posts) that he is a generous and loving man of integrity. If that’s being "bullied, harassed, or cowed," where do I sign up?
You are being hammered. You are being hammered precisely because you have hammered your insistence that you are chaste and celibate onto everyone else for 18 months. You've repeatedly made public declarations about it in the serious debate forum. Why is that? Is it purely for the purpose of sharing? Is it because you think there is something edifying or worth promoting to a wider sphere? Are you holding yourself up as someone who is able to meet scriptural and traditional sexual mores? If the former, share it somewhere where your integrity (of which I don't have any doubts) is affirmed but where the substandard intellectual derivation of your position is not scrutinised.
quote:That is, oppose other sins condemned in the Bible with equal fervour to their condemnation of homosexuality.
Originally posted by Sean D:
And the obvious counter to that is to say that they do.
quote:I'm not in the category your asking for responses from, I am inclined to agree at first glance, but I appreciate the link. You are certainly right that this deserves discussion. I have downloaded the PDF and hope to use some of the argument in it when discussing these issues.
Originally posted by Wood:
What about this guy?
http://www.soulforce.org/whatthebiblesays.pdf
Which is a link I posted a couple pages back, but which deserves discussion. What do people think about this - specifically those who wouldn't be inclined at first glance to agree?
quote:Yes, all those things are taught against in the Bible. However, they are not among the sins listed that will keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God, as found in I Corinthians 6:9-10. And homosexuality is.
The obvious counter to this is to ask why fundamentalists and evangelicals don't equally fervently oppose gossip, usury, purpresture (bet you have to look that one up!), denying justice and compassion to the poor, etc. These are all more clearly condemned in the Bible than is homosexuality.
quote:Yes. Certainly in my experience, anyway. On Sunday I heard my first ever sermon on the issue, and it came with apologies and disclaimers that they even had to talk about it then (I live in the Diocese of Oxford). Out of all the churches I have been to, evangelical/charismatic conferences, bless-ups and get-togethers I have been to I have never heard a sermon about it before. I have on the other hand heard plenty of sermons about pride, about injustice and poverty, about spirituality and about controlling our tongues.
Originally posted by hatless:
That is, oppose other sins condemned in the Bible with equal fervour to their condemnation of homosexuality.
Typical. I'm guessing it's 'arsenokoitai' 'cos that's where it should be alphabetically.
)
quote:It's actually even worse, more like "paedophile" or something like that, since the prostitutes in question were often 12-year old boys.
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Hi Coot,
My understanding of the word translated 'homosexual' is actually 'male prostitute'. Which, of course was very common in those days at cultic places.
Christina
quote:I've made by thoughts about the casual use of the phrase 'the Church' as regards teaching about homosexuality clear on another thread.
Originally posted by Sean D:
Secondly, evangelicals are up in arms on the issue because those who disagree with them are working for change on the issue. Nobody is trying to get the church to change its stance on charity, or gossip. If they ever did, I trust that the evos would oppose them every bit as much.
quote:I apologise - using the phrase "the church" in that context was sloppy of me. What I probably should have said (wordier but more accurate) was "the official agreed-upon stance of those appointed to ordained or equivalent leadership positions within a particular church structure". Obviously lay people have a very large role to play in leading the church as well but at the end of the day the people who chiefly lead the Church of England are ordained, consecrated ones, apart from the Queen due to historical circumstances about which I suspect you know rather more than I do.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I've made by thoughts about the casual use of the phrase 'the Church' as regards teaching about homosexuality clear on another thread.
quote:Whoa there! As a matter of fact I have very few views on the real presence or otherwise. Be a little careful with your assumptions/stereotypes!
The point I'd like to make here Sean is that it is not just over gay sex that people disagree with evangelicals, or seek to change the CofEs practice. I, example, believe that the bread of the Eucharist truly becomes the Body of Christ. You no doubt disagree with me.
quote:You would, of course, have every right to do so - and would expect as you acknolwedge that not all would agree with you.
I would take every available opportunity to change current liturgical practice to make this belief more explicit, and would use any influence I had on synods etc. to effect such change.
quote:Firstly, I am not defending all evangelicals. Certainly some are frothing at the mouth and horribly intense about this issue. However, my experience in this debate has been one of rational discussion and loving but firm disagreement. I am sure I would disagree with the tone of some of the debaters (on both sides of the debate - those who believe gay sex is morally acceptable have plenty of frothing and angry types too) - what I am protesting about is the stereotyped and ignorant assumption that all or even the majority of evangelicals are rabid and intense about the issue.
However, people who disagree with me seem quite capable of debating the point rationally with me, respect my opinions (and practice, genuflecting etc.), and accept me as a fellow Christian. The thing that concerns me is the tone and intensity of the opposition to gay sex. How does this differ in kind from any other kind of issue?
quote:I'll happily agree that not all evangelicals are obsessed with the issue, but it does have an exaggerated profile. I am an accredited minister of the Baptist Union of Great Britain. As such I must obey a rule of conduct which says that homosexual genital conduct is incompatible with the pastoral office (don't do it in the vestry?!) and says that I may not advocate homosexual genital relations as an acceptable alternative to heterosexual marital relations.
Originally posted by Sean D:
Just because some evangelicals are obsessed with the issue does not, by any means, mean we all are, or that it is top of the list of sins we oppose.
quote:I think I said about 4 pages ago that it is a wonderful evangelism opportunity! I work in an office which is quite anti-Church, and with good reason, since our decisions are often challenged on specious grounds by homophobic Christians mainly because our executive members are a gay man and a lesbian woman. The atmosphere was so thickly anti-Christian that I didn't "come out" as a Christian until I'd been working there 4 years, although everyone knew I was a lesbian.
Originally posted by dorothea:
Slight tangent> I still, find it hard at times to admit to being a Christian, not because I am ashamed of Christ but because I imagine people will think I am reactionary, intolerant and homophobic (is this just my baggage???). The Ship of Fools as been a blessing in that sense; it is helping to give me the courage of my convictions within my Church and to 'come out' as a Christian with my non Christian friends.
quote:The short answer is, of course, that some of us (particularly in the Third World) are. Where traditional values are being eroded by globalization and capitalism, retreat into religious fundamentalism provides the clear certainties which are otherwise being eroded. Furthermore, in areas where the church is in competition with militant Islam, it is perhaps difficult to sympathise with the "well, on the one hand...." approach beloved of Anglicans in the developed world. (It has never been made entirely clear to me why churches facing the horrendous difficulties that exist in the developing world are so concerned about the private life of clergy in the South East of England, but there you are).
Can anybody explain to me why Anglicans make such a big deal about homosexuality when we are not Bible literalists?
quote:Just out of interest, when did this rule come into force? Is it a national rule, or just one for your local church? Do you know what led that rule to come into force?
Originally posted by hatless:
There is no rule saying that I may not be racist or advocate compulsory repatriation. No rule to prohibit physical violence against my children or partner, no prohibition of drunkenness, gambling, usury, or gossiping.
quote:NONE??
In fact we have no other rules of conduct at all.
Ermmm, shouldn't you be above reproach, self controlled and temperate, honourable, hospitable, seeking good, not addicted to wine, not greedy, able to exhort sound doctrine, able to refute false teaching...?quote:And what's the common denominator of all these things you mention, Anglican Rascal?
Imagine this situations: what if there was a vocal group within your church pressing for those with extreme racist views or those who supported domestic violence to be held up as examples and teachers of the Christian faith? What if there was a goup that said that life-long drunkenness, usury, gambling or gossip should be accepted as a Christian virtue? How do you think your church would respond? Maybe it would be quite natural for rules against promotion of such things to come into force?
quote:Hi Louise,
Originally posted by Louise:
Can you explain, in your view, how a loving committed relationship between two gay adults would be comparable by causing the kind of damage that alcoholism, back biting, financial exploitation and compulsive gambling do?
quote:Oh, that's another reason for the level of vehemence, ZC. The condemnation of homosexuality can be found in scripture but empirical data suggesting stable, faithful and monogamous relationships between homosexual couples tends to be lacking. I think the screaming is supposed to conceal the weakness of the arguments.
If homosexual relationships were a gift from him for the betterment of humanity, I fully trust that that would be preached from the pages of Sacred Scripture. As I don't find approval of homosexual activity or relationships in God's word, but rather that they are warned against, punished and condemned, I trust that God spoke as he did for our benefit. I might not know all the details of why God speaks as he does, but I know that he is trustworthy.
quote:I think those folks sound rather mean
Originally posted by Janine:
It is disproportionate, Hatless.
quote:I Do. Not. Get. This.
Originally posted by Adrian1:
For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.
quote:Yes, but they're generally not the ones who say things such as the quote. There are plenty of hetero folk who find anal disgusting between any two people. There are also a lot of men who find the concept of performing oral on another man abhorrent.
Originally posted by paigeb:
In the Purgatory thread on Jeffrey John, Adrian posted the following:
quote:I Do. Not. Get. This.
Originally posted by Adrian1:
For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.
I simply do not understand why people focus on what gay men (and it's almost always MEN) do in bed. Especially since many heterosexuals enjoy the same types of sex (oral sex, anal sex, etc.) that homosexuals do.
quote:Sadly, it's almost impossible to discuss homosexuality these days without without making it a de facto discussion about sex. That's just the way society is at the moment - it's the same for most discussions about hetero relationships.
Why do you think about it? What about it makes your stomach turn?
quote:Assuming you mean this in a general sense, and not specifically to Adrian, nothing. But this is a public discussion board where everyone has the right to their opinion as long as they don't break the 10Cs. I don't believe Adrian did that.
What's it to you, anyway?
quote:In a lot of cases I'd agree with you. This style of opening does tend to preface postings which do exactly what they've just said they don't (if you follow..). I don't think this is one of those cases though.
And what does it mean that you are "not into queer bashing BUT..." I find the use of that conjunction quite disturbing for some reason.
quote:I have a major problem with this argument. In my view, this is about heterosexual people making sex the focus of discussion.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sadly, it's almost impossible to discuss homosexuality these days without without making it a de facto discussion about sex. That's just the way society is at the moment - it's the same for most discussions about hetero relationships.
)quote:The only thing that turns my stomach is violence, and I think that's pretty easy to explain. So I still don't get it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And yes, it makes many people's stomachs turn, but not for any reasons I can put words to. Imagine things that make your stomach turn, then try to explain exactly why. It's a very hard thing to do.
quote:I don't think he did either. I'm just trying to understand.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Assuming you mean this in a general sense, and not specifically to Adrian, nothing. But this is a public discussion board where everyone has the right to their opinion as long as they don't break the 10Cs. I don't believe Adrian did that.
What's it to you, anyway?
quote:As I noted, I found the quote disturbing. Like you, I want to give Adrian the benefit of the doubt. I've PM'd him, and hope he comes here to discuss.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:In a lot of cases I'd agree with you. This style of opening does tend to preface postings which do exactly what they've just said they don't (if you follow..). I don't think this is one of those cases though.
And what does it mean that you are "not into queer bashing BUT..." I find the use of that conjunction quite disturbing for some reason.
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
Same thing with heterosexuals---they think all the discussions about sex are being done by gays and lesbians because they cannot see themselves as defined by their heterosexuality in the same way they wish to define homosexuals by theirs.
quote:I think I disagree with almost every word of this segment of what is otherwise a good post.
Originally posted by paigeb:
Same thing with heterosexuals---they think all the discussions about sex are being done by gays and lesbians because they cannot see themselves as defined by their heterosexuality in the same way they wish to define homosexuals by theirs.
quote:But what about violence disgusts you? Or is it just an illogical reaction to it? Why must Adrian further define what he means when you're content to stick to overall concepts, like violence? Sorry to be so pedantic, but I really must get my point across here. "There's just something about it that turns my stomach" is to me an adequate explaination.
The only thing that turns my stomach is violence, and I think that's pretty easy to explain. So I still don't get it.
And if you cannot put into words what about certain sexual practices disgusts you, then I would suggest you are having an illogical reaction to something and need to examine it further before you just give it over to "It's a very hard thing to do."
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
. How odd.
quote:By whom?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In their worthwile struggle for recognition and equal rights (especially over the age of consent), gay people have unfortunately been forced to define themselves in exactly the way you describe above. There was no other way to do it without staying in the shadows.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:By whom?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In their worthwile struggle for recognition and equal rights (especially over the age of consent), gay people have unfortunately been forced to define themselves in exactly the way you describe above. There was no other way to do it without staying in the shadows.
And for the record, I dearly wish that I had nothing better to do than sit around and fantasize about what other people do behind closed doors. Talk about having WAY too much time on your hands!
quote:In order to succesfully campaign for equality of ages of consent (in the UK at least - I don't know if they were already equal in the US or elsewhere), the gay community naturally had to create a wider awareness of the issue. When ages of consent are being discussed it's inevitable and unavoidable that people will think about sex, and especially in this case gay sex.
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:By whom?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In their worthwile struggle for recognition and equal rights (especially over the age of consent), gay people have unfortunately been forced to define themselves in exactly the way you describe above. There was no other way to do it without staying in the shadows.
And for the record, I dearly wish that I had nothing better to do than sit around and fantasize about what other people do behind closed doors. Talk about having WAY too much time on your hands!
quote:Well -- a good way of asking about this is to take a given programme, magazine, newspaper article, or advertisement and ask yourself how it might read with a same-gender pairing. There is a constant stream of material assuming a mixed-gender world. It's not unlike all the material from years past depicting women as housewives, or all families as white. When Cosmopolitan and New Woman and Maxim and FHM all pretty much run sex articles assuming a straight readership, with adverts on the front page of what's inside... when most jokes about sex on movie or television comedies, except on "gay programs" or in a specific gay context, are about straight sex... well, as far as I can tell there are quite a lot of them.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How many TV programmes, magazines, newspaper articles are there about straight sex every day?
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
An alternative would be to extend equal benefits without regard to the nature of the relationship
quote:And this statement demonstrates exactly what I mean. You, as a heterosexual person, do not believe that what you do in your bedroom defines you as a person. Can you not see/acknowledge that it defines you in precisely the same way as it does for a homosexual person?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think what I'm trying to say is most straights aren't defined by what they do in bed because to us it's not the defining part of our lives. To many gay people it is, so should they be surprised if other people define them that way as well?
quote:I get disgusted by seeing people harm other people or animals. My feelings of disgust are saved for those instances/situations where there is clearly harm to one or more parties. Under that definition---which, of course, you are free to disagree with--gay sex just doesn't cut it as a "disgusting" practice.
But what about violence disgusts you? Or is it just an illogical reaction to it? Why must Adrian further define what he means when you're content to stick to overall concepts, like violence? Sorry to be so pedantic, but I really must get my point across here. "There's just something about it that turns my stomach" is to me an adequate explaination.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Adrian---thanks for responding!
Originally posted by Adrian1:
My own stated view as you know is one of pragmatic tolerance towards consenting adults doing whatever they please in private so long as they are discreet and don't insist on rubbing everyone else's noses in it. There is, however, a big difference between exercising that kind of tolerance and giving certain lifestyles unqualified approval.
quote:Which, incidentally, is currently being done in the UK.
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
An alternative would be to extend equal benefits without regard to the nature of the relationship
quote:Adrian, I really appreciate your honesty, but I have to confess that this attitude makes me sad. Basically, you are appropriating to yourself the right to decide what is "normal." Since there are homosexuals in EVERY population, I would say that makes homosexuality a "normal," if limited, condition.
Originally posted by Adrian1:
I have to admit that I find the sight of two people of the same sex kissing or holding hands mildly sickening because for me it is not normal. It is a way of life which although alright for some, is certainly not the norm. For this reason I would prefer it if same sex couples kept the expression of their affection private.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
), but I keep praying about that and working to keep myself from falling into the trap.quote:Funny---I see a very powerfuly HETEROSEXUAL "lobby," who forces the issue of homosexuality on to the agenda at every possible opportunity. I wish they would stop doing that and focus on demonstrating the love of Christ in the world.
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Finally, there is a powerful gay lobby within the church, not least of all the Church of England. This I think is why we hear about homosexuality ad nauseum. I've just visited the Church Times forum (where I operate simply as Adrian) and an advert popped up there for the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) whilst I was scrawling down the page.
quote:Are you suggesting that everything which isn't "normal" should be kept out of sight of society in case it offends people?
Originally posted by Adrian1:
I have to admit that I find the sight of two people of the same sex kissing or holding hands mildly sickening because for me it is not normal. It is a way of life which although alright for some, is certainly not the norm. For this reason I would prefer it if same sex couples kept the expression of their affection private.[/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
It would have been very easy to hold to those views, because most of the people in my family and immediate environment held them.
By the grace of God, however, I was given a chance to examine those views. I found them to be both inaccurate and evil, and I have done my best to eradicate them from my life. Of course, there is always some new prejudice waiting to pop up . . . but I keep praying about that and working to keep myself from falling into the trap.
quote:Yes, quite right. It might frighten the horses!
Originally posted by Adrian1:
I would prefer it if same sex couples kept the expression of their affection private.
quote:And if you put your hand in your pocket you can advertise there too. How about Victorian Values?
I've just visited the Church Times forum (where I operate simply as Adrian) and an advert popped up there for the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) whilst I was scrawling down the page.
quote:This reminds of a great slogan on a T-Shirt I saw at San Francisco Gay Pride 2 weeks ago "I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay in public!!"
Originally posted by Adrian1:
For this reason I would prefer it if same sex couples kept the expression of their affection private.
), what's a tad disturbing is the way that male and female homosexuality is presented. 'Situational bisexuality' among women is viewed as 'normal' and desirable (since a 'threesome' has now become an aspirational sex act); lesbianism is seen as titillating but threatening; and male homosexuality or bisexuality the subject of jokes, but generally not spoken of. Heterosexual anal sex also seems to have been normalized, although female-on-male penetration is still somewhat taboo.
quote:This is scant tolerance indeed. Gay people should not be afraid to express those simple marks of affection that straights take for granted in public. Restraint, yes i agree, but restraint across the board!!!!
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Oh dear, I am getting a slating for expressing my sincerely held views honestly! Was I really wise to accept paigeb's invitation to comment on this thread? I wonder.
Well, this seems to be a wish for the crown of martyrdom!
In my perception of the world, and I'm sure it's not all that bizarre, men and women are meant for one another and to enjoy intimacy together, a not altogether incidental dividend being procreation and the perpetuation of the human race. Indeed biologically, that's how it happens.
Yes, this does exist and exists for a majority. This does not invalidate the loving relationships of gay people in any way.
Homosexuality on the other hand does happen but it's an experience (dare I say 'choice' without opening a can of worms) of a small proportion of the population. Looking at the hard facts it is hard to conclude though that it is what either nature or the creator intended. Whether between men or between women, homosexual expressions of intimacy cannot and do not result in procreation and the perpetuation of the human race.
Again, as pointed out by many wiser in science then I, homosexuality does exist in nature and in the experiences of gay people, their feelings of affection exist from a very early age. Yes, it is a minority but such minorities DO exist in nature and in the different ways God has made us all.
Also, I would point out that sexual expression even in heterosexual relationaships do not only exist only for the purposes of procreation but as a sign and proof of love and unity between the couple.
With a greater mercy than many working class heterosexual men, I don't shout insults at homosexuals and I would not set out to harm them or their reputations simply on account of the fact that they are 'different.' That does not mean, however, that I feel able in good conscience to extend unqualified approval to their lifestyles and practices or regard them as normal.
You do not have too. But I would ask you to keep your mind open to the experiences of gay people and the Christian gay people on this forum and learn from their experiences of life. There are many eloquent voices here.
Homosexuality is NOT normal, because it is a way of life which simply isn't meant to be. Men and women are joined together both physically - and in marriage - for a definite purpose, not simply the pursuit of pleasure or the desire to express affection, legitimate though those goals are.
Your first sentence is a complete non sequitar. Sort of like "I Believe this because i believe this" or "Credo quia absurdum"
Please remember that there are gay people joined in equally loving relationships and that are based on mutual sacrifice not on pursuit of pleasure.
That said, I am prepared to extend a friendly tolerance towards good people of all sexual orientations and none. However, I prefer it when people exercise restraint and keep the most intimate expressions of affection private.
quote:The saddest thing is that you really do believe you're being tolerant.
Originally posted by Adrian1:
That said, I am prepared to extend a friendly tolerance towards good people of all sexual orientations and none. However, I prefer it when people exercise restraint and keep the most intimate expressions of affection private.
quote:Well, yes, I suppose, but then the choice to identify oneself as "British" makes one part of a very small group indeed, whilst being white comes a poor fourth or fifth to other colours on this planet. And there are more men women on this planet than men. So, being a white British male means belonging to a far smaller minority than being gay. And if you factor in being Christian, then I'd say that Adrian1 belongs to a group of barely 1/12,000ths of the world population.
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Homosexuality ... (is) an experience ... of a small proportion of the population.
, it honestly isn't something I ever think about. It doesn't follow that I disapprove of it just because I don't happen to like the idea very much for myself.
quote:Dear Adrian1
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Thirdly, I don't think my pragmatic tolerance is in any way scant and I rather resent the suggestion that it is. On the contrary it is a recognition of the fact that willingly acknowledge the existence of various expressions of sexuality I feel unable, in conscience, to endorse homosexual relationships in the same way that I would endorse appropriate heterosexual ones.
Fourthly, I probably take my cue too readily from Rome (and traditional Anglicanism) but I do believe that the primary function of intercourse is procreative. That's not to say that couples for whom procreation isn't a possibility shouldn't have it. On the contrary. I think we have to keep the primary of purpose of it before us though.
quote:
willingly acknowledge the existence of various expressions of sexuality
quote:
I do believe that the primary function of intercourse is procreative
<snip>
I think we have to keep the primary of purpose of it before us though.
quote:Doesn't mean they're all exclusively straight, by quite some distance.
Originally posted by Adrian1:
I take your point, Fr Gregory. However, we can all play the numbers game. If, as you've suggested, roughly 5% of the population is gay, that means that roughly 95% isn't.
quote:That's probably why I said this! ....
Doesn't mean they're all exclusively straight, by quite some distance.
quote:Dear Never Conforming
... whose dominant (but not necessarily absolutely exclusive) sexual orientation ...
quote:This incident blows wide open the hypocritical stance of certain strands of evangelicalism in the church. We have heard, ad infinitum, that their approach to homosexuality is "love the sinner, hate the sin". Well, that has been revealed for the bold-faced, evil, disgusting lie that it always has been.
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
I feel terrible for the evangelicals: the media brands them as sex-obsessed, but they never raised this issue, they were forced to respond to it. Certainly Canon John's appointment broke the spirit of the church's policy meant to address issues such as this. And certainly the policy itself is being ignored repeatedly all over England. It seems to me there's nothing wrong with expecting policies to be adhered to until the people that decided on them changes them.
quote:Fair points all. First point of my own: I'm not sure how it is possible to oppose Dr. John's appointment without somehow referring to his relationship. It would be nice to discuss the matter in generalities, but the fact of the appointment didn't allow for that. I'm further not sure how one can expect to uphold any church policy without some kind of scrutiny -- unless you want to start calling it "advice" instead of "policy". No doubt the media scrutiny was unseemly and unnecessary, but it's unfair and wrong to imply that the evangelicals were the author of the media interest in all this.
...the reason so many of us have accused the conservative evangelicals of being devoid of love, being intolerant and so on, is not because of their views per se (which we disagree with) but because of the MANNER IN WHICH THE 'DEBATE' HAS BEEN CONDUCTED. Putting an individual's relationships under immense scrutiny, threats to withdraw quota from the diocese, round-robin letters to the secular press.
quote:There are two ways of seeing this, let me see if I'm getting your version right. The first is that, since Canon John was celebate, he is abiding by the policy of the Church, and therefore should qualify for leadership/clergy positions in the church. So any attempt to oust him is really a homophobic attempt to rid the church of homosexual people, not uphold the policy of the church. A fair point: if he's celebate, why can't he be a Bishop?
This incident blows wide open the hypocritical stance of certain strands of evangelicalism in the church...So explain how they were "forced to respond" to a celibate homosexual in the manner in which they did?
quote:I'm sorry but I beg to differ with you over this. Not only Evangelicals but some central churchmen and Anglo Catholics (like myself) find themselves in the difficult position of being unable to affirm or endorse homosexual practices and lifestyles in the same way as appropriate heterosexual ones, for perfectly good reasons of their own. They are in the difficult position of trying to square a cirle. On the one hand, they don't want to appear bigoted or intolerant but on the other hand they don't want to sacrifice their own dearly held beliefs about what is right and wrong - normal or abnormal. So far I have tried to maintain the integrity of my own position here whilst extending an olive branch of tolerance towards those who I regard (rightly in my opinion) as different. Needless to say it has not been made easy.
This incident blows wide open the hypocritical stance of certain strands of evangelicalism in the church. We have heard, ad infinitum, that their approach to homosexuality is "love the sinner, hate the sin". Well, that has been revealed for the bold-faced, evil, disgusting lie that it always has been.
quote:I agree wholeheartedly with the kernel of reason within Erin's rhetoric.
Originally posted by Erin:
This incident blows wide open the hypocritical stance of certain strands of evangelicalism in the church. We have heard, ad infinitum, that their approach to homosexuality is "love the sinner, hate the sin". Well, that has been revealed for the bold-faced, evil, disgusting lie that it always has been.
), in his practice and in his formal teaching role then he has every right (indeed a duty) to put out his variant theological opinions and convictions UNDER HIS OWN NAME. In the last sentence it should say, of course, "antagonists" not "protagonists." A most grievous error. Mea culpa!
quote:Explain, since I am clearly stupid, what you are expected to "affirm or endorse" with regard to a CELIBATE homosexual.
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Not only Evangelicals but some central churchmen and Anglo Catholics (like myself) find themselves in the difficult position of being unable to affirm or endorse homosexual practices and lifestyles in the same way as appropriate heterosexual ones, for perfectly good reasons of their own.
quote:He referred to his relationship himself, in writing, more than once. Going by what he said it is not only well within the guidelines, but is a type of relationship that has been not at all uncommon amongst celibate priests in the past.
I'm not sure how it is possible to oppose Dr. John's appointment without somehow referring to his relationship.
quote:Is Peter Tatchell a Christian? Is he an ordained minister? Would we expect him to be a "poster-child for Chstistian love"?
Second point: I'm very unsure that the liberal side of this should be exempt from criticism about how to debate this issue. Colin Slee and Peter Tatchell have hardly been the poster children for Christian love.
quote:That's how appointments of Suffragan bishops are made in the Church of England. Like it or lump it. There is no open discussion, no debate, no election. It is all done in a hole in the corner.
Third point: I'm sure many evangelicals would respond to your comments by saying, "What debate??" Nothing wrong with a good debate, but in this case, there was none. Instead, the appointment was made and Bishop Harries went on the radio to say how the church needs to be more inclusive. That's not a debate.
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
And cut the 'lifestyle' whilst you are at it. I have a loving relationship of 11 years with a man I spend my life with. That isn't a lifestyle.
quote:Look, homosexuality isn't a lifestyle. It's a sexual orientation. Your life with the same man for 22 years is indeed a lifestyle, one of many open to people whose orientation is heterosexual.
Originally posted by Janine:
I consider my life with one man for 22 years "a lifestyle".
Not a fantastically interesting one maybe -
Just because people make generic/blanket statements about "the homosexual lifestyle" doesn't mean there aren't at least some things one can start from to try to understand "them".
You know, "them". Homosexuals or heterosexuals or kindergarten teachers or burly dockworkers or sweet little old bluehaired ladies. Any "them".
quote:
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.
2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)"
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
You mean this agenda?
quote:
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.
2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)"
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.
2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)"
quote:Yes, it's one of the uglier stereotypes promulgated about gay people. Last time someone demonstrated outside our church, one of the placards said "Chardonnay drinking pervs are going to hell." Fortunately I drink Cabernet Sauvignon.
Originally posted by Erin:
I really must object to the chardonnay at dinner. How cliché.
quote:Agreed -- although I would say, in the context of other world religions and Christian denominations, it's very unusual to have the level of profound disagreement on human sexuality in the way the Anglican church does. But I am not seeking a monochromatic church.
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I doubt whether you could present me any minister in any church / denomination whatever who is ENTIRELY in agreement with his / her church's teaching on all issues.
quote:Yes...although, I would suggest even these are not particularly enforcable. I think Spong, Holloway, and Ingham were/are all dissenters of first order issues.
(1) The formal teaching of the Church which usually applies to primary issues of faith and life; eg., the Incarnation, abortion etc. (I am not of course saying what those beliefs are or should be ... mileage will vary).
quote:I generally agree with you. But of course, the problems come when we try to assign where the teaching on human sexuality lands in importance. I wouldn't consider it as important as the resurrection or incarnation. But I don't think it's unimportant, either, for two reasons. First, I think there's alot of biblical doctrine tied up into human sexuality, I don't think there are many Christian doctrines or spiritual beliefs at all that you can separate completely from it. Even non-Christian spirituality is closely linked to sexuality. It's not like we're talking about how many fruits of the spirit there are, or whether to baptise infants or not. How Christians see themselves, their bodies, and their sexuality has alot with to do with their understanding of God and life.
This distinction between received but challengeable doctrine on the one hand and theologumena or theological opinions as a work in progress on the other, is a useful way of looking at responsibility and accountability in relation to the clergy and other authorised teachers and leaders. snip That's the crucial distinction ... the freedom to contribute to a debate by not claiming to speak for the whole Church ... which is not something his evangelical protagonists have done but something which he has done.
quote:I think it's disappointing you're see that as the only option. Of course no one wants that. The Christian model of accountability (it seems to me) is not one that is forced by a select few with microscopes and flashlights. It's mutual, voluntary, and loving. And necessary: once, another Christian challenged me on what I saw as a private matter. But I was glad he challenged me, even though it hurt at the time, and actually made me angry. I suspect that what you're really advocating is that we don't challenge anyone on anything.
Originally posted by ken:
To be brutal, if we were to get rid of him on these grounds we should kick out half the high-church priests in the diocese of London. And quite a few down in Brighton as well.
Do you want to do that? Do you want a sort of Gay-Finder General in the Church of England, going from parish to parish with binoculars and a stopwatch counting up how much of their social life priests spend with men and how much with women?
quote:
Second point: I'm very unsure that the liberal side of this should be exempt from criticism about how to debate this issue. Colin Slee and Peter Tatchell have hardly been the poster children for Christian love.
quote:For Colin Slee, I was thinking more along these lines: "Anglican Taliban" comments ...which he quickly toned down. The statement you referred to is one of the calmest of his I've read.
Is Peter Tatchell a Christian? Is he an ordained minister? Would we expect him to be a "poster-child for Chstistian love"?
And what is it that Colin Slee said that you think is ourt of order? This statement?
Looks fair enough to me.
quote:I didn't say that Christianity should not be applied differently throughout the ages. It's impossible not to apply Christianity differently. Our faith is lived out in our daily routines and interactions, and since we live in an ever-changing world, obviously the application will change over time. But some things never change, and the core message of the faith is truly timeless. For example, the greedy people of Jesus' day were tax collectors. Today, they're business people and investors (or whatever). The application changes, but the message to greedy people doesn't change even in the slightest. Do you think greedy people are somehow constitutionally different than they were 2000 years ago? Jesus told the rich man to sell all his lovely first-century status symbols and give the proceeds to the poor. Do you really think anything about Jesus' message has changed, except the details about what those goods are?
Originally posted by Merseymike:
But perhaps some of us find this interpretation of the Christian faith a lot more convincing than the one you are convinced by ?
Its rather like saying that the Christian message will always be interpreted and understood, and applied in the same way no matter what happens in the world.
Now, I recognise that is the core of the evangelical gospel ; but there are also approaches that suggest eternal values and verities can be separated from the details of faith which are situational, historical and culturally contained. I would place both teaching about sexuality, and seeing Christianity as the only valid way to God, as being in the latter section.
quote:I'm an O'Doul's Amber man, myself.
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Yes, it's one of the uglier stereotypes promulgated about gay people. Last time someone demonstrated outside our church, one of the placards said "Chardonnay drinking pervs are going to hell." Fortunately I drink Cabernet Sauvignon.
quote:Philosophical problems, eh?
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
I get where you're coming from, Mike, but you must understand there are all kinds of philosophical problems with your approach. If you put a box labelled "rat poison" on your kitchen table, is there any reason to think that the same box would contain jello a week later?
quote:I think my distinctions were based not on importance contrasts but settled / not settled contrasts. I don't think that we can or should revise what God has done for us in Christ. Human knowledge, no matter which direction it takes us, is not going to alter that one jot. Of course the expressions of that will vary but the core will not. Other matters ... particularly those concerned with our common humanity are bound to be in state of flux. There is cultural diversity but beyond that there are differences that go far deeper. We know more about human sexuality today than we did before ...we have science and psychology to thank for that ... not theology because the theology has been poor ... I would even say heretical, (that's another big can of worms!). Theology is "God-talk" but we are made in the image of God ... it's a two way traffic. A Christian humanism will take Christian revelatory insights into human nature (where ALL is compromised and ALL is glorious) and combine that with descriptive insights into the shape of human behaviour and interiority ... insights that are being continually refined with more that we know.
I generally agree with you. But of course, the problems come when we try to assign where the teaching on human sexuality lands in importance. I wouldn't consider it as important as the resurrection or incarnation. But I don't think it's unimportant, either, for two reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I think there are many problems of a philosophical nature with YOUR approach, not least that you seem to read the Bible as though there were, as the philosopher Wittgenstein put it, 'one mode of discoure' - in other words as though statements were either positive, literal, assertions, or else were meaningless. This clearly doesn't do justice to the multiplicity of ways in which human language expresses meaning. Hence the unsuitability of the rat poison analogy.
quote:Well, one good reason to read scripture as an ahistorical repository of moral truth is because that's how Jesus read it. I don't think I can be blamed for trying to read the New Testament the way Jesus read the Old.
I can think that accounts of Paul's dealings with the Corinthian church can inform me, inspire me, and in many other ways contain meaning and be authoritative for me, without having to assume that they constitute an ahistorical repository of moral truth. And until you give me a sound theological reason why I should read the Bible as though it were a letter sent by God to me this very morning, I will abstain from so doing.
quote:Actually, there's nothing wrong with a good Chardonnay. Plenty of straight guys and their wives/girlfriends enjoy it too! Mind you I try to drink Cabernet Sauvignon more these days because I'm assured that it's better for the heart. I hope Anselmina, the ship's barmaid, would agree with me over that.
Yes, it's one of the uglier stereotypes promulgated about gay people. Last time someone demonstrated outside our church, one of the placards said "Chardonnay drinking pervs are going to hell." Fortunately I drink Cabernet Sauvignon.
quote:Well, DOD, this is CLEARLY because you are not willing to take Jesus' yoke upon you.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I can think that accounts of Paul's dealings with the Corinthian church can inform me, inspire me, and in many other ways contain meaning and be authoritative for me, without having to assume that they constitute an ahistorical repository of moral truth.
quote:Simply untrue. Read, say, William Blake's 'The Rose', a piece deliberately admitting a multiplicity of readings.
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
No author writes anything with the intention of communicating mutliple contradictory meanings.
Hello, Jesus and the Mosaic law!quote:You're absolutely right that texts need to be understood in the context of the audience they were intended for, etc. There's no realistic alternative. To use a basic example: the only way to understand the Good Samaritan story is to understand the context, particuarly how Samaritans were perceived by Jewish society in that culture. If you don't know this, the story won't make sense.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
quote:Simply untrue. Read, say, William Blake's 'The Rose', a piece deliberately admitting a multiplicity of readings.
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
No author writes anything with the intention of communicating mutliple contradictory meanings.
But I agree in the concrete case - Paul had one intention in writing to the Corinthian church, that is, to communicate his thoughts about various issues, in the light of the Christ event, to the Christians in Corinth. The question then arises of how these letters, which the Church receives as Scripture, are to be read in our contemporary context. Can you not see that reading a letter addressed to people in one particular situation as though it were universally applicable is to smuggle in a hermenutical premiss? You need to have some idea of HOW you read Scripture, with WHOM you read Scripture (i.e. how Scripture is to be related to the thought of the Christian community, past and present), and WHY you read Scripture like that. In other words, you cannot escape doing theology!
quote:Heh. This off-the-chart postmodern nuggest gets the prize. Think through this. If Jesus' teaching was socially and historically conditioned, by bother observing it at all two thousand years later? Why call him "Lord"? Do you have any idea how radical he was for his time?
Well, one good reason to read scripture as an ahistorical repository of moral truth is because that's how Jesus read it. I don't think I can be blamed for trying to read the New Testament the way Jesus read the Old.
(Incidentally, the idea that Jesus qua man cannot make mistakes sails IMO dangerously close to Apollinarian heresy, but that's a different thread. Suffice it to say that if Jesus was truly human then his human knowledge (as opposed to the eternal knowledge of the Word) was socially and historically conditioned, and limited by the understandings of the time.)
quote:Absolutely - but time has moved on, with new revelation, and what could be seen as radical then is not so now.
Do you have any idea how radical he was for his time?
quote:With wonderful creativity and the freedom to reintrepret some fundemantal ideas then?
Well, one good reason to read scripture as an ahistorical repository of moral truth is because that's how Jesus read it. I don't think I can be blamed for trying to read the New Testament the way Jesus read the Old.
quote:At least we're back on topic.
Originally posted by Merseymike:
We are talking about OT law, and two quotes from Paul, one which does not refer clearly to 'homosexuality' at all, and the other which more than adequately demonstrates a total lack of understanding of sexual orientation - hardly surprising, given the concept didn't exist.
quote:There's a new revelation? What is it? Has it made Jesus passe?
Do you have any idea how radical he was for his time?
Absolutely - but time has moved on, with new revelation, and what could be seen as radical then is not so now.
quote:Seven passing references in the entire Bible, IIRC. All of them with major exegetical problems, which have been done to death earlier on this thread. I know this is Dead Horses, so I shouldn't expect fresh thinking, but have you read the arguement to date? You might find it useful.
Third, the claim that there is minimal evidence that biblical writers took a dim view of homosexuality is a cheap analysis. I won't recite all the texts (there's more than two from Paul), but we're talking about more than a handful of isolated references. We're talking about some of the strongest condemnations in the entire bible, strong echos in language and ideology between the NT references and OT references, and VERY strong (obvious!) links to the language of the creation story and God's plan for humankind. Not so easily dismissed.
quote:Can you give me an example of how Jesus "reinterpreted" fundamental ideas?
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Tone Wheelquote:With wonderful creativity and the freedom to reintrepret some fundemantal ideas then?
Well, one good reason to read scripture as an ahistorical repository of moral truth is because that's how Jesus read it. I don't think I can be blamed for trying to read the New Testament the way Jesus read the Old.
quote:I realized it would cause offense when I wrote it. But then again, I didn't compare homosexuality and paedophilia. Read what I wrote: I said the oft-cited argument that people are born with same-sex attraction, and therefore it must be natural, and therefore acceptable -- this argument can also be used for pedophiles. I agree, then, that the argument is offensive, which is why I am trying to defeat it. But it is not a comparison.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Um, I suggest you might want to reconsider the aptness of the homosexuality/ paedophilia comparison. A lot of upset has been caused in the past by people saying similar things. I'm sure there is another way of you making the point you intended to make.
quote:I hardly think Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 could be prefaced with an "Oh, by the way..." And if they all had such "major exegetical problems", why did his audience, and indeed the early church, understand him perfectly?
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Tonewheel:quote:Seven passing references in the entire Bible, IIRC. All of them with major exegetical problems, which have been done to death earlier on this thread. I know this is Dead Horses, so I shouldn't expect fresh thinking, but have you read the arguement to date? You might find it useful.
Third, the claim that there is minimal evidence that biblical writers took a dim view of homosexuality is a cheap analysis. I won't recite all the texts (there's more than two from Paul), but we're talking about more than a handful of isolated references. We're talking about some of the strongest condemnations in the entire bible, strong echos in language and ideology between the NT references and OT references, and VERY strong (obvious!) links to the language of the creation story and God's plan for humankind. Not so easily dismissed.
quote:And why is that?
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
First, you can't make an argument about what is wrong or right based on what the Bible doesn't say. The Bible doesn't say alot of things.
quote:? That would have been unequivocal and clear, and saved a great deal of grief and division among the people of God.
1 There are men who desire not women, and women who desire not men, and to them it seems good to lie man with man, or woman with woman, as God ordains men and women should lie together. 2 They take pleasure in these acts, yet God condemns such acts as wrong and contemptible in his sight. If such people wish to serve Christ, they must give up all such sinful actions, and submit themselves to a life of celibacy, 3 and even if they do, they should definitely not be given episcopal authority over the diocese of Reading [αναγνωσισ].
quote:I don't want to go into these in detail, because that really would be repeating very old material. However:
I hardly think Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 could be prefaced with an "Oh, by the way..." And if they all had such "major exegetical problems", why did his audience, and indeed the early church, understand him perfectly?
quote:Which of course not all of us agree on...
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If, just for once, we could remember that the Bible is a book, written by men, and should be regarded as culturally and socially conditioned
quote:And even if we did agree, it doesn't mean it can't be the word of God, because God being omnipotent can do things like that.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Which of course not all of us agree on...
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If, just for once, we could remember that the Bible is a book, written by men, and should be regarded as culturally and socially conditioned
quote:What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. The theological position underlying the St Andrews Day statement is Barthian, the theological position underlying the condemnation of homosexual acts in the Catechsim of the Catholic Church is natural law based. The theological position underlying Peter Akinola's article in the Church Times is fundamentalist. Akinola's article alleges that homosexuality is unknown in the animal kingdom when, in fact, the converse is true.
I have read all the arguments questioning the traditional interpretation of these passages. They all have a range of problems. Very few of them actually agree on what's wrong with the traditional intrepretation, for one thing. The most repeated arguments (by the late John Boswell) have been discredited even by secular scholars. Some arguments are don't even have the facts straight: one website in Canada says the word "malakoi" means pedophile sex.
quote:This is precisely the point: human words can be the the Word of God, without ceasing to be human (and therefore social and historical) words. In fact the Word of God speaks human words by virtue of the Incarnation. Christian faith is founded on the conviction that what is ultimate and infinite can be communicated through that which is contingent and finite.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:And even if we did agree, it doesn't mean it can't be the word of God, because God being omnipotent can do things like that.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Which of course not all of us agree on...
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If, just for once, we could remember that the Bible is a book, written by men, and should be regarded as culturally and socially conditioned
quote:Aside from this interesting idea of God giving ethical advice,
Originally posted by Infinitarian:
quote:Proponents of this kind of reading agree that Paul didn't mention homosexual orientation because his culture had no concept of it, and yet are happy to accept the comments he did make as coming with divine authority. (Apart from the ones endorsing slavery, obviously.)
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
First, you can't make an argument about what is wrong or right based on what the Bible doesn't say. The Bible doesn't say alot of things.
If God was inspiring Paul to write his letter to the Corinthians with the intention that that letter would be incorporated into a scriptural canon and used as ethical advice by generations of Christians up to 2000 years later -- and if God condemns sex between people of gay orientation -- then why doesn't the letter say anything specific about the matter? Paul may not have had any concept of homosexual orientation, but are we suggesting God didn't? Or couldn't have explained it?
this is a good question. The reason that Paul didn't speak against homosexual orientation is because, well, it's not wrong. How can a preference be wrong? In all matters, scripture makes a very clear distinction between the desire to act and the act itself. And I would argue that Paul did say something specific about that.quote:
Why exactly could God not have inspired Paul to write something along the lines of: There are men who desire not women, and women who desire not men, and to them it seems good to lie man with man, or woman with woman, as God ordains men and women should lie together. 2 They take pleasure in these acts, yet God condemns such acts as wrong and contemptible in his sight. If such people wish to serve Christ, they must give up all such sinful actions, and submit themselves to a life of celibacy, 3 and even if they do, they should definitely not be given episcopal authority over the diocese of Reading [αναγνωσισ].
quote:You're suggesting that you won't obey Scripture unless it's spelled out for you in infinate detail, letter-of-the-law format. The kind of test you're setting up is the same kind the Parisees set up for Jesus. Of course, even in your explicit instructions listed above, many will still have objections. Was he really talking about our modern understanding of "episcopal authority"? Of course, what Paul understood as a "Bishop" is different today than it was then. And the first century understanding of "celebacy" was different then. Or, like Mike, you could simply sweep it all away under the catch-all aucpice of "there were men writing culture". On and on it goes.
That would have been unequivocal and clear, and saved a great deal of grief and division among the people of God.
quote:There's no way Paul could have condemned cybersex in a way that would meet the criteria you seem to advocate. You're looking for a literal list of right and wrongs. You don't think that there would be a thousand scholars lining up to say he wasn't talking about our modern understanding of cybersex?
In fact God could, via Paul, have just as easily condemned cybersex [ερωσ κυβερνετικοσ] if God had wanted to.
quote:You're right, it's a tough job. But I would like to know your answer. How do we understand these collected works and their meaning, in their imperfection and humanity, as God-breathed and authoritative?
How can we tell, from the distance of 2000 years, what came from God and what came from first-century Palestine? Um, we can't. Which rather puts paid to the idea of looking to any biblical writer as an arbiter of 21st-century ethics.
quote:The Romans passage does not talk about "choosing homosexuality". We have all said Paul didn't talk about "homosexual orientation" at all.
a) The Romans passage talks about people chosing homosexuality. None of the gay people I know chose to be homosexual; some would have given a great deal to chose to be straight.
quote:You're wrong about this. The word in the Corinthians is not found in the Greek lexicon prior to Paul's usage, but it was found after a number of times. That doesn't mean that his audience didn't know what he was talking about. And it is highly unlikely it was used to refer to "homosexual prostitutes", since are a handful of Greek words that far better than "arsenokoitai" to describe that.
b) The Corinthinas passage uses a word found nowhere else in classical or biblical Greek. Hence we can't be sure what it means, but many scholars think it might mean "homosexual prostitutes". I have several gay friends, but none of them are prostitutes, so this doesn't seem to apply to them either.
quote:Yes, Mike, I already agree with you. I agree the bible is literature, written by men, within their particularly culture. Where we go from there is the problem. There are two extreme responses: the fundamentalists who say that, word-for-word, the bible is somehow transcultural, and there is nothing that is bound or influenced by culture. The other extreme is to dismiss it all, or at best become a self-appointed editor.
Originally posted by Merseymike:
No, Tone, the problem is not recognising the limitations of the Bible full stop. It is a document of its time and reflects the lack of knowledge and understanding of sexual orientation. If, just for once, we could remember that the Bible is a book, written by men, and should be regarded as culturally and socially conditioned, just like any other book of its provenance, we may actually start to get somewhere
quote:What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. The theological position underlying the St Andrews Day statement is Barthian, the theological position underlying the condemnation of homosexual acts in the Catechsim of the Catholic Church is natural law based. The theological position underlying Peter Akinola's article in the Church Times is fundamentalist. Akinola's article alleges that homosexuality is unknown in the animal kingdom when, in fact, the converse is true.
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Originally posted by Tone:
quote:That Jim was at the grocers on Sunday does not prove that he was not also there on Monday. I agree. However, it does not prove that he was there either. In fact, that Jim was at the grocers on Sunday provides us with no information at all, no basis for any strong view (in and of itself) regarding the question of whether Jim was at the grocers on Monday.
If we're reading the Bible right, I truly believe it will be both a deeply offensive and deeply joyful book. If we remove the offense, we remove the joy.
So I don't worry that people have specific criticism of specific passages. I worry that we look at Scripture as a sort of consultant's report: interesting, informed, maybe even pivotal -- but no longer an authority. If we do that, we will have set outselves adrift.
quote:It's not my idea...
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
Aside from this interesting idea of God giving ethical advice,
quote:No, I'm not. I'm saying I don't see why some of the Bible is couched like that ("Slaves, obey your masters" is pretty unequivocal, after all), while other areas are so interpretable. At least, I do see that, because it fits quite happily with my view that the whole book is a culturally-mediated mishmash containing some close approaches to divine truth and some arrant nonsense. But I don't see how the fact can be made to square with a more "respectful" view of "Scripture".
You're suggesting that you won't obey Scripture unless it's spelled out for you in infinate detail, letter-of-the-law format.
quote:Well... we don't, or at least I don't. The Bible in my view is "God-breathed" if by that you mean inspired by God, but then so are King Lear and The Lord of the Rings. Authoritative? No thanks.
How do we understand these collected works and their meaning, in their imperfection and humanity, as God-breathed and authoritative?
quote:Probably "inspired in part by God" would better express what I'm trying to get at there. (And no, those aren't the only three books...)
I said:
The Bible in my view is "God-breathed" if by that you mean inspired by God, but then so are King Lear and The Lord of the Rings
quote:
Originally posted by Ben26:
In the same way, that we know Paul to have been guilty of anti-gay paranoia does not tell us whether God is for or against gay/lesbian relationships. To argue that Paul's perpectives is automatically the same as God's is nonsensical, I beleive.
quote:
So, here we are with the tired fact that there are only 5 or 6 verses in the entire bible which directly alluded to homosexual acts in any way.
Of these, some almost certainly do not apply today. For example, the Leviticus text is part of the Mosiac law and, on my understanding of scripture, the Mosiac law is not binding either on Christians or on gentiles. Therefore, I do not consider the Leviticus text to be esp. important in this debate.
quote:
Also, the text does not say whether the men in the story were gay by choice or by nature for the reasons outlined by others above. However, it seems important to me that this distinction be made before we apply the text willy-nilly against people today.
quote:
Therefore, I further submit that is is a little irresponsible to submit our gay and lesbian siblings in Christ to guilt, shame, resentment, prejudice and an unfullfilling "lifestyle" on the basis of a weak and unproved assertation.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben26:
In the same way, that we know Paul to have been guilty of anti-gay paranoia does not tell us whether God is for or against gay/lesbian relationships. To argue that Paul's perpectives is automatically the same as God's is nonsensical, I beleive.
quote:
So, here we are with the tired fact that there are only 5 or 6 verses in the entire bible which directly alluded to homosexual acts in any way.
Of these, some almost certainly do not apply today. For example, the Leviticus text is part of the Mosiac law and, on my understanding of scripture, the Mosiac law is not binding either on Christians or on gentiles. Therefore, I do not consider the Leviticus text to be esp. important in this debate.
quote:
Also, the text does not say whether the men in the story were gay by choice or by nature for the reasons outlined by others above. However, it seems important to me that this distinction be made before we apply the text willy-nilly against people today.
quote:
Therefore, I further submit that is is a little irresponsible to submit our gay and lesbian siblings in Christ to guilt, shame, resentment, prejudice and an unfullfilling "lifestyle" on the basis of a weak and unproved assertation.
quote:Well... we don't, or at least I don't. The Bible in my view is "God-breathed" if by that you mean inspired by God, but then so are King Lear and The Lord of the Rings. Authoritative? No thanks.
How do we understand these collected works and their meaning, in their imperfection and humanity, as God-breathed and authoritative?
quote:Well of course we are to read with discernment, that's why we have threads like this. We're not cooking here, we're trying to discern. But dismissing one approach as "prejudice and oppression" is really just a old tactic debaters use when they run out of points to make. I could just as easily say your way is used to justify self-centredness, arrogance. There, we've each made argument-less accusations, we're at a standoff. Surely this isn't the kind of discernment you were talking about.
The way to read the Bible (or King Lear or Lord of the Rings) is by exercising our God-given gift of discernment. God gave us consciences for a reason, and I believe one such reason is that we should not justify prejudice and oppression with quotes from distantly mediated ancient texts.
quote:Because, unless you have and are prepared to grapple with the intricacies of the arguments already presented, there really is no point in continuing this discussion.
Tone - have you read the rest of this thread or not?
quote:Yes, I have read through the thread. As far as I'm concerned, if you're implying that I'm offering nothing new, or I can't "grasp" the arguments, I would suggest that both sides are guilty of that. After all, you said:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I repeat:quote:Because, unless you have and are prepared to grapple with the intricacies of the arguments already presented, there really is no point in continuing this discussion.
Tone - have you read the rest of this thread or not?
quote:
The Romans passage talks about people chosing homosexuality. None of the gay people I know chose to be homosexual; some would have given a great deal to chose to be straight.
quote:Yes, that is what Iwas implying. At last we can agree on something!
if you're implying that I'm offering nothing new, or I can't "grasp" the arguments
quote:You're actually pissed off off at me because of my posting ratio?
Do you have any other interests in religion? 20 of your 23 posts on the Ship have been in this one thread. The rest of us get out and around a bit more.
Yours in Christ but highly pissed off
APW
quote:You really ARE dense, aren't you?
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
You're actually pissed off off at me because of my posting ratio?
quote:Hm, no, I'm wondering why the only thing you seem to be interested in talking about, on these incredibly varied and fascinating boards, is your views on homosexuality? Which is a dead horse.
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
You're actually pissed off off at me because of my posting ratio?
for all you're going through.
quote:but we are talining about a tiny handful of verses. If gay/lebian sex was such a major issue, don't you think more would be said about it? As I said, I do not personally happen to believe that Paul's utterances prove the point one way or the other. On the other hand, are you seriously suggesting that Paul was not a homophobe? Everything we know of him suggests that he was.
Herein lies the problem. You've taken the views of Paul and simply dismissed them as "anti-gay paranoia". Anybody can do that with anything Paul said, or anything anybody said. It's building arguments on rhetoric. I could just as easily say the stop-sign at the nearest corner is anti-driving paranoia. If God was "against" same-sex activity, why do want Him to get that across to you in any way that is different than the way He got the resurrection across to you?
quote:Yes, but it also forbids wearing cloths made out of two or more types of material, and orders you to show to a priest any item of clothing you may have which has mildew on it (13:47). This is why we have to use common sense, not just pull verses out of context and use them against our siblings in Christ or anyone else for that matter.
The Levitical text you're referring to also cites adultery, incest, and bestiality as condemnable acts. You sure none of these are binding on Christians today? In the case of incest and bestiality, neither of them are even even directly mentioned in the NT -- yet we still consider them awful acts, even though homosexual activity IS mentioned several times in the NT.
So, in other words, if the biblical evidence against homosexual activity is not enough, on what biblical grounds can we possibly continue to condemn incest and bestiality?
quote:Which is exactly the point, the Bible fails to make valid distinctions between choosing to be gay/lesbian and happening to be gay or lesbian whether you like it or not. There is a distinction. The Bible doesn't make it. Which is one piece of evidence in favor of the contention that Biblical knowledge is outmoded in some departments
From cover to cover, the text never ever makes this distinction for any kind of moral behaviour.
quote:You seem to have deliberately misrepresented me on this point. I am sorry, but there is no other to say it. I thought I said the precise opposite of what you are implying I said. I said that I don't want people to be subected to prejudice, shame, an unfullfilling life etc. That includes people I disagree with, such as yourself, as well. I didn't say people were not sinful. Since I believe that sin is falling sort of God's standards (I.E not being perfect) the claim that we are not sinful would be an absurd one for me to make.
This is a truly frightening assertion. Think of what you are saying. You're saying that anyone that is guity of some kind of Scriptural prohibition -- even one that we can both agree on -- it's submitting them to guilt, shame, resentment, prejudice and an unfullfilling 'lifestyle'". That's awful. I'm a sinner -- is that kind of treatment you want for me?
There's this mysterious misunderstanding surrounding this debate. It's this idea that if someone is told they are doing the wrong thing, it's the same as condemning them to Hell. So, this is the choice: either we all accept and bless something (doesn't matter what "it" is), or relegate those that do "it" as lepers.
quote:What a weak arguement. Are you really saying that every single inclination I ever have is evil? If not, you are saying this:
You're essentially advocating that if somoene is born with such-and-such an instinct or natural inclination, it must be ok to live out that inclination. Think about this. As I have argued again and again, think of all the nasty "natural" behaviours that your argument excuses, even blesses
quote:Umm you've missed my point. You originally suggested that liberal arguments were to be rejected because:
Your survey of traditionalist arguments is fewer than 75 words and hardly comprehensive. Of all of these, I am only aware of one argument, and that's Akinola's. I don't think his precise claim was that homosexual activity is not found in the animal kingdom. In either case, his arguments don't convince me.
But philosophically speaking, while it gives me a reason to reject this particular argument, it doesn't give me any reason to reject all traditionalist arguments. I might claim I saw Jim at the grocery store on Monday because Jane saw him there. But, even if I later discover that Jane got her days mixed up and actually saw him there Sunday, that doesn't disprove he was also there Monday.
quote:I have here, vouchsafed from, well, me, this month's OTP Award, and it DOES go to The Mighty Tonewheel. Congratulations, dude. You have TOTALLY earned it.
Originally posted by paigeb:
People might get the idea that you were more than a one-trick pony.
quote:Maybe there might be a point here?
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
If God was "against" same-sex activity, why do want Him to get that across to you in any way that is different than the way He got the resurrection across to you?
quote:And there's more justification for keeping slaves, and much more condemnation of usury.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Maybe there might be a point here?
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
If God was "against" same-sex activity, why do want Him to get that across to you in any way that is different than the way He got the resurrection across to you?
quote:None of which is mutually exclusive with the other material, for that matter. Though I'd certainly like to see more done with economic justice issues from the pulpit than I ever hear...
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
And there's more justification for keeping slaves, and much more condemnation of usury.
quote:Indeed. I've just been reading about the Jews in medieval Spain again (an interest of mine) and pondering the persecution they went through. Some of it was related to what the church saw as usury - which had been forced on the Jews by Christians, who who made laws so that Jews couldn't own land. Feels just as twisted as the arguments against us queers.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
None of which is mutually exclusive with the other material, for that matter. Though I'd certainly like to see more done with economic justice issues from the pulpit than I ever hear...
)quote:Micah. Chapter 6, verse 8. Besides the two commandments of Jesus, the only summary needed of the requirements of the Almighty and Beloved.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Happened in the OT, too: Hosea finally had to tell people "Just shut up, do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God."
(Was it Hosea?)
quote:As we struggle for authenticity in our lives, may we wear our own face. May we become that which God intends us to be; not what our culture, family or religion might want, or even coerce, us to be.
Now I become myself.
It's taken time, many years and places.
I have been dissolved and shaken,
Worn other people's faces. ...
May Sarton, "Now I Become Myself," in Collected Poems,
1930-1973 (New York: Norton, 1974), p. 156.
quote:Amen!
My mission now isn't so concerned with what it means to be a gay christian but rather what it means to follow Jesus.
quote:Should we draw the conclusion that you haven't troubled yourself to read this thread or keep up with it, and hence are ignorant of the substantial contributions to it from a conservative position?
Since liberals have expounded endlessly on this issue without the slightest peep of protest, suffer a conservative to do the same without being flamed into oblivion.
quote:Yes, you clearly haven't bothered to read this thread, as much if it is about why people who take scripture seriously do not agree with the usual conservative position on this issue.
Memo To God:
"Lord, having found several parts of your Scriptures incompatible with our current sexual mores, we have taken the liberty of ignoring several verses which we find terribly inconveniant.
Our next action will be to pen rubrics for the scolding of icons of Saint Paul the Homophobe like a naughty child, for his inconveniant writings on the matter of sexual mores in 1 Corinthians.
Sincerely: Episcopal Church USA."
quote:Perhaps you've missed various conservative points of view on this issue being put at length elsewhere on the boards by people such as Flying Belgian, Anglicanrascal, Jesuit Lad, Junior Fool and Enders Shadow?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, get off it Louise. I was talking about Purg and Hell. If I have missed the major Conservative threads in one of those two forums, forgive me.
Zach
quote:Politically I agree with you. I was against that Texas sodomy law for this very reason.
What people do in their own between *consenting* adults, is absolutely up to them, and nothing to do with you!
quote:No. More. As he said, he is an Anglican, and the appointment of Gene Robinson is an Anglican matter that has implications for the Anglican Communion.
Originally posted by Zach82:
as much as I, a United Methodist, do.
quote:
Originally posted by Morph:
The topic isn't really up for discussion.
quote:As time goes on, I am more and more convinced that it is the case:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Maybe there might be a point here?
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
If God was "against" same-sex activity, why do want Him to get that across to you in any way that is different than the way He got the resurrection across to you?
quote:Actually, I understand it pretty well. I'm certainly not immune to it. Absolute certitude about an issue can be a heady intoxicant. One can derive a certain amount of self-esteem going about pointing out other peoples (presumed) shortcomings. Remember the social dynamics when you were, oh say between 12 and 18?
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
I understand even less the desire to stand at Christ's right hand, pointing and shouting,
"Yeah! You Sodomites there! I'm talking to you, you fairies! You're going to Hell, so THERE, nancy boys! I was right all along and you were...liberal! Ha! Burn, baby!"
quote:Yeah. I think think so as well.
In fact, I go so far as to question that such an attitude would be even lightyears near the spirit of Christ.
quote:What you're really saying is that if a person pretends to change, it makes you more comfortable.
It is perfectly possible that a person who is homosexual and truly repents of this sinful state is forgiven by God . However, a person who continues to live like this and is unrepentant of it is damned.
)
quote:we have another one in Purg.
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
In the last few days I've read three anti-gay posts by first time posters, none of whom (so far) have posted anything else: calpurnia, whyberight... and now morph. Does this indicate some sort of pattern? Are they all the same person, and are they all sockpuppets of someone who has been banned?
quote:I'm sorry but you're really confusing me here. You seem to be suggesting that there is a part of a Ship that isn't on these discussion boards. Clearly that doesn't make sense - I think I need a lie down.
(you remember the main part of the ship, right? the magazine?)
quote:I got it! I got it!!!
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
and even Gehenna (a new section devoted primarilly to temporary tattoos... )
quote:This, on the other hand, I actually didn't get, thus absolutely ensuring I win the 2003 "Captain Oblivious" award.
Originally posted by Erin:
TWP is trying to pick up het chicks on a thread about homosexuality!!
quote:"admittedly unusual"???? Leave out the phrase "by choice" and it describes half the men on the planet.
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
"I'm straight, I'm here, I'm a virgin by choice (and disciplined, strict adherence to a grueling regimen of daily masturbation) and I'm proud of it all! It's who I am!"
Isn't there any discussion, or any role models on the ship that are relevant to me and my (admittedly unusual) chosen lifestyle?
quote:I knew there was some reason I've been feeling vaguely ... suicidal.
Arguments ranging from "The Bible Says Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve!" to "We attend a Full-Gospel Traditional Lesbian Episcopal Reformed Unitarian Society of Religious Friends Chapel in Croyden where we speak in tongues every Sunday" rage unchecked all over Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and even Gehenna (a new section devoted primarilly to temporary tattoos and hair-dye).
quote:You're a giant ant from a 1950s movie?
Originally posted by Anglicub:
being as how I'm, y'know, one of Them.
quote:Neither did I. If that's an example of a chat-up line, there is no hope for future generations.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:This, on the other hand, I actually didn't get, thus absolutely ensuring I win the 2003 "Captain Oblivious" award.
Originally posted by Erin:
TWP is trying to pick up het chicks on a thread about homosexuality!!
quote:A few days ago I was wandering around some mildly derelict council estate in London, as one does, when I saw graffiti, I guess about a schoolteacher, that said something like: "Mr. X is a fucking cunt wanker tosser".
Originally posted by Merseymike:
So you want a support group for wankers?
quote:You're asking this question on a thread called "Homosexuality and Christianity"?
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Isn't there any discussion, or any role models on the ship that are relevant to me and my (admittedly unusual) chosen lifestyle? Remember, I have to learn how to commune on a very deep and trusting level with a whole different gender before I can be part of a "couple".
quote:Yes I am. It's more of a rhetorial question, or complaint. I got sick of the maximum overgaeification of the message board of late, feeling it had gotten rather one-note and tedious. I haven't read my bible for a week or so (which I should do, as that always raises more questions than it answers) so I didn't have any ideas for new threads and was really hoping other people would. Rather than start a nasty, stupid and negative thread called I'm sick of all of this gay talk. I'm not gay and it doesn't interest me much or apply to me either, I thought, "Why not go where the maximum number of gay people are most likely to be reading and just let them know how I feel. They can do what they like, but I just want my own personal feelings to be heard and then move on. If others feel the same way, this may be a relief to them." Going to the source, as it were.
You're asking this question on a thread called "Homosexuality and Christianity"?
) I thought I would ask a question that I have been wondering about.
quote:Must change cos seems to be more in male-only places than in general society
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is the percentage of the population that engages in homosexual sex relatively static, or does it change according to different factors?
quote:No-one knows
If it does change, what are the factors that might cause this?
quote:Conjecture. No-one gathers reliable statistics. For example people estimatge proportion of gay men in Britain anywhere from below 1% to well over 10%. All nonsense.
And is this conjecture, or are there any kind of reliable statistics about it?
quote:No-one knows, partly because there are places they kill you if they think you are buggering men, so who can gather figures?
Is it known to change from one country and culture to another, or is it relatively uniform world-wide?
Well Done!
) quote:"Welcome to my world". I'm sick of all this het talk (and ubiquitous, *public* het expressions of opposite gender affection). I'm not het it doesn't interest me much or apply to me either. Alas, I'm queer in a one-note, tedious world of het-ness which *doesn't* come and go; there is no respite.
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
...I got sick of the maximum overgaeification of the message board of late, feeling it had gotten rather one-note and tedious. ... Rather than start a nasty, stupid and negative thread called I'm sick of all of this gay talk. I'm not gay and it doesn't interest me much or apply to me either, I thought, "Why not go where the maximum number of gay people are most likely to be reading and just let them know how I feel.
quote:Thank-you for sharing.
Posted by That Wikkid Person:
I thought, "Why not go where the maximum number of gay people are most likely to be reading and just let them know how I feel.
quote:May I suggest that this attitude is not really conducive to real discussion, regardless of topic?
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
I just want my own personal feelings to be heard and then move on