Ask the Homo

[Irvine511]

I didn't say anyone was. I was commenting on deep's statement. While "hate the sin, love the sinner" has been misused in many cases, it can't be simply thrown out as a "smoke screen for bigoted beliefs." It's more than that.

fair enough.

i agree with the basic premise -- i might hate alcoholism (though hate is a strong word), but i don't hate alcohol, or the alcoholic.

that makes good sense.

 

[melon]

Unless you think Jesus is a bigot?

Jesus isn't a bigot. His followers can be.

Ignoring the circumstantial evidence that the Centurion and the "servant" was possibly the Centurion and his gay lover (Romans would never have cared that much about their slaves, unless they were lovers [and Roman emperors would sometimes deify their dead slave lovers, as Greco-Roman religion believed you could sometimes become a god after death]), Jesus also hung out with "lepers," who were literal outcasts, as prescribed by the Mosaic Law, thought to be afflicted due to sin. Fast forward to 1873, and we now know it's caused by bacteria.

I could say the same thing about homosexuality. Sure, people may have thought it to be symptom of sin, but fast forward to the present, and we know precisely that it is a part of nature, for better or for worse. It isn't about "hating God." It isn't about idolatry. It isn't about raping houseguests.

Believing what I believe about Jesus, He would never reject someone for who they were. In this respect, St. Paul was correct: faith over good works is all you needed. It was the Pharisees who demanded that "believers" live up to strict standards, and I believe that modern Christians are little different. "Fear of change" is very powerful.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

well, you're last comment is clearly related to a specific sin, which then begs the question: when did jesus hate the sin of homosexuality? when did jesus call homosexuality a sin?

Actually, I did not intend to refer to a specific sin at all. Just the thought process behind "love the sinner, hate the sin".

I was afraid that a wonderful thread about personal insights would turn into a political/religious debate. I should not have replied to deep.




I'd rather hear more about your experiences as a competative swimmer so I can share them with my kids.

 

[stammer476]

Believing what I believe about Jesus, He would never reject someone for who they were. In this respect, St. Paul was correct: faith over good works is all you needed. It was the Pharisees who demanded that "believers" live up to strict standards, and I believe that modern Christians are little different. "Fear of change" is very powerful.

You bring up an excellent point, Melon. Even if homosexuality is a sin, the doctrines of grace would theoritically over-rule the problem anyway. This tension is one of the most difficult situations I deal with as a pastor.

But anyway, this is not about me.

**back to lurking**

 

[Irvine511]

Actually, I did not intend to refer to a specific sin at all. Just the thought process behind "love the sinner, hate the sin".

I was afraid that a wonderful thread about personal insights would turn into a political/religious debate. I should not have replied to deep.


I'd rather hear more about your experiences as a competative swimmer so I can share them with my kids.

maybe i was a bit too quick in my response. i suppose i took the "is Jesus a bigot" comment and read into it things that weren't there. apologies. and thanks for the nice comment.

now, swimming. love it. so much. and it's even more fun to coach than to swim. i started when i was 7 years old with a local Y team, and then moved on to a very competitive USS program. by the age of 10, i was swimming 6 days a week at 6, 000 yards a session, and was at that point easily one of the best swimmers in the state since no 10 year old should be swimming that much. things took a bit of a nose dive when i was 12, and my parents began to realize that the coach was a big problem -- too long to get into here, but it really wasn't a healthy environment for an 11 year old boy, and to this day i can trace some of my neurosis back to his comments ... kids, especially when they want to be good at an activity, take their coach's comments VERY seriously -- and i then switched teams when i was 12, and wound up on a still good but less militaristic program with a great bunch of guys my age. swimming became my main social outlet as a teenager, and i prefered the kids i swam with to those i went to school with. my best year was at 14 when i swam my one and only NAG top 16 consideration time in teh 200 meter fly.

high school swimming was a lot of fun, it's wonderfully competitive with the dual meets, and much more fun for spectators as you have teams competing one on one, as opposed to dozens of teams at the state championships. high school wasn't necessarily great for my swimming, as i was more of a 200s swimmer, and high school was all 100s. i would do the 500 in dual meets, and the 200 IM and 100 bk at state championships. summers were great, as i was a better long course swimmer and all the kids on my USS team were back together and we had some very fast relays that broke state records and were nationally ranked.

what's so great about swimming, i think, is how individual it is. you can finish last, but if you improve your time, you're happy. it's also a sport that's not intrinsically fun, like basketball, but it becomes more fun the more you work at it. no one is instantly good at it either, you have to work hard, and your hard work is rewarded in a very tangible way -- improved times. swimmers are very fit, and learn that they have to work long and hard (two-a-day practices sometimes, 10,000 yards a day for a race that lasts maybe 2 minutes) for even small improvements in time. you start training at the end of September for a meet in March -- it rewards patience, determination, self-reliance, and faith in hard work. at the end of the day, you can't blame a loss/poor performance on a teammate who missed a free throw.

it's also rather beautiful, i think. especially backstroke. so much of swimming comes down to technique, and i've spent countless hours doing stroke drills -- and all you have to go on is feel. you can't watch yourself swim, or do the drills correctly; you rely on your nervous system, a general sense of what feels right. it's a fairly mental sport, and practices require lots of brains, but races require your brain to be empty, to zen-out and let your body take over.

i just think it's a great sport. top to bottom.

and it's also the USA's most successful Olympic sport, which makes it fun for us Yankee swimmers every 4 years.

 

[nbcrusader]

I appreciate your reflections on swimming. It confirms a number of concerns we've had with the "militaristic" programs in the area. There are a number in Southern California (Mission Viejo, AZOT, Nova). Fortunately, we ended up with a real small local team. Our son has rolled over to the water polo program, but our daughter continues (she is almost 5).

I may have more questions if you are willing.

 

[deep]

Jesus hates sin and loves the sinner. (and I'm not referring to any specific sin here)

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?



Unless you think Jesus is a bigot?

do these same people say:


we love the child molester
we just hate child molestation

we love the rapist
we just hate the rape


we love the 911 attackers
we just hate the 911 attack

we love the beheaders
we just hate the beheadings





when people say they love gays
they just hate gay behavior

i take pause


i don't believe many have any true affection for the other examples i gave

 

[deep]

That's quite a statement. And easy to say until you've actually had to do it. When you've been deeply hurt by someone's sin (alcoholism, infidelity, drug abuse, etc.) and found the grace to forgive them, you'll realize it's more than a "smoke screen."

Bigotry can go both ways, deep.

i meant this in the context of homosexuality

i only hear it being used by people in context of condemning homosexuality

 

[Irvine511]

I appreciate your reflections on swimming. It confirms a number of concerns we've had with the "militaristic" programs in the area. There are a number in Southern California (Mission Viejo, AZOT, Nova). Fortunately, we ended up with a real small local team. Our son has rolled over to the water polo program, but our daughter continues (she is almost 5).

I may have more questions if you are willing.

the militaristic programs can be a positive experience, if two criteria are met: 1) the coach is positive, 2) the swimmer wants it. the problem with the program i was on when i was younger wasn't so much the workload, but it was the manner in which workouts were conducted, the pressure that was put on swimmers to conform to every expectation of the coach, and the fact that the coach took every missed practice as a slight to him and his program. the most important thing, however, is the swimmer, and just how badly he/she wants to be a good. you're also in SoCal, probably still the most competitive swimming region in the country (alongside Texas and Florida). i've heard of the programs you mentioned -- Mission Viejo has been a national powerhouse for 30 some odd years. in a way, i'm sort of jealous, because you have access to some of the best coaches in the world. when i was 15, i was ready to be swimming 9 workouts a week, but i didn't have the coaching or the facilities available to me (and there's something really difficult about getting out of bed at 6am to go to practice on a January morning in New England). but, as well we know, great coaches aren't great people.

while CT hasn't turned out many Olympians (the last was Janel Jorgenson in 1988), the DC metro area where i now live is home to one of the best club programs in the country, North Baltimore Aquatic Club, where Michael Phelps swam. i remember a very in-depth conversation i had with a father who's kids had swum in the area. NBAC's previous coach, the one who coached Anita Nall and Beth Botsford, was apparently an egomaniacal jerk who viewed his swimmers' performances as a reflection upon him; apparently, Phelps' coach, Bob Bowman, is militaristic, but a level-headed guy who's fair and has his swimmer's best interests at heart.

but one of the sad facts of the sport, especialy at a national level, is that for every Olympian a club program may turn out, there are 25 kids with shoulder injuries who spent their teenage years churning out laps in a swimming pool. for me, that's where i wanted to be, because my friends were at practice; for others, it's not the same. for every kid who gets a scholarship to a Divison 1 school, there are a hundred who leave the sport frustrated and burned out.

and some of this has to do with a swimmer's own perspective. why are they swimming? one thing i learned, particularly during college when i started to plateau and lose the intense interest that i had as a young teenager, was that the goals weren't important, but the process of becoming a good swimmer was.

at the end of the day, the swimmer has to want it because s/he wants "it." most children -- even teenagers -- want to please the adutls in their lives. the way for swimming, whether twice a week or 10x a week, to be a postive influence is for the swimmer has to swim for himself, not for the coach, and not for the parents.

i'm happy to answer any questions you have.

and water polo is a great sport, too. lots of fun to watch -- i played intramurally a bit in college.

 

[deep]

stammer,

My problem with popping in and out of these threads

Is that sometimes I reply without reading the entire thread first.
Your questions seem very sincere and you said something like your have some thinking to do,
I commend your willingness to consider other opinions.

I need to do a lot of thinking most of the time.
My remarks were not directed at you but only those that use "hate the sinner" to further a political agenda.

peace

 

[intedomine]

I'm a bigot.

Sometimes I feel I've gotta be though.

I mean I'll listen to what someone else has gotta say, but there's no way I'm gonna respect their beliefs cause sometimes it's entrirely preposterous.

For instance, if someone considers homosexuality a sin, I will never respect that idea cause there is no logic or evidence that that belief is true.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I was thinking of part of this thread when I watched ER last night. Dr. Weaver met her biological Mom for the first time, and told her she is a lesbian. Her Mom is a religious person and was "upset" by it. The dialogue was wonderful. I wish I could remember all of it, but the one line that stood out was when Dr. Weaver said "I don't want love without acceptance". I think maybe that sort of sums it up (it did especially in the context of their entire dialogue).

It was good in case anyone wants to catch the rerun.

 

[tiny dancer]

I was thinking of part of this thread when I watched ER last night. Dr. Weaver met her biological Mom for the first time, and told her she is a lesbian. Her Mom is a religious person and was "upset" by it. The dialogue was wonderful. I wish I could remember all of it, but the one line that stood out was when Dr. Weaver said "I don't want love without acceptance". I think maybe that sort of sums it up (it did especially in the context of their entire dialogue).

It was good in case anyone wants to catch the rerun.

I saw the show last night too. , I thought that was a wonderful line that Kerry said to her mother. At the end of the show I cried.

 

[Irvine511]

I was thinking of part of this thread when I watched ER last night. Dr. Weaver met her biological Mom for the first time, and told her she is a lesbian. Her Mom is a religious person and was "upset" by it. The dialogue was wonderful. I wish I could remember all of it, but the one line that stood out was when Dr. Weaver said "I don't want love without acceptance". I think maybe that sort of sums it up (it did especially in the context of their entire dialogue).

It was good in case anyone wants to catch the rerun.

that's a great line -- actually, that put things into perspective for me.

and the first place to begin the love with acceptance is with yourself. for a while, even after i began having relationships with men, i didn't really accept it. it's kind of amazing how one can compartmentalize aspects of one's personalities. it's one reason why i think gay people make great actors -- they learn how to be other people, and they start by fooling themselves first.

parents are much harder. i'm not "out" in any official way to my parents, though i'm pretty sure they know. for right now, it seems best to keep that aspect of our relationship simple, kind of a don't-ask-don't-tell thing. and while i am certain they'll love and accept me no matter what, for right now while i am getting my career off the ground and becoming a "real" adult (after a few years post-college of hopping around the US and Europe), i just want to keep things simple.

 

[stammer476]

stammer,

My problem with popping in and out of these threads

Is that sometimes I reply without reading the entire thread first.
Your questions seem very sincere and you said something like your have some thinking to do,
I commend your willingness to consider other opinions.

I need to do a lot of thinking most of the time.
My remarks were not directed at you but only those that use "hate the sinner" to further a political agenda.

peace

Thanks for the comments, deep. I understand your perspective, and for the most part, you were correct in your original statement. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" has been abused to a shameful point.

But it also hit a nerve with me, since as a pastor I've seen many people that were drastically changed from their ability to accept that philosophy. It's unfortunate that most of the time we only see the caricature of Christianity, not the greatness that it can be.

And yes, this whole topic is extremely difficult for me. In my position, I don't have the luxury of just "making up my own mind." Like it or not, I realize that my opinion will influence many others, and I have to consider all sides of every situation before I can reach a conclusion. And be willing to take the consequences thereof.

But your remarks are more than necessary. Thank you.

 

[seankirkland]

this is a serious one......
if homosexuality were meant to be, wouldn't there have been something built in for procreation? I believe God created the world, so I would think God would've made it so that homosexual couples could have children to, one, enjoy what a blessing it is to have a child that you've created who's a mixture of both personalities and, two, to keep the world going, so to speak, in terms of population and future generations. On the flip side, if God isn't involved and we just evolved from nothing, wouldn't science or the earth or whatever was responsible for inventing life on earth have made a way for homosexuals to make children? Why doesn't this work?

It looks like, from a completely common sense, objective point-of-view that men and women, biologically, fit together perfectly, like a hand in glove.

 

[Irvine511]

this is a serious one......
if homosexuality were meant to be, wouldn't there have been something built in for procreation? I believe God created the world, so I would think God would've made it so that homosexual couples could have children to, one, enjoy what a blessing it is to have a child that you've created who's a mixture of both personalities and, two, to keep the world going, so to speak, in terms of population and future generations. On the flip side, if God isn't involved and we just evolved from nothing, wouldn't science or the earth or whatever was responsible for inventing life on earth have made a way for homosexuals to make children? Why doesn't this work?

It looks like, from a completely common sense, objective point-of-view that men and women, biologically, fit together perfectly, like a hand in glove.

it's so hard to respond to this. let me back up.

there is something inherently good about the heterosexual union. it does create children, it enables our species to continue. this is something that should be celebrated, protected, and if you are religiously-minded, sanctified. none of us would be here without a heteroseuxal union. yes, penises and vaginas do compliment each other. but just because this is one thing they do, this doesn't mean this is all they do. take your mouth. was it designed only for eating? because this is it's primary, intended function, is this all that it then should be able to do? is kissing a violation of the natural purpose of a mouth?

it's pretty much impossible to assert that there is only one, acceptable way to do things, or for people to be. the only constant in life is variation, and while there might be a Truth for you, it does not apply to anyone else but you.

also, your comments on what you "believe" are pretty irrelevant to discussion. i am growing increasingly intolerant of people who simply say, 'well i believe this, so the following must be true.' belief is nice, but it amounts to little more than philosophy or opinion. a belief is not an argument; a belief is not a fact. you can't legislate based upon belief; you can't deny other people human rights based upon what you believe. just because you have a certain, specific, and frankly sentimentalized notion of "god's purpose," doesn't mean squat, frankly.

if the argument comes down to procreation, what are we to do with infertile couples? people who choose never to have children? are they somehow in violation of their natural purposes? homosexuals have always been around, they arise in every society across the globe and throughout history. is it abnormal? absolutely. only 5-10% of any given population is homosexual. but it is a *naturally occurring* abnormality, like having red hair, or being left-handed.

what i think you're getting at is, "what is a homosexual for?" and that's a fair question, but only if you think that man's only purpose on earth is to procreate. while that is certainly of importance, and the sex drive is perhaps second only to our need for food, it is not all we do on earth. how sad -- and how un-Christian -- if all we were supposed to accomplish is rote pro-creation. life, and people, are much more complex than that. maybe it takes people who are biologically inequipped to reproduced to further shed light on why we are here, and what we can do with our time. perhaps this makes us more human and less animalistic; that it takes "love and sex and faith and fear" and transforms these things from mere motivations for pro-creation and into mysteries to be explored and solved while we occupy this flesh. in fact, the presence of people in our midst who are different, who then shine a light or emaphasize the miracle of procreation, and also highlight what can be accomplished when pro-creation is taken out of the picture. this, in fact, might push us closer to God

i'll end with a quote from a gay writer that i posted earlier:

"perhaps it requires seeing one's life as the end of a biological chain, or seeing one's deepest emotions as the object of detestation, that provides insight. but the seeds of homosexual wisdom are the seeds of human wisdom. they contain the truth that order is in fact a euphemism for disorder; that problems are more sanely enjoyed than solved; that there is reason in mystery; that there is beauty in the wild flowers that grow randomly among our wheat."

 

[seankirkland]

kind of answered the question, but....

as for the "your truth is good for you, but not for me, if I don't want it to be, because what I want is what I want, etc, etc." what about scientific laws? we're all subject to the laws of gravity here on earth, whether it's "good" for me or whether you or I like it or not. I suppose the answer might be something along the lines of, "well, those are scientific laws and I'm talking about morality...." what is the nature of Truth? Relativity is a killer.......

as for mystery, I'm all about it. much of God and who He is is a mystery, but He's revealed Himself through the God-man, Jesus Christ, and through the Word of God. God is a person, a relational being, so He loves to communicate.
I also don't believe sex is only for "rote pro-creation." It's fun, too, of course. But, the point I was raising is why hadn't evolution or the creating God made a way for homosexuals to enjoy the mystery of making children. That's all. God doesn't make people "gay." It's a matter of identity and comes down to a spiritual issue. Homosexuality is a spirit.

Finally, I know that a homosexual person is much more than just about sex. I think that's what comes up the most and what's played up the most in the media, etc., but I know that you, Irvine511, are more than just about sex. You're a whole person, who has dreams, a job (most likely), family members, memories, hurts, fears, etc. I respect you for who you are and your life. I, in no way, have a hatred of people who profess homosexuality. However, I think it's seen as hatred or being "un-Christian" in some way to point out that the Bible teaches against the practice of it. Of course, you can say that God didn't say that, men who wrote the Bible said that and the Church is just bunch of bigots and oppressive meanies that want to rule over everyone with an iron fist, so they change the book to mean whatever they want it to, etc, etc etc.

Why would God say that homosexuality is off-limits? What would a loving God's purpose in that be, if we can all be on the same page that God designed and created humans, sex, our needs, etc.? My reasoning is that if God created us (which I know if up for question; we don't all believe this is true), and if God communicated His heart through the Bible (yes, even in the form of "do's and don'ts," seeing as He's a spiritual parent and we are the children.... if you have kids, you know that rules arent' just for being mean or spoiling fun, but for your safety and best interests), He must know us better than we know ourselves and I would trust God's judgement and actions.

I do know that God is good.

Just some more thoughts.....

 

[Irvine511]

kind of answered the question, but....

as for the "your truth is good for you, but not for me, if I don't want it to be, because what I want is what I want, etc, etc." what about scientific laws? we're all subject to the laws of gravity here on earth, whether it's "good" for me or whether you or I like it or not.

[...]

But, the point I was raising is why hadn't evolution or the creating God made a way for homosexuals to enjoy the mystery of making children. That's all. God doesn't make people "gay." It's a matter of identity and comes down to a spiritual issue. Homosexuality is a spirit.

[...]

I, in no way, have a hatred of people who profess homosexuality. However, I think it's seen as hatred or being "un-Christian" in some way to point out that the Bible teaches against the practice of it. Of course, you can say that God didn't say that, men who wrote the Bible said that and the Church is just bunch of bigots and oppressive meanies that want to rule over everyone with an iron fist, so they change the book to mean whatever they want it to, etc, etc etc.

Why would God say that homosexuality is off-limits? What would a loving God's purpose in that be, if we can all be on the same page that God designed and created humans, sex, our needs, etc.? My reasoning is that if God created us (which I know if up for question; we don't all believe this is true), and if God communicated His heart through the Bible (yes, even in the form of "do's and don'ts," seeing as He's a spiritual parent and we are the children.... if you have kids, you know that rules arent' just for being mean or spoiling fun, but for your safety and best interests), He must know us better than we know ourselves and I would trust God's judgement and actions.

I do know that God is good.

1. yes, you're right, we all feel gravity, we all know the sun rises and sets -- this isn't truth, but fact. i think you're conflating the two. it might be truth, for you, that homosexuality is a sin; but it isn't a fact. the laws of gravity are neither good nor bad, they simply exist, they are neutral.

2. firstly, as i pointed out, there are many heterosexual people who cannot, or will not, know the joy of creating children. and, frankly, some people are not fit to be parents! while having children is biologically possible for most (but not all people), it is not something that everyone must do.

how can you possibly assert that God doesn't make people gay? are you really buying into the lie that homosexuality is a choice? ask any gay person, they will tell you that the had no choice in the matter. that their sexuality is as natural to them as your sexuality is to you, it's just different. if you believe that God created heterosexuals, then he must have created homoseuxals as well. this is a very, very basic point, and if you are unwilling to accept the fact that homosexuality is 100% involuntary, then there's really no possibility of rational discussion.

is heterosexuality a "spirit"?

3. here's a point of misunderstanding, i think. i do appreciate your kind words, and i do think you are sincere. but how does one "profess" homosexuality? homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not something you do, but it is something you are. and you're right on the 2nd point -- there has been lots of discussion in FYM about interpretations of the Bible, the legitimacy of Leveticus, etc. i feel no need to re-tread that ground, and there are people in here (like Dread) who are far more versed in Biblical notions of homosexuality than i am.

it does remain, though, that Jesus never, ever said a word about it. not once. nor is it in the 10 Commandments.

as sins go, it's pretty low on the list.

 

[melon]

Why would God say that homosexuality is off-limits? What would a loving God's purpose in that be, if we can all be on the same page that God designed and created humans, sex, our needs, etc.? My reasoning is that if God created us (which I know if up for question; we don't all believe this is true), and if God communicated His heart through the Bible (yes, even in the form of "do's and don'ts," seeing as He's a spiritual parent and we are the children.... if you have kids, you know that rules arent' just for being mean or spoiling fun, but for your safety and best interests), He must know us better than we know ourselves and I would trust God's judgement and actions.

Here's my thoughts:

God represents Himself through science. Since God created the universe and all of its physical laws, it would make most sense that the nature of God is represented through scientific laws.

One thing we forget is that humanity and human development is not fixed at all. We are constantly changing. Did you know that the average human has eight mutations in DNA from birth? From an evolutionary point of view, if you put 10 humans on an island and they interbred amongst themselves, their future generations interbred amongst themselves, etc., we would probably mutate into a different species over thousands of years. But because there are 6 billion of us, human evolution is halted, but the process of genetic mutation is not.

If, according to creationism, God created Adam (XY) and Eve (XX), thus meaning that these are the only people meant to be, then how do you explain the presence of X, XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, XXY, XXXY, XXXXY, and XYY? Or how about the XY female? Or the intersexual with both male and female sex organs? These people all exist. If science is in direct contradiction with the Bible, then I believe that science will always be a more reliable indicator of God's will.

In the Old Testament, those with leprosy are forbidden to enter the temple (as skin afflictions of any kind were considered "unclean," including acne), and, as such, are outcasts. Those with leprosy, in particular, were viewed to be afflicted, due to grave sin. Jesus, however, had no problem associating with the lepers. In 1873, it was discovered that leprosy was caused by a specific bacteria, and, as such, those with leprosy now are given antibiotics. No more leprosy, and not caused by sin.

As such, the Old Testament and its treatment of lepers was wrong from the start, and Jesus, by associating with the "outcasts" of His time, was correct all along. Simultaneously, I view homosexuality in the same light. Due to a lack of scientific understanding, people would view homosexuals in the same vein as the Pharisees viewed lepers: they're nothing but unabated sinners. But modern understanding shows that it's not that way at all.

Homosexuals exist and exist for a reason, just as infertile heterosexuals exist. If God created us solely to make babies, does that mean that infertile heterosexuals lack meaning? Lack purpose? Are they a mistake of nature? No...they exist to show us that we transcend beyond the purpose of animals. Animals exist solely to make babies. If it was equally our sole purpose, then why are we endowed with the capacity to love? The capacity to think? The capacity to reason? The capacity to create?

I think that modern Christianity, in its zeal to condemn homosexuality solely on fallacious "natural law" arguments, have dug itself a logical hole. Judaism was obsessed with procreation, and you weren't considered a full member of the religion, unless you had children. If your wife was infertile (conveniently, they never talk about male infertility), you were expected to take on concubines, which was not seen as committing adultery. St. Paul actually bothers to bring this issue up, and tells us to not be burdened with it any longer (I have to search through the epistles to find this passage, but I have read it before). And yet, here people are using Pharisee-era arguments that tell us we exist solely to make babies! It is completely against the spirit of the New Testament, and I cannot, even at a fundamentalist level, support that argument. The argument that humanity and marriage is solely about procreation is made solely to condemn homosexuals, as I do not see religions preventing infertile couples from getting married, nor do I see religions casting out married couples who refuse to have children. And what about senior citizens who get married? They won't be having children either.

As such, this argument doesn't hold water. It is a crutch to justify discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals. Period.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

Irvine511, which do you think is U2's "gayest" album?

 

[pax]

Is that a serious question? We're trying to keep this thread heartfelt and free of screwing around.

 

[melon]

Irvine511, which do you think is U2's "gayest" album?

I'll let Irvine511 speak for himself. I say "Pop." Have you seen the "Discotheque" video?

Melon

 

[MissMoo]

Just to repeat what others have said: I would think that if God created all things, then he certainly made that 10% gay. Also, God is not a scientific law. If he was, then people would not have free will. There is free will and biology related to the choices we make. In fact the biology that Irvine talks about is related to your gravity more than your belief in God. Being gay is like the law of gravity, you can't change it just because you want to.

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine511, which do you think is U2's "gayest" album?

Pop. followed by Boy.

Pop on the surface, it being so influenced by dance culture, and the rather obvious Village People dress-up game they played in the "Discotheque" video.

Boy, however, is *fascinating* -- its filled with sexual ambiguity, confusion, and questioning. i in no way mean to imply that any of U2 are bisexual, let alone homosexual, since they all seem to be really happy being heterosexuals. but there's so much to be read into the lyrics, for example.

"the old man tried to walk me home/ i thought he should have known."

to me, Stories For Boys is a song about masturbation. you notice first, "sometimes a lady takes me" and then it's "sometimes a hero takes me." that strikes me as a depiction of that touch of seuxal confusion that many adolescents feel.

i also think that Adam has mentioned how gay people -- and how difficult it must have been to be gay in Dublin in the 1970s! -- used to show up at their early concerts, probably because they recognized this sexual ambiguity and questioning in their lyrics, and this was also a band with much more than pussy on their minds. Adam said they had no idea they had gay fans, they just thought they were rich punks!

and all of their albums are so divorced from the blatant machismo of most other great rock bands. that's why U2 have lots of gay bands, and lots of female fans as well. and it's not a simpering look-at-me-girls-i'm-such-a-sensitive-poet kind of sexuality. it's mutli-dimensional, complex, and focused on the emotions as opposed to the sensations. there's a way into Bono's lyrics for everyone. even take "Mysterious Ways," a clearly heterosexual song, what with all the bellydancers. however, my favorite lyrics in the song, (and easily the most thrilling part of the song), is the following:

"One day you will look...back
And you'll see...where
You were held...how
By this love...while
You could stand...there
You could move on this moment
Follow this feeling"

i mean, that could be about coming out.

 

[Irvine511]

Here's my thoughts:

God represents Himself through science. Since God created the universe and all of its physical laws, it would make most sense that the nature of God is represented through scientific laws.

One thing we forget is that humanity and human development is not fixed at all. We are constantly changing. Did you know that the average human has eight mutations in DNA from birth? From an evolutionary point of view, if you put 10 humans on an island and they interbred amongst themselves, their future generations interbred amongst themselves, etc., we would probably mutate into a different species over thousands of years. But because there are 6 billion of us, human evolution is halted, but the process of genetic mutation is not.

If, according to creationism, God created Adam (XY) and Eve (XX), thus meaning that these are the only people meant to be, then how do you explain the presence of X, XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, XXY, XXXY, XXXXY, and XYY? Or how about the XY female? Or the intersexual with both male and female sex organs? These people all exist. If science is in direct contradiction with the Bible, then I believe that science will always be a more reliable indicator of God's will.

In the Old Testament, those with leprosy are forbidden to enter the temple (as skin afflictions of any kind were considered "unclean," including acne), and, as such, are outcasts. Those with leprosy, in particular, were viewed to be afflicted, due to grave sin. Jesus, however, had no problem associating with the lepers. In 1873, it was discovered that leprosy was caused by a specific bacteria, and, as such, those with leprosy now are given antibiotics. No more leprosy, and not caused by sin.

As such, the Old Testament and its treatment of lepers was wrong from the start, and Jesus, by associating with the "outcasts" of His time, was correct all along. Simultaneously, I view homosexuality in the same light. Due to a lack of scientific understanding, people would view homosexuals in the same vein as the Pharisees viewed lepers: they're nothing but unabated sinners. But modern understanding shows that it's not that way at all.

Homosexuals exist and exist for a reason, just as infertile heterosexuals exist. If God created us solely to make babies, does that mean that infertile heterosexuals lack meaning? Lack purpose? Are they a mistake of nature? No...they exist to show us that we transcend beyond the purpose of animals. Animals exist solely to make babies. If it was equally our sole purpose, then why are we endowed with the capacity to love? The capacity to think? The capacity to reason? The capacity to create?

I think that modern Christianity, in its zeal to condemn homosexuality solely on fallacious "natural law" arguments, have dug itself a logical hole. Judaism was obsessed with procreation, and you weren't considered a full member of the religion, unless you had children. If your wife was infertile (conveniently, they never talk about male infertility), you were expected to take on concubines, which was not seen as committing adultery. St. Paul actually bothers to bring this issue up, and tells us to not be burdened with it any longer (I have to search through the epistles to find this passage, but I have read it before). And yet, here people are using Pharisee-era arguments that tell us we exist solely to make babies! It is completely against the spirit of the New Testament, and I cannot, even at a fundamentalist level, support that argument. The argument that humanity and marriage is solely about procreation is made solely to condemn homosexuals, as I do not see religions preventing infertile couples from getting married, nor do I see religions casting out married couples who refuse to have children. And what about senior citizens who get married? They won't be having children either.

As such, this argument doesn't hold water. It is a crutch to justify discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals. Period.

Melon

Melon, i think you rock, and agree with pretty much everything you write.

however, i'd really prefer to keep this individual and steer away of Biblical interpretations and such in regards to homosexuality. those have been discussed to death in other threads, so let's keep this one a bit more on the micro level than the macro.

 

[melon]

Melon, i think you rock, and agree with pretty much everything you write.

however, i'd really prefer to keep this individual and steer away of Biblical interpretations and such in regards to homosexuality. those have been discussed to death in other threads, so let's keep this one a bit more on the micro level than the macro.

I know. I just feel compelled to bring them up when others start bringing up "God" and "the Bible."

But this is your thread. I shall leave it you from now on.

Melon

 

[seankirkland]

I have to say, this is getting me to think quite a bit and consider different things.........I'm not a scientist and all the information above about genetics is beyond my current realm of knowledge. It does make me think, for sure. But, if the Bible is true and Adam and Eve were the first and only people created, then they had a similar situation to the "10 people on an island" dilemma. I believe their kids had to have children with each other, as there can be no other alternative that I can see from their situation. And, in the 1000's of years we've been here, I dont' see us mutating into different species.............unless you go with the popular evolutionary notion that we've been here SO looooonnnng and for so many billions of years that the mutations from amoebas (sp?) to humans as we know it would be possible. Give anything a billion or so years and anything's possible, right? What if a clock were dismantled to individual pieces and put in a shoe box? How long would you shake the box until the clock reformed and starting keeping perfect time? And that's just a simple clock, not the complex earth.......

I do, however, use the Bible as an infallible source of the truth. I still don't understand why something would be a "truth" for me only. What is the purpose of have "my own" truth anyway? If something is true "for me" and for me only, but not true for you, then we are basically all doing our own thing, and justifying it simply because it's "good for us." Shoot, I can just say such and such is true for me and then it's good to go? Where do you draw the line for such thinking? When does something that's true for you go over the line to becoming something that's considered "wrong" (if that word is even allowed anymore these days)? Logically, it follows that, pretty much, everyone's their own little god and does whatever's good to them and that's the end of it. So then, the idea of one, big, universal peace n' love celebration would be everyone doing whatever the heck they consider "true" for them? Sounds like it would lead to a selfish, anarchic state. In the end, we would be our own rulers and our own gods.

I don't think God expresses Himself best through science. That's a fairly creative mode of expression, but when you get down to it, would you rather receive a scientific textbook from your husband/wife/lover or a love letter that's more based in relational thought? I think science is safer for people to deal with, because it's "cold" in the sense that it's in the realm of data, numbers, figures, etc. God, primarily, is a relational Being. If you throw that out the window, all else goes to pot. God then becomes an "it" or a "force," who is then impersonal and can be manipulated. We, as humans, are intensely relational. This is a great example of how we are created "in the image of God." That would take into account God not truly being male or female, but that the male and female are equal expressions of God's character. So, God's not a he or a she, in reality, but in order to avoid calling God an "it," you have to pick "He" or "She." I suppose you could go for the P.C., equal-opportunity "He/She,"but that's gets back to being less personal and more technical/impersonal. Who do you know that likes being called "he/she" when referred to in a personal way?

And, Melon, I agree that Jesus hung out and was happy to be around lepers! I would just as much hang out with someone with AIDS in this day and age and be representative of Jesus to that person. But, it still doesn't account for God clearly stating that homosexuality is wrong to Him.

Ultimately, though, what I think we can all agree on is that Jesus didn't ever specifically talk about homosexuality. He is about grace and therefore, as the human expression of God, God is about grace. We all have access to the grace of God, but only when we admit the need. I wouldn't go into making a "scale" of sins (which ones are on the "low" end and those that are "worse"); there is a Bible verse that puts everone on the same level, so as not to make favorites of anyone and to keep everyone humble: "All have fallen short of the glory of God." So, we're all in need.... and I'm one to quickly admit that I need grace and help just as much as anyone.

 

[melon]

But, it still doesn't account for God clearly stating that homosexuality is wrong to Him.

And I vehemently disagree with this statement. I don't know how many forms or fashions I can explain myself on this.

Melon

 

[pax]

I'm really going to insist that the discussion going on here wrap up. The point of these "Ask the..." threads is to get some perspective on how people think and live to which we might not ordinarily be privy. I have especially enjoyed this one and I won't have it turned into an argument. That's not fair to Irvine himself or any of the other participants.

That is all.