Revisionist Bishops of ECUSA miss the point entirely

Great Debates
41

Don’t assume. In other discussions on this issue – which I have very consciously stayed out of – you have been quick to see things as Us and Them, and frankly, I do not fit easily on either side.

I don’t see how switching the terms from celibacy to chastity makes much of a difference. My point is that even under a redefinition of marriage to include homosexuals, there are still plenty of people who wish to be in a loving, healthy marriage relationships, but are denied for reasons beyond their control. For all intents and purposes, their celibacy is mandated, not chosen. My freind who has NF will never be married. She might possibly have sex if she paid for it, which I don’t imagine she would. It would certainly be prohibited by the church.

It’s a horrible situation and one which I don’t wish upon anyone; which is why I support gay marriage. What I object to is

  1. The claim that someone obligated – for whatever reason – to go without marriage and/or sex is being denied their “base humanity.”
  2. The victimhood mentality so easily adopted from the larger gay-rights movement that insists that gay believers’ situation is utterly different from all others, and which insists that all believers who disagree – however well intentioned and sincere – into the role of hate-filled oppressors.

I respectfully but vigorously disagree. He is fully human by virtue of being a child of God. Those particularities may describe him and indeed define him, but his humanity is not compromised if he fails to choose a political philosophy or identify a place as his home.

Is any infringement on the individual will a denial of humanity? If so, Christianity as a whole is a denial of my humanity, becuase it tells me many things I do not want to hear and obliges me to do things I would rather not.

42

While I feel for your friends, things such as elephantitis are deformaties, and their lack of access to sex is not imposed by a self-proclaimed external authority, but by the aesthetic sensibilities of the larger society. They still have access to sex, if they find someone who would do so with them, and they can do it morally, because their conditions do not preclude marriage.

To tell me that I cannot live my life to the fullness is to tell me not to live my life as a human, and any religion that would shackle me with the hell of the celibacy (ie, saying I can come out of the closet so long as I stay out of the bedroom) offers nothing but dehumanizing patronization.

My love for my boyfriend is as valid, as wholesome, as pure as any love between any heterosexuals, and I will not be told otherwise, by anyone, at anytime. Any religion that asks me to deny who I am to be one of them is a religion that will not outlive my generation in any great numbers.

43

And, repectfully, those are attitudes I find incompatible with Christianity: the assumption that a life without sex is unlivable, and those who are denied are somehow made less human.

Which I have not done, and the first sentence of which I have not denied. Like Poly, you are too quick to percieve any disagreement as “the opposition.”

Let me repeat once more and elaborate: I support gay marriage. I support gay adoption. I support gay ministers for those churches that choose them. I have volunteered to change bedpans in an AIDS hospice. I am not “the enemy.”

But I am saddened by the implication – which you virtually state – that if you were forced to choose between your boyfreind and your faith, you would choose the former over the latter. And I am grieved that you do not see in that equating involuntary celibacy with being less than human, you are doing the very thing to others that others have done to you.

44

This quote demonstrates the point I attempted to make earlier in the thread and that Furt repeated with much more detail and eloquence.

It is not a Christian principle that having sex is living “life to the fullness.” Again, this is true regardless of sexual preferance and marital status. You hold the opinion that unless you have sex you are not living life to the fullest, but this is not a Christian principle. Christianity demands that all Christians deny themselves certain wants and desires that are fulfilling and satisfying. Some of these desires are genetic predispositions, some come from emotional devlopments, others are influenced by the societies in which we live, etc. For homosexuals being a Christian must be especially difficult but they are still expected to sacrifice certian desires in order to obey the will of God. You have decided that sex is something that you are unwilling to give up in order to be a Christian and that is a decision that you have the right to make. It is not your decision to hold on to sex that brings the objections of many Christians in regard to this issue, rather it is that you would like to change the nature of Christianity in order to fit into your conception of what makes a life of fullness. Christianity not only asks you not to have sex, but it also teaches you that your celibacy is not at all dehumanizing patronization even if it feels like it.

45

And to clarify before any rebuttals. I am not arguing that gays shouldn’t be allowed in Church or that Christianity is no good for gays or anything like that. I am trying to point out that many Christians hold a negative opinion of gay marriage precisely because of the argument that you offer in favor of it. Arguing that your prorities in life should trump the priorities in life that Chruch teaches is what causes many Chrsitians to question why you would want to be a part of the Church in the first place.

46

Sorry – my mind is slower than my keyboard.

When you make the argument as you have it look slike you are saying this:

Christian moral priorities are not in tune with my moral priorities. Therefore Christianity must change so that I can be a Christian.

You can see how this argument dosen’t sit well with many Chrsitians. There are other ways to argue the point that are much more convincing in regard to the issue at large however. Particularly if one is arguing for monogamous homosexuality within a life-long relationship. It is difficult to defend how the Church can approve of a heterosexual marriage in which the couple avoids having or adopting children while at the same time disapproving a Homosexual marriage that is willing to raise children.

47

Sex is totally tangental to the issue. I want to live my life as one with the person I love. And yes, the physical expression of that unity is sexual, because humans are sexual creatures. But the sex is only part of a deeply emotional, spiritual relationship between two people. But you cannot have a truly healthy, well formed relationship of that sort without a physical expression. So what the Church is telling me is that I must be fundamentally alone my entire life, a burden not bestowed upon ANY heterosexual. And I reject that teaching as the clear evil that it is.

Sexuality is not a matter of preference, but one of orientation.

No, being denied the ability to enter the sort of relationship of which sex is its physical manifestation would be denying me life to its fullest. Whether you consider that a Christian principle or not, I don’t give a damn. I don’t care what you think is or is not a “Christian principle.”

I see no reason to believe that God wants me to live a life of miserable celibacy and isolated solitude. If he does, then he’s a monster.

I disagree. And my opinion on the matter is just as valid as yours. More so, actually. Since I actually know something about homosexuality in a way no heterosexual ever has, ever will or ever could.

48

No, what you consider “Christian moral priorities” are based on a pre-scientific, nonsense worldview that has been long since rejected by all thinking persons. Therefore, Christianity must adapt to the modern age, or else it will fade into irrelevancy (as it has in Europe). Since I see value in it, I don’t want that to happen, so I strive to find a balance between what has historically been clung to by Christians and what we now know to be true – that homosexuality is not unnatural, that human beings evolved from lower animals, that the earth is not only not the center of the universe, but is an insignificant speck of dust.

49

spectrum, your voice is so clearly filled with bitterness and anger that I don’t think anything productive is going to come of this.

I have no doubt that you have reasons for that anger; I hope you realize that there was none directed at you. I also hope you will someday realize that life is not so black and white: You seem to eager to assume that anyone who does not utterly agree with you must be some sort of homophobic anti-evolution fundamentalist. That is not the case. Handy and I have both tried to make it clear that our concern is not with homosexuality per se, but with your claim that anyone who is denied a sexual relationship is sub-human.

I am saddened to see that you locate so much of your sense of self in your relationship, if for no other reason than that human love can be taken away in so many ways. I am more deeply saddened that your own pain is so deep that you seem unable to recognize anyone else’s.

Peace.

50

I’m bitter and angry, says the person who seems to think that I should be denied by the Church the ability to be both a Christian and in a committed, loving relationship?

I don’t diminish the pain of others. However, they all have outs. Even your friends with the medical conditions could get married someday, could find someone that the CHurch would be happy to see them with. They have that option.

What option does your version of the church offer me?

51

Barring a miracle on the order of Christopher Reeve walking again, she can’t. The odds of a man falling in love with her are are about the same as the odds of you falling in love with a woman.

For the third time:

Accepting gay marriage/partnerships was never the issue here. If you can understand that, you may want to go back and read the posts again.

52

I never considered you my enemy.

Now, the conservative Bishops, they’re certainly my enemy. They want, in effect, to shove me back in teh closet, and I will kill myself before I let anyone move me so much as one inch in that direction.

53

The origins of Christianity pre-date modern science. So what?

That’s absurd. You’ve been reading these boards long enough to know that there are thinking persons who find Christianity quite sensible, just as there are non-thinking atheists around.

On the contrary, Christianity is most irrelevent when it conforms to the culture. Why would we need the church at all if culture told us the same thing?

If it’s pre-scientific nonsense, why even bother?

I don’t see the parallel between homosexual sex and evolution or earth-centered cosmology. Are you going to accuse them of being flat-earthers too?
spectrum, I understand why you’re angry and bitter. I’m know you have cause. However,

This is a lie. The ones I know, anyway, want you to live a full, abundant, joyful life; they know this is possible through Christ’s power of healing and transformation. They want you to be who you were created to be. That may include celibacy. But no one is asking you to return to the closet. In fact, just the opposite is true. I know you don’t believe that, and I’m sorry. I hope someone out there can help you realize that sometime.

54

Which is unfortunate, but we must now adapt Christianity to what we know is the truth.

Those thinking persons who are sensible Christians have adapted Christianity to the real world, not the ones who try to continue to live under misguided, anti-scientific, ignorant notions.

I disagree. Any Christianity which says that “being gay is wrong and gays must live a life of tortured celibacy and loneliness” is a religion which is irrelevant. The good bishops of the Episcopal Church, you know, the ones you created this thread to disparage, realize this, and are addressing the problem. What are you doing to help the situation?

The “immorality” of homosexuality, creationism and geocentricism are all common misconceptions encouraged and supported solely by the ignorant.

I don’t need to be “transformed.” I am fine just the way I am. I am who God made me to be, and that includes my relationship, which is just as valuable, moral and holy as any entered into by any pair of heterosexuals.

I was created to be a gay man who’s smart enough to realize that there’s nothing immoral about my relationship.

To be celibate would be to be forced back into the closet. There is no physical or moral reason that I cannot have love and human companionship, just as any heterosexual can, aside from the bigotry and malice of ignorant homophobes, many of whom just happen to wear miters.

That is so damn condescending. Look at Mr. Skammer, who knows what’s best for the stupid little queer.

55

The sentiment was sincere, but if it sounded condescending I apologize. However, I’ll thank you not to put words into my mouth. I can be offensive enough without your help.

If you truly believe that, your problem with Christianity is much bigger than the issue of homosexuality.

56

I note that you did not argue my translation of your sentiment.

I don’t mean that I have no flaws; I obviously have quite a few rough edges and sharp corners. But my sexuality is nothing immoral. There is nothing wrong with being gay, there is nothing wrong with being in a committed, homosexual relationship — it is precisely and exactly the moral equivalent of its heterosexual counterpart. That’s simply reality.

Being gay is as natural and healthy as being straight, and anyone who attempts to treat me negatively, or to undermine my relationship, because of my sexuality, is my enemy.

Fortunately, the Episcopal Church is an association of good people and is thus moving in a loving and Christian direction regarding this issue.

57

This is the best argument you have made Spectrum. It is the type of argument that has at least the potential of convincing more conservative Christians of your position. However, attacking the beliefs of many Christians like this:

and

is not only insulting, it also misunderstands the beliefs of most Christians and misunderstands the foundation of Christianity. It also leads to the question of why you desire to remain a Christian if you have such a low opinion of Christianity and Christian thought. By the way, speaking of worldviews, there is a middle ground between a creationist, geo-centric view and a materialist reductionist point of view. Many Christians see Darwinian evolution as perfectly compatable with Christianity.

For European Christians (about 550 million of them) I would say that Christianity is anything but irrelevant.

58

The problem here seems to lie in the apparent fact that some people get no further than the first chapter in reading Paul’s letter to the Romans, and miss the following:

It occurs to me that there is a delicious irony in the fact that people who sought to exclude some or make them “second-class Christians” are themselves feeling the sense of being excluded or made second-class, through an effort to show God’s love to all. Matthew 7:1-2 may have something to say here.

Spectrum, IMO you were created in God’s likeness and image, but with flaws from being born into an imperfect world, where selfishness and judgmentalism reign. Your task is to give yourself over to Christ – entirely, holding nothing back – and let Him remake you into what He wants you to be. Notice that I’m saying Christ – not the Church. People no better nor worse than you have their opinions about your sexuality. That’s their problem; they’re taught to deal with their own sins first, but sometimes that teaching doesn’t “take.” What God expects of you is what you need to try to become, and be, and live, and do. That may involve renouncing your personal desires in some areas, or it may not. Only He knows where He is leading you; I sure as heck don’t! You ain’t perfect – but neither am I, nor Skammer, nor HH. And supposedly we’re called to hold each other up, as brothers in Him, helping rather than judging. Like most everything else, we do a half-assed job of this. But there it is, in all its simplicity – love is the thing we’re most called to do, and the thing we put 274th on our agendas, after the Apostolic Succession, and the proper criteria for a bishop, and “adequate episcopal oversight,” and what the “sin of Sodom” actually was, and a whole shopping list of petty issues that we find it fun to allow to divide us.

59

And just a quick note – Christianity really isn’t about smoothing out one’s rough edges. Jesus taught that we should undergo a change so complete and profound that he likened it to being “born again.” To say that Christianity is about trying to be a better person in the general sense is really a watering-down of Christ’s teachings (although I’m not sure that you meant to imply that).

60

That’s not what I was attempting to imply. But again, being gay is the core, fundamental fact of my existence, all other facets of my personality and being are informed and colored by this unalterable, undeniable state. So even a “born again” experience (though I hate that terminology for its association with fundamentalists, and prefer the baptismal interpretation of that passage) would not change that.