Yet Another "Gay Sex and the Bible" Thread

Great Debates
81

lissener, quite bluntly, pull the cotton out of your ears, put down the sign labelled “To Arms! Defend Us From the Homophobes!”, and listen to what Skammer is saying.

He has not once even come close to suggesting that your “existence is an evil” and in fact has said precisely the opposite: you are his neighbor, his brother, created Imago Dei in a world full of hatred and fear, whom he is pledged to love and whose dignity he is pledged to respect. What his views about moral behavior are, influence precisely two things: his own behavior, and those few occasions when he is called on to render judgment over another who has submitted himself to that judgment, e.g., if there were a congregational vote over calling the Rev. Carter Hayward (an out Lesbian priest) as rector of his parish, or if a friend asked him for ethical advice.

Homebrew, Esprix, Siege, Diogenes and I have several times gone through the relevant Scriptures to demonstrate their inapplicability to the people who self-identify as gay; is it necessary to repeat that?

All I’m getting out of your posts is an irrational attitude born of pain that a person’s belief that a given action is wrong for him or her is somehow therefore a judgment on you as a person. While I can grasp in a limited way the amount of ostracism, ridicule, and outright hatred that led to that pain, I submit to you that it is clouding your judgment and leading you to condemn Skammer in the same irrational manner as the true homophobes have done to you and yours.

I’ll accept unquestioningly any response you make to this post – but if I may ask one thing of you, if you feel moved to respond hostilely, take five minutes and do whatever serves you as a calmative, reread my post, and then respond. I believe you are, from quite understandable motives, doing Skammer an injustice, and knowing you to be a man of strong feelings but also of thoughtful and rational mien, I feel it proper to try to intervene and ask for perspective. Fair?

82

I understand what Skammer is saying, and I understand what you are saying, Poly. The two positions are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive.

I should no more be expected to tolerate–let alone respect–the view that my mere existance is sinful than an African American person should tolerate the patronizing, benign bigotry of a goodnatured daughter of the confederacy.

Skammer’s “belief” is, in and of itself, at the VERY least, an insult to me, personally, and at worst, a condemnation.

83

In addition to which, as I have said before, this is one of those rare instances in which the cliche “If you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem” applies. When the status quo is evil (loaded word; we’ll softpedal)–When the status quo is insulting to me and people like me, then insofar as you support the status quo–the pervasive culture of homophobia–in this country at this time–to that extent, you are a part of the problem.

84

Poly, you and I have also both gone 'round and 'round that “love the sinner, hate the sin” is bullshit, and your post above comes awfully close to condoning that attitude.

I know how you feel, but when someone refers to my life, sexuality, or the expression thereof as a sin - even if they treat me the same as everyone else - it bothers me. I’m having a hard time disagreeing with lissener that they are, at heart, homophobes.

Esprix

85

I mean, I feel like people don’t realize that holding such “opinions” has consequences. People like Skammer, and many others here as well, who insist on calling their condemnation an “opinion” and insist, further, that they’re not hurting anyone by holding that “opinion,” has finally come to anger me a great deal, and I will not let it stand. They think that just because they’re not roaming the gay neighborhood with a baseball bat that they’re not homophobic. And even if they were, so what? It’s just an “opinion.”

Well it’s more than that: it’s support of the status quo that makes people who DO take baseball bats to queers think that they have their society’s blessing for doing so. This culture produces gaybashers, and politicians who float anti-gay-marriage amendments, and Antonin Scalia, who even justifies his position by claiming it’s the cultural norm to condemn homosexuality.

As long as people who CLAIM not to be homophobic dance to the fiddler while Rome burns, they’re just as responsible for the fire as the active arsonists, to squeeeze an allusion till it squeeels.

86

Skammer’s defending an opinion; I’m defending my existance. And you, Poly, ask me to yield? You hold his opinion to be of greater importance than my existance?

87

I think I’ll let Skammer speak for himself, hopefully in a post that is affirming rather than defensive (hint, hint). There is no way in Hell I will let pseudo-Christianity masking homophobia go unchallenged; all I’ve been saying is that I truly believe you misinterpret Skammer’s position on this issue, and I can easily understand why, given some of the crap we’ve both seen and heard.

It might be worth your whle to read his post on the retreat he went on and the following Sunday service, either in this thread or the Episcopal schism one; I don’t recall which, to get a handle on what he truly feels.

My stance has not changed at all – I simply see that there’s shades of gray between Troy Perry’s position and D. James Kennedy’s, and that Skammer’s is sufficiently light gray enough as to be nearly indistinguishable from white – and that IMHO you are not seeing that because of elements of what he says that sound vaguely like His4Ever at her most vehement.

Peace.

88

Sorry; no gray on this. Run it through a 1960s-South-Civil-Rights test and see how it sounds. THat should be the standard, not how sweetly a homophobe insists he doesn’t really condemn me for being a filthy sinner.

89

Well, I’m back. And this time I’ve remembered to take my blood pressure meds.

I’m still trying to understand an aspect of Polycarp’s and Skammer’s belief system vs. life experiences.

Both of you have known and loved some gay people. You know that we’re not really any different from you, except for our sexual orientation. You know that we’re just as capable of the deepest, most profound love for each other as you feel toward the people you love. And you know that the physical expression of that love can be with the same loving kindness as your expression of your love. When you look at us through your own eyes and with your own mind, you know these things to be true.

And yet you believe that, somehow, the love that you express is a God-given blessing, but the love that we express - a love that is identical to yours in every respect - is a sin.

I cannot get past the observation that this is a contradiction - that you have directly seen a truth in the people you know, and you deny that truth because you’ve chosen to believe a moral authority that you won’t premit yourself to question. How do you resolve that contradiction between that moral authority and the reality you know to be true?

I can’t help but wonder: when there’s a conflict between a truth that you observe in reality, vs. an edict from your chosen moral authority - do you simply cling to that authority, and turn your back on the facts of reality? The way I see it (admittedly as an outsider), it’s a conflict between an article of faith and the power of reasoning, and you’ve come down on the side of faith, at the expense of reason.

Consider this analogy: I am convinced, intellectually, that the Earth is roughly spherical. I have seen ships slowly “sinking” into the horizon. I know people who have been around the world. I know that astronauts have orbited the Earth, and I’ve seen their photographs of a spherical blue-green planet orbiting the sun. I understand how the Earth fits in with the rest of the solar system, and I have no doubt that all the other planets are spherical. In short, I have consistent empirical evidence that the Earth is spherical.

But my chosen belief system tells me that the Earth is flat. And in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, I cling to my flat-Earth belief. On one hand, I’ve got all the evidence anyone should need, and on the other hand, I’ve got a belief that was written thousands of years ago, when it was perfectly understandable to assume the Earth to be flat. And how do I resolve this? By sweeping away the evidence of reality, and embracing that antiquated moral authority.

Why?

90

A Hindu believes eating beef is sinfull, a Hindu avoids eating beef.
If Bippy eats beef, then the Hindu believes Bippy has sinned.
Bippy does not need to defend his existance from the Hindu, even if Bippy eats beef.

A Skammer believe homosexual sex is sinfull, a Skammer avoids homosexual sex.
If Bippy has homosexual sex, then the Skammer believes Bippy has sinned.
Bippy does not need to defend his existance from the Skammer, even if Bippy has homosexual sex.

Those who condemn Skammer must understand they also condemn the Hindu.

91

And what becomes of the Hindu’s child, who was born with a strong preference for beef, and an aversion to vegetables? If the Hindu sees that she is a good child, yet still labels her a sinner for eating beef, then yes, I condems the Hindu.

92

I came here and I think I answered Poly’s OP to the best of my ability.

lissener, I’m truly sorry that you don’t understand me. I know you’ve had to put up with a lot of crap from people who have said things similar to what I’m saying, so I don’t blame you for thinking you’re hearing more of the same.

I’m going to respond to a couple points, but then I think I’ll bow out of this debate.

  1. I haven’t said “your existance is evil.” In fact I’ve been saying very much the opposite.

  2. You don’t have to defend your existance to me. I haven’t questioned your right to exist. I haven’t questioned your right to have gay sex. You don’t have to defend your feelings or your actions to me at all; I’m not trying to threaten them.

  3. I have no tolerance for gay bashing or discrimination against people because of their orientation. To imply that I would foster an environment that accepts violence against gays is completely absurd. I know you have met people like that, but I am not one of them.

  4. You’ve brought up racism against African-Americans a couple of times, but it’s not a good analogy. I don’t think you’re inferior, I don’t think you’re a “dirty sinner” (any more than I am, anyway), I don’t think your less of a person than anyone else. I certainly don’t discriminate against gays nor tolerate discrimination when I see it.

But I don’t expect you to hear me, and I don’t see that our discussion is really accomplishing anything. I’d like to thank Polycarp and *Bippy for hearing me out. Since I’ve more than responded to the OP, I’ll sit out until the next time I see an OP I can’t resist.

93

Panache, I fear that you misconstrue my own position from my defense of Skammer. I will let him speak for himself on the following, but I think his position does not differ to a large extent from my own.

I am committed to follow the teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth, the Anointed Son of God. That calls me to show lov and compassion to my fellow man, to admit my own human inability to live up to the ideals that are held out as my goals and to seek help in better aspiring to them, to refrain from sitting in judgment over my fellows, to stand by them in adversity, and to render them practical help in such ways as may be open to me. In particular, I believe that last calls me to call to account those who claim to be Christian who use Scripture to condemn and judge, rather than to love and help.

I believe that God knew quite well what He was doing when He created human sexuality, that desire of another and the coming together in sexual union are something He intended and not execrable sins. I think that He either created some people as gay or assented to early-life experiences that cause them to become gay, and that this is a part of His Plan and not a perversion of it. (In particular, it’s a test of those He calls to follow Him, to treat their gay brothers and sisters as beloved siblings and not as outcast abominations.) That a given gay sex act might be sinful is, I think, quite possible – but because of the context in which it is performed, not by its inherent nature as a gay sex act. For example, if you and your partner have pledged lifelong fidelity, either of you having sex with another would be a violation of your vows. In this you are no different from my wife and I, or anybody else.

So I am in no way presuming to say anything about your sex life except that it is indeed your choice; if you want my advice, I’ll give it, but in the absence of that, my task is to defend your right to live your own life from those who would try to regulate away your love as something abominable.

What I’ve seen and heard from Skammer persuades me that he holds to the same standards as I, as outlined in the first paragraph of affirmations above, but holds to the traditional understanding of all gay sex as inherently sinful – but, thanks to our call to emulate Christ, he does not from this condemn gay people but instead tries to love them and respect them – that his understanding of what his connection with sin is, is to gauge what he himself should or should not do, not to attempt to press his standards on others. His job, like mine, is to love you and respect you, and defend you from those who would hate you – and he’s equally sworn to this by that covenant I mentioned above.

The difference between this view and that of Senator Frist or Pat Robertson is, I think, quite evident.

94

Poly, in the OP you referred to the belief that “gay sex is sinful,” a belief that is also held by Skammer. To me, that means that gay sex, by its very nature, is always sinful. And regardless of your explanations and justifications, it’s a belief that I reject.

That belief doesn’t rest on any kind of reason or respect for reality, but on superstition and myth. You understand that being gay is not a matter of choice and, in your terms, God made us this way. What kind of a sadistic God would give people a sexuality and condemn them for acting on it? What kind of cruelty would give people only two choices: to be labeled a sinner and risk eternal damnation, or to live in the perpetual frustration of celibacy? If those are the choices your God gives to gay people, thank God I’m an atheist.

No, I’m not equating you with Frist or Robertson, but it’s only a matter of degree. The epistemology of religion is not one of reason, but of irrationality. Reason tells you that the love I feel for my partner is no different than what you feel for your wife, yet you reject this fact, in favor of superstition. Even your professed “love” for gay people rings false: you love only because Scripture tells you to love. The fact that your irrationality is not as “extreme” as that of Pat Robertson doesn’t, in the long run, matter. In this world of shades of gray, some issues really are black-and-white.

95

Does that system of “reason” you espouse truly include condemning me for beliefs that I’ve specifically and explicitly rejected in several hundred posts over a four-year period, simply because I express concern for other people caught in an ethical dilemma, and for saying that my religious beliefs endorse my willingness to care about you and stand by you?

If so, I’ll stick with my benighted superstition: It leaves me room to care about people, and like them even when they stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to what I’m trying to say.

96

Polycarp, there are more important things than people, y’know.

97

I don’t think Polycarp believes that “gay sex = sin” at all, his theology is far deeper than that, and I’ve read Lissener’s posts closely enough to see that even if he does, it’s in the sense of “I don’t do it but I’m not going to judge you by any means.” It’s like Polycarp says, it’s a pretty light shade of gray.

What I hear skammer, Panache, Esprix obliquely ask (and what I alluded to in my first post) is something I’d like to ask the Christian folk who do think “gay sex = sin” about: Can gay sex be separated from gay love? Would my deep love for my partner be considered inherently sinful, or only the fact that I act on it?

I would assume the latter, because despite Athelas’ assumption, there are plenty of POSITIVE examples of deep same-sex love in the Bible-- eg, David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi. I’m not saying they were or weren’t sexual, but their stories certainly resonate with me and how I feel about my primary relationship. And it does bother me greatly that we’re reduced down to the “sex” part, as if all the rest of the lovely complexity in my relationship wasn’t worth warm dog piddle. It was what I obliquely alluded to in my first post-- it would seem to me that if we were going to be condemned as a sinner because of one simple aspect, we should also be respected for the rest of the richness of our love.

98

Polycarp:

Does that system of “reason” you espouse truly include condemning me for beliefs…

I think it’s reasonable to condemn a person for worshiping a sadistic god and encouraging others to do the same, regardless of how much lip service he gives to “love”. I really think it is reasonable to condemn a man who spreads around so much ignorance on a board dedicated towards fighting it, but that’s just me and my crazy ways.

that I’ve specifically and explicitly rejected in several hundred posts over a four-year period, simply because I express concern for other people caught in an ethical dilemma

That ethical dilemma is there in the first place only because people like you aren’t mature enough to see how stupid their belief system is.

99

As you say, it would only be the latter - and there begins the struggle for those who hold to this position - how to affirm the people without condoning the actions which are considered sinful. And since those acts are so fundamental to the core identity of the person in question, the only message that they hear (as is amply evidenced in this thread) is that it is they themselves - and not some vague actions - who are condemned.

A question for you to consider - I realise that you have experienced nothing but rotten fruit from those holding this opinion, but can you allow for the possibility that someone can hold this opinion and yet treat gay people with love and and without prejudice? Is it possible that the word “homophobe” should be reserved for those who have revealed their fruit (by their actions)?

Grim

100

According to Jesus, there is only One More Important Thing than people, and He’s on record as taking love of people as love of Him.

If your doctrine elevates creed over compassion, it’s wrong.

Simple as that.