The Gay Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Irvine511 said:
i don't think you hate me. :)

i have 2 questions:

1. do you feel it's right to use your religious beliefs to justify denying *civil* marriage rights for people who may or may not share your religious beliefs?

2. do you also understand that it's difficult to hear that you believe that someone's most intimate longings -- for love, for sex, for companionship, for family, for protection, for security, for safety -- are inherently sinful, and that it's comparable to stealing, adultery, etc.
Click to expand...

1) what do you mean? I'm not 100% clear on all of the proper terminology. I don't want anyone treated unequally, if it can be helped, so I know that some of what I said is conflicting with the other.

2) I realize that's probably one of the most difficult things to hear. But I also think that the term sin is a very fickle one. It's easy to point out really bad things like theft and murder, and whatever, but there are portions of the Bible that also refer to eating shellfish as sinful. So, I really don't know how to like, gauge what's really, really bad and what's just kinda "bad".

When it comes to my friend, for example, we talked about how I felt, after he came out, and I think we've only mentioned it like two or three times since. And again, that was like 11 years ago (my math was fuzzy earlier when I said 13). I try not to harp on about it. I want it to be clear that that's not the only thing about him I care about. It's who he is. I accept that. I love him, he's been my best friend for almost half my life. Whatever the Bible may say, I think he's right with God, so I don't worry about it.
 
i'm really not sure what i can say when you're coming from a purely religious objection, other than to say that we live in a secular society and the laws must govern everyone equally, that one's religious beliefs cannot infringe upon the rights of anyone else, and that laws cannot use religion as their justification. which is why we are talking about civil marriage -- it's a legal contract, not a religious one with real, tangible benefits and rights. do you think that your religious beliefs justify treating people differently under the law?

do you think eating shellfish is a sin? or do you think the Bible isn't to be taken too literally, and you should trust your own conscience?
 
If people are paying their taxes and following the laws, they deserve the same rights as everyone else. From there, if the couple decides they want to get married in a church, it's up to the pastor/priest and their congregation to consider the matter and make the choice they feel is right based on their understanding of the Bible. To completely eliminate that choice because of a consensus (but ultimately still subjective) religious belief held by a majority denomination is unconstitutional, as far as I'm concerned. It's not even protecting freedom within one religion because not every Christian feels the same way about this. I find it constricting.

And as far as I can tell, there's no danger of a slippery slope happening with regards to "forcing" gay marriage as churches are non-profit organizations. Jokes about the breakdown of American society aside, I don't understand what argument can be made in favor of eliminating gay marriage or the term itself.

That's just how I feel about it. It took me a while to come around to the idea that not every Christian has to conform to a particular line of thinking. Many don't. I believe Christians will be judged like everybody else, but I don't think God will get out his red pen because you treated homosexuals the same way you treated heterosexuals.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
i'm really not sure what i can say when you're coming from a purely religious objection, other than to say that we live in a secular society and the laws must govern everyone equally, that one's religious beliefs cannot infringe upon the rights of anyone else, and that laws cannot use religion as their justification. which is why we are talking about civil marriage -- it's a legal contract, not a religious one with real, tangible benefits and rights. do you think that your religious beliefs justify treating people differently under the law?

do you think eating shellfish is a sin? or do you think the Bible isn't to be taken too literally, and you should trust your own conscience?
Click to expand...

Ok, that's kinda where I thought you were going.

Honestly? No, probably not. It's a country that's supposed to be open to all people, races, creeds, sex, etc. So, I am sitting here on one hand and thinking, "you're exactly right, Irvine," but then also thinking, "yeah, but, is marriage itself, traditionally a civil or religious creation?". Which is why I mentioned earlier where would you draw a line on what's a "marriage" and a "civil partnership" or whatever you'd call it. Life is simpler if it's all just marriage.

No I don't think eating shellfish is a sin, partially because I believe Jesus fulfilled the old law, and whole there are standards in it to keep in mind, I don't think it's a lifestyle that has to be followed any more. For one thing, the whole purpose of the old law, in my mind, was that it existed to prove that no person could live a perfect life. No one. That was somewhat of the point I was trying to raise when I mentioned the shellfish thing in the first place.

I'm sure you can get an idea of how many side-eyes I received from my ultra-conservative family when Travis and I moved in together before we got married. I absolutely hated that. But I had made my peace with God about it, so I just kinda felt that I was OK in what I was doing and the "judge not" lesson was truly brought home, at that point.

Is all of that rambling even coming close to making sense? I'm sitting at a conference writing all of it on my phone, so it's hard to read back on what I'm writing.
 
I have a close friend who has exactly the same story bono_212 relates. As a Christian she's gotten over so many notions of sin, not only the shellfish and the head covering and the fabric blends, but of course the straight sex she has outside of marriage. That one was really pretty easy, I think. I'm not sure why this last one of homosexuality and gays marrying is so much harder.

If I were to guess, I'd say that we have a deep recoil about it because it strikes straight at the heart of the patriarchy (and all hierarchies, really) by creating a marriage relationship between people that we unconsciously, automatically recognize as exactly equal. (I think this is maybe also why straights are so obsessed with the butch/femme, top/bottom and dom/sub questions. 'Wait... which are you? It has to be one or the other, right?' Somebody must be the dominant one.)

Personally, for me trying to figure out all these notions of which Biblical sins we need to worry about and which not, I wasn't really able to retain the Bible as a relevant guide. It's just too confusing, too archaic and obviously unworkable. You inevitably end up deciding that the ones you feel comfortable with valid for today and the ones that you don't, are cultural commands, restricted to their time. I feel much more comfortable with a good old utilitarian model of sin and harm.

As a society, we typically only legislate those thing that cause harm. Lying is bad, but it's only prosecutable if it creates some kind of harm--if it defrauds someone of property or leads them into danger or something. (And the harm has to be done to some one ELSE. Lying to yourself, cutting yourself or killing yourself are not legislated.) Despite the best efforts of conservative crazies there's no real evidence that gay partnerships cause harm to anyone at all. So why should these non-harmful unions be regulated differently?
 
Not to argue minor points, but I do believe suicide attempts are met with arrests, if they're unsuccessful, aren't they? Or is that just jumping from public places I'm thinking of?

Actually, I'm positive that what I'm thinking of, why am I still writing this post? Ah well, better add more to it at least:

As for why I think the hang-up exists for homosexuality, I think you're very much on the trail of it, Jeevey. One reason I'm still a little hung up, I guess, is because it's still mentioned in the New Testament, I'm addition to the old.

But, one of the things I really enjoy about my marriage is having another person in my life who is willing to challenge me on what exactly I believe, and why. When I mentioned to Travis that Paul still talks about homosexuality, he pointed out to me all of the things that Paul also says about what women can and can't do. It's a strong argument. Which is why every day I have less of a hang-up.

The reason being: I tend to spend as little time as possible thinking of ways to make myself and others miserable. I'm just trying my best to be happy and do good for others while still being comfortable with who I am.

And until someone says otherwise, I agree, I see no harm in any sense outside of a religious one, which goes towards Irvine's point of why religion should be allowed to dictate law.

My friend posted something on Facebook yesterday that I enjoyed

" “Same sex couples shouldn’t be able to adopt because their kids will get bullied for having two moms or two dads”

hey

instead of not allowing same sex couples to adopt

maybe you should teach your little shitty kids not to bully"

I'm sure you've all seen that a million times, but I just felt like sharing, since this is already a super jumbled post. I shouldn't write stuff when I'm this tired.
 
I hear you. It's a lot of confusion and turmoil when things are contradictory to how you were brought up, and to how you believe. I was trying to think of a good metaphor about you and your friend, and you can see how this one feels.

It's kind of like if you and your friend were equally close, but he didn't believe in your legal right to be paid equally to a man for equal work. If your relationship and history were exactly the same, but he was like, "Well, I know you're a great employee and you're really good for your company, but if your employer doesn't want to give a promotion to you and would rather give it to a slightly less qualified guy because he's pretty sure that you're going to want to go have a baby soon, I respect that he's the boss, and I don't think he should have to." If it were me, I'd feel undermined about that.
 
Yeah, I realize that. And deep down, I know my personal viewpoint is stupid, because I DON'T think he shouldn't be able to have those same rights. I'm just hung up on a single word. And I know how ridiculous that sounds.
 
I think you're already realised yourself that you're slowly getting to the point of acceptance. It'll take a while, but you're open minded so you'll get there. :)

jeevey said:
If I were to guess, I'd say that we have a deep recoil about it because it strikes straight at the heart of the patriarchy (and all hierarchies, really) by creating a marriage relationship between people that we unconsciously, automatically recognize as exactly equal. (I think this is maybe also why straights are so obsessed with the butch/femme, top/bottom and dom/sub questions. 'Wait... which are you? It has to be one or the other, right?' Somebody must be the dominant one.
Click to expand...

I think that stems from the traditional gender roles once again. One half of the relationship MUST be male, and the other female. And if they're both the same gender, one MUST adopt the behaviour of the other gender, right?


Well, it's not even close to that. The roles are constantly swapped and interchanged. Though to me, things are similar in a healthy male/female relationship as well. Sure society still dictates the man is in charge and everything, but usually the relationship works much better when there's an even distribution of power. I think that is why so many homosexual relationships are far more stable than heterosexual ones. They are less influenced by gender roles and far, far more equal.
 
The problem is you cherry pick which parts of your holy book to follow.

No shellfish, but leave the part of homosexuality?

And what did Jesus ever say about it? Was there a specific statement made by him at all in the gospels?

Or was it made by someone else (Paul?)

Jesus did say he came to fulfill the old law/prophets in Matthew, so to say the OT is bye bye seems odd.

I think you just have to make up your own mind. Two men (or women) marrying might sound gross to you, but that's no reason to deny basic civil rights.
 
Re: suicides - I don't know of any jurisdiction where you'd be arrested/charged, though if you do survive and are "caught", typically you will be admitted on a psych hold for some period of time.

I actually appreciate when people say that for them it's a hangup about the word because I think a lot of people really do feel that way but are too embarrassed to admit it because frankly it sounds, and is, very petty. The notion that somebody's attachment to a word should translate to them not supporting SSM (and all the legal rights therein) is deeply troubling, at least to me.

Also agree with all the comments about the selectivity of the Bible passages. The premarital sex one is such an obvious thing.
 
i do understand that it requires a rethinking. we went to a very religious ceremony last year, and it was very heavy on the "one man, one woman, one flesh" thing. it is a very gendered understanding in a religious context.
 
I can see the attachment to the word marriage. In the Christian tradition premarital sex can be 'made right' by marrying but there is no equivalent for gay sex. It's just always wrong forever, tis said. So when you talk about giving it exactly the same religious, moral status, even making it a sacrament as straight Christian married sex is, that's a really serious step outside of thousands of years of tradition. I can see how that would be a big step.
 
I never really linked marriage to christianity, lol. When did that happen? I thought marriage has existed way before christianity, ie ancient Rome and Greek civilisations had marital arrangements already.
 
They did. And within recorded Western history it was nearly always a primarily economic transaction, involving transfer of property from one man to the other with the woman acting as a sort of collateral. Marriage as we think of it now is quite new, I think.
 
Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved, truly delightful.
Our couch is green;
17 the beams of our house are cedar;
our rafters are pine.
Click to expand...

:lol: Awesome poetry there.


I'm not saying that the bible has nothing on love, I wouldn't dare. But it's just that our notion of Romantic love is quite different than how it was so many years ago. Those definitions have evolved, as have those of marriage and equality and so many other things.
 
Romantic love isn't new, but the ideal of continuing romantic love within marriage between people who will have a companionable relationship (not just a sexual, custodial and economic one) really is. There are narratives that suggest that exactly the opposite is desirable even in the present. Just think of all the different variations on the idea of a man who is pussy whipped, ie more influenced by his wife than his male peers.
 
Galeongirl said:
:lol: Awesome poetry there.


I'm not saying that the bible has nothing on love, I wouldn't dare. But it's just that our notion of Romantic love is quite different than how it was so many years ago.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's true. Read any Latin love poetry (like Catullus) and funeral epitaphs and you'll see a great deal of romantic attachment there, much of it strikingly similar to how people act today. In any case, the idea/existence of romantic love is anything but new.
 
iron yuppie said:
Not sure that's true. Read any Latin love poetry (like Catullus) and funeral epitaphs and you'll see a great deal of romantic attachment there, much of it strikingly similar to how people act today. In any case, the idea/existence of romantic love is anything but new.
Click to expand...



The idea of romance isn't new, I agree, but the idea of romance justifying and sustaining a marriage seems to be a 19th century idea.
 
Eh, I don't know, maybe as a common practice? It's not like we don't have the great love stories of history, like Romeo and Juliet to tell us that people did desire to marry people they loved as much as 400 years ago.
 
bono_212 said:
Eh, I don't know, maybe as a common practice? It's not like we don't have the great love stories of history, like Romeo and Juliet to tell us that people did desire to marry people they loved as much as 400 years ago.
Click to expand...

Well, most of the historical accounts of marriage we have are either from the elites or couched in legal terms. If we were to judge marriage in this culture from the language of pre-nups and divorce settlements, or from Kim & Kanye style marriages, we'd likely conclude there is little romantic attachment/companionship here, either.
 
iron yuppie said:
Well, most of the historical accounts of marriage we have are either from the elites or couched in legal terms. If we were to judge marriage in this culture from the language of pre-nups and divorce settlements, or from Kim & Kanye style marriages, we'd likely conclude there is little romantic attachment/companionship here, either.
Click to expand...


Or sacredness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
Old Photo Thread - Time To Say Goodbye
Replies
8
Views
410
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
C
Will Larry Return to U2?
Replies
14
Views
351
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
dan_smee
U2 Live From Sphere - Final Show SiriusXM stream
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
52 53 54
Replies
2K
Views
65K
Hewson
Hewson
L
Until the End of the World (U2:UV)
Replies
1
Views
103
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom