Homophobia heteronormativity and homophobophobia.

Not sure where to put this since I think I missed something about DH which seems to be permanently dead. So I'll try here.

We now have an LGBT Curate, and I'm hoping through him to understand where LGBT Christians want the Church in general to end up to remove the current barrier that still exists.

I suspect their ideal would be for people to stop making it an issue at all, so that it takes its place alongside the right-handedness issue (which at least in my mother's time was coercive), and now is viewed as silly. But that's not where I am currently. Although I have no issue at all with having a openly gay priest, I am at least sympathetic to some views which he views as homophobic - most obviously hetero-normativity (only in part).

So I want to start with definitions.

Homophobia, to somebody coming at it for the first time, would imply a strong aversion to and/or irrational fear of LGBT practices and people.

It seems to have changed to mean any criticism of LGBT practice. So I am concerned to know how LGBT christians view homophobia. Is it consistent with the example of Christ? Do they accept that homophobophobia is real, even it if is a monstrosity as a word? I don't like the idea that I unconsciously find LGBT people disgusting when consciously I rather like them.

Secondly, heteronormativity needs defining. Wikipedia has:
Heteronormativity is the belief that heterosexuality, predicated on the gender binary, is the norm or default sexual orientation.[1] It assumes that sexual and marital relations are most fitting between people of opposite sex. A "heteronormative" view therefore involves alignment of biological sex, sexuality, gender identity and gender roles. Heteronormativity is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia.

On this:
1. I do not accept "the gender binary". Defining man as xy tout court has never struck me as sensible. And this is not because I believe gender to be exclusively a social construct. Even basic biology is not binary. And the problem with this is that people will tend to class, say AIS people as freaks. Plus of course it is a social construct largely.
2. The only part of this where I have sympathy is in the idea that sexual and marital relations are most fitting between people of opposite sex. Except I would go one step further towards the more RCC position that it is most fitting when oriented towards reproduction. This implies that e.g. gay and straight anal sex are ethically equivalent.

I can see that this becomes homophobic if "most fitting" morphs into "exclusively accepted" and this obviously does happen. It is still the official view of the RCC. This would happen if the only ethical evaluations of any act were good vs bad. Whereas most people work with more categories. I am very deficient in emotional expression, so cannot - literally - "weep with those who weep". Therefore what is desirable has to be put into the context of what is possible.

Hence the C of E has a definite position that where a person is capable of being content in either a straight or gay relationship, they should definitely choose the straight one. I am ok with this. My Curate is not. He believes it to be homophobic.

I do accept that any view of this kind puts LGBT people into a class of disabled, in which they would be joining people who cannot beget children and people who cannot relate to others, such as some ASD people. Because what is being said is that their lifestyle is acceptable only in so far as they cannot manage to attain God's best (deliberately phrase to sound condescending since that is how I think it will be felt).

So my question is: Does acceptance of the gay christian community demand that we reject the view that where both types of relationship are equally possible, the one which leads to kids coming into the world has more going for it?
«134567

Comments

  • Yes.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    On the one hand, the world must be peopled. On the other, it could stand to be a bit less peopled than it currently is.
    So, while I think any society has to be organised around looking after and bringing up the next generation, something that capitalism is not good at, that doesn't mean that only those people who are actually procreating and who are directly involved in bringing them up are contributing something of value. The nuclear family is not I think an ideal unit for thinking about how people contribute to child raising.
    And as I say there are probably too many human beings right now. People who choose not to have children of their own are probably being noble not selfish.

    The meaning of the word, homophobia has developed from disgust towards same-sex activity to all forms of negative discrimination and dismissal. It's true that this causes (minor) problems if one person is using it without the connotations of disgust and the other isn't, but it's not the only word of which that's true.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 29
    It's funny how many people believe that sex is about reproduction (blithely ignoring that even straight couples do it because it's damn fun and also creates bonds) and yet never apply this same approach to, say, eating being about fueling your body.

    And I only ever see it applied in this context. Not in the context of explaining to a post-menopausal woman why she can't marry. Or requiring ANY straight couple to undergo fertility tests.

    So if you want to understand why things like that come across as homophobic, this is why. A failure to consistently apply the claimed arguments/logic in other contexts besides the context of trying to politely say that homosexual stuff is inferior.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 29
    To put it even more bluntly, homophobia consists of constantly looking for the ways in which homosexual relationships are different to heterosexual ones (and often being wrong, eg ignoring infertile heterosexual relationships), instead of noticing the huge number of ways in which they're not different at all.
  • Heternormativity has had an impact on my life greater than I can describe. I consign it and all of its proponents and defenders to the profoundest pit of hell.
  • The term "most fitting" perplexes me. But orfeo has hit the nail, it's oriented towards babies, and that's what God wants. This seems so irrelevant, when thinking about adult relationships, that I ignored it, during 30 years as a psychotherapist, unless the client was preoccupied with it. Most weren't.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    It's funny how many people believe that sex is about reproduction (blithely ignoring that even straight couples do it because it's damn fun and also creates bonds) and yet never apply this same approach to, say, eating being about fueling your body.

    They don't?
  • AnteaterAnteater Shipmate
    Orfeo:
    It's funny how many people believe that sex is about reproduction (blithely ignoring that even straight couples do it because it's damn fun and also creates bonds) and yet never apply this same approach to, say, eating being about fueling your body.
    I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that sex is solely about procreation so I think that's a red herring. The nearest they get is to suggest that there has to be a valid reason why a couple should decide against parenthood, i.e. there is a degree of presupposition that marriage leads to kids. I can see why you might object to that, and I think it can be taken too far. But I think there is a valid insight in there somewhere.

    And the analogy of food doesn't, IMO, prove your point, because there are valid objections to eating with no reference to nourishing the body. Generally, the Christian Church avoids food related issues (SDAs apart if you count them), but a Christian ethic of food consumption could well be based on nutrition as the primary purpose, and counsel against certain types of indulgence. And admonitions against gluttony are as common as those concerned with sex, as I read the NT.
  • AnteaterAnteater Shipmate
    Thunderbunk:
    Yes.
    Which is more or less the analysis I get from my Curate. Fair enough.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 29
    Anteater wrote: »
    Orfeo:
    It's funny how many people believe that sex is about reproduction (blithely ignoring that even straight couples do it because it's damn fun and also creates bonds) and yet never apply this same approach to, say, eating being about fueling your body.
    I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that sex is solely about procreation so I think that's a red herring. The nearest they get is to suggest that there has to be a valid reason why a couple should decide against parenthood, i.e. there is a degree of presupposition that marriage leads to kids. I can see why you might object to that, and I think it can be taken too far. But I think there is a valid insight in there somewhere.

    And the analogy of food doesn't, IMO, prove your point, because there are valid objections to eating with no reference to nourishing the body. Generally, the Christian Church avoids food related issues (SDAs apart if you count them), but a Christian ethic of food consumption could well be based on nutrition as the primary purpose, and counsel against certain types of indulgence. And admonitions against gluttony are as common as those concerned with sex, as I read the NT.

    A Christian ethic of food consumption could well be based on such things.

    Here in the real world, meanwhile, it isn't. Marvin has in fact neatly illustrated for me that it isn't the church leading any kind of moral charge on how to eat. It's the marketing departments of publishing companies.

    It seems to me you don't actually understand my point, which is not about what could be argued in theory, it's about what is actually argued in practice. In practice, people raise procreation only in the context of homosexual couples, not in all the other contexts where procreation doesn't occur. In practice, you've said yourself that the church avoids food related issues. In other words, right after saying the analogy didn't prove my point, you actually agreed with my point.

    My point being that a theoretical consistency isn't applied. The notions are selectively applied in practice, and they're applied to say that homosexual sex falls short of some norm. Never mind just how much non-procreative sex goes on in the world, when talking about gays people suddenly decide that the point of sex is procreation.

    Despite you claiming that's a red herring, it's exactly the angle that is taken because people think that's a way of differentiating homosexual activity. Despite you thinking no-one ever takes that line, I spent a very long time on the former version of the Ship having heated arguments with a guy named Ingo who doggedly insisted on various RC notions of how sex needed to be open to procreation in order to be licit. Most of these arguments occurred in Hell where I was licensed to tear him apart, and did.
  • Reading a shipmate's reflections recently, I was moved to consider how I conducted myself when I was going through the process of working out this issue theologically. Without in any way wishing to invalidate the OP's own exploration, I think my at times aggressive putting of positions to various people was not the ideal approach. I regret that. The people around me were no doubt used to what I was doing, being involved in the debates (still ongoing) within the church. Still, I would have liked to have approached the issue with more sensitivity. I think at the time I was too wrapped up in my own concerns to think about just how questioning someone's right to participate fully in the life of their church might feel.

  • So procreation is a handy whip with which to beat gays/lesbians, (and no-one else)?
  • So procreation is a handy whip with which to beat gays/lesbians, (and no-one else)?

    Ah but is using whips "most fitting"? I think we should be told.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    I can't help thinking right now about the part of Monty Python's Meaning of Life where the Protestant proudly declares he's allowed to have sex for pleasure rather than procreation and can use contraception. He never has, but he can in principle.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    So procreation is a handy whip with which to beat gays/lesbians, (and no-one else)?

    Yep.

    I've suddenly remembered one of Ingo's ridiculous arguments, which is that it was perfectly acceptable to use knowledge of a woman's menstrual cycle to have sex on the days when she wasn't actually fertile (I seem to recall a woman is only fertile for a few days each month?), but that this was somehow still "open to procreation" despite a pregnancy being against all known rules of biology.

    Because you see, apparently God is not all-knowing and is actually a bit of an idiot. He knows less about procreation than we do, and He can be conned just by ensuring He sees a penis and a vagina in proximity.

    God's reported ability to generate his own incarnation without a penis being present is also somehow irrelevant to these theories about what's required for the right kind of sex.
  • You have to wonder if high falutin' stuff about procreation conceals disgust with gay sex? Of course, it's eminently deniable.
  • The official Roman line for centuries has been that sex should be only for procreation, not pleasure. If they'd known of the rhythm method in the past, they would have banned it. All sorts of madness follows from this.
  • Not just pleasure, but love and bonding.
  • Or simply fun. That isn't the official line of any Christian organisation, as far as I know, but it's what I observe. To all you happily married types, who regularly have sex with the light of your eyes, is it any more bonding than sharing a hobby you both enjoy? Like trainspotting or bridge?
  • Or simply fun. That isn't the official line of any Christian organisation, as far as I know, but it's what I observe. To all you happily married types, who regularly have sex with the light of your eyes, is it any more bonding than sharing a hobby you both enjoy? Like trainspotting or bridge?

    I think it is, but it's a personal view. Sex is an intense expression of love, for some people, (and I thought this idea is found in some religions). However, I'm not denigrating trainspotting or bridge.
  • If your curate really is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender then he must have a wild social life.

    The idea that sex is about procreation can only be maintained by those who haven't had sex. A mores sensible view of what sex is and why it feels the way it does might be got from studying biology and psychology.

    Did Jesus ever say anything about sex?
  • Jemima the 9thJemima the 9th Shipmate
    edited January 29
    I’m sure it varies a great deal, but my own view is that it can be more of a bonding thing than trainspotting or bridge, because more vulnerability is involved. This is one of the ridiculousnesses of the CofE’s views on sex in general, as highlighted beautifully by TheOrganist on the Not Again! thread. People enter civil partnerships making vows of commitment very similar to those in a marriage. Istm that a commitment to love, caring & yes, vulnerability and mutual support is a wonderful thing deserving of blessing.

    But back to sex and procreation, given that MrJt9 has had the snip (3 children being plenty, thank you) we had best give up sex immediately.

    Ha ha. Not bloody likely.

    And that I can say that, without any fear of a ticking off from the church, shows how homophobic the set up is. No one cares about my sex life, but they care a lot about the sex lives of gay people. And they only care about them because they’re gay.

    (Typos, typos everywhere!)
  • edited January 29
    Sex is about everything: all emotions may be experienced or changed with it, it's about pleasure, pain, love, hate, advertising, aggression, kindness, dominance, power, submission, and everything humans express. And yes, it is also about babies. Just like my ears are about hearing, and also about maintaining our balance and avoiding dizziness with the vestibular system, and being handy for supporting eyeglasses. Many things are multipurpose.

    Because some ideas within Christianity have wanted to take away the pleasure aspects, they have increased the nonpleasurable aspects, particularly power motives, depression and anxiety, aggression. God will ask each of us in our post-life interviews (I hope there are no movies of my life) why we didn't enjoy more sunsets, tasty food, candle light, orgasms. There is a special place in Heaven for the likes of Sts Paul, Augustine, most of the RC popes and TV evangelists, and the entire membership of Temperance Movements, and Legions of Morality, as may exist under various other names, where they wear very tight underwear and drink only herbal tea.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    It's funny how many people believe that sex is about reproduction (blithely ignoring that even straight couples do it because it's damn fun and also creates bonds) and yet never apply this same approach to, say, eating being about fueling your body.

    They don't?
    They don’t. That is about overeating, not about “food is only fuel“. One can eat for pleasure without exceeding the calorie count necessary for body maintenance.

  • Anteater wrote: »
    Orfeo:
    It's funny how many people believe that sex is about reproduction (blithely ignoring that even straight couples do it because it's damn fun and also creates bonds) and yet never apply this same approach to, say, eating being about fueling your body.
    I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that sex is solely about procreation so I think that's a red herring. The nearest they get is to suggest that there has to be a valid reason why a couple should decide against parenthood, i.e. there is a degree of presupposition that marriage leads to kids. I can see why you might object to that, and I think it can be taken too far. But I think there is a valid insight in there somewhere.
    Procreation is still the caveat in that logic.

  • PhilipVPhilipV Shipmate
    Anteater wrote: »
    Not sure where to put this since I think I missed something about DH which seems to be permanently dead. So I'll try here.

    We now have an LGBT Curate, and I'm hoping through him to understand where LGBT Christians want the Church in general to end up to remove the current barrier that still exists.

    I suspect their ideal would be for people to stop making it an issue at all, so that it takes its place alongside the right-handedness issue (which at least in my mother's time was coercive), and now is viewed as silly. But that's not where I am currently. Although I have no issue at all with having a openly gay priest, I am at least sympathetic to some views which he views as homophobic - most obviously hetero-normativity (only in part).

    So I want to start with definitions.

    Homophobia, to somebody coming at it for the first time, would imply a strong aversion to and/or irrational fear of LGBT practices and people.

    It seems to have changed to mean any criticism of LGBT practice. So I am concerned to know how LGBT christians view homophobia. Is it consistent with the example of Christ? Do they accept that homophobophobia is real, even it if is a monstrosity as a word? I don't like the idea that I unconsciously find LGBT people disgusting when consciously I rather like them.

    Secondly, heteronormativity needs defining. Wikipedia has:
    Heteronormativity is the belief that heterosexuality, predicated on the gender binary, is the norm or default sexual orientation.[1] It assumes that sexual and marital relations are most fitting between people of opposite sex. A "heteronormative" view therefore involves alignment of biological sex, sexuality, gender identity and gender roles. Heteronormativity is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia.

    On this:
    1. I do not accept "the gender binary". Defining man as xy tout court has never struck me as sensible. And this is not because I believe gender to be exclusively a social construct. Even basic biology is not binary. And the problem with this is that people will tend to class, say AIS people as freaks. Plus of course it is a social construct largely.
    2. The only part of this where I have sympathy is in the idea that sexual and marital relations are most fitting between people of opposite sex. Except I would go one step further towards the more RCC position that it is most fitting when oriented towards reproduction. This implies that e.g. gay and straight anal sex are ethically equivalent.

    I can see that this becomes homophobic if "most fitting" morphs into "exclusively accepted" and this obviously does happen. It is still the official view of the RCC. This would happen if the only ethical evaluations of any act were good vs bad. Whereas most people work with more categories. I am very deficient in emotional expression, so cannot - literally - "weep with those who weep". Therefore what is desirable has to be put into the context of what is possible.

    Hence the C of E has a definite position that where a person is capable of being content in either a straight or gay relationship, they should definitely choose the straight one. I am ok with this. My Curate is not. He believes it to be homophobic.

    I do accept that any view of this kind puts LGBT people into a class of disabled, in which they would be joining people who cannot beget children and people who cannot relate to others, such as some ASD people. Because what is being said is that their lifestyle is acceptable only in so far as they cannot manage to attain God's best (deliberately phrase to sound condescending since that is how I think it will be felt).

    So my question is: Does acceptance of the gay christian community demand that we reject the view that where both types of relationship are equally possible, the one which leads to kids coming into the world has more going for it?

    The Bible comments about behavioural standards but none of this consistently relates to how people relate or ought to related towards each other. The spirit determines what is acceptable and we only know with certainty the will of the spirit by completely submitting to God's overwhelming, everlasting love. So you can claim that we reject types of relationship; but I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to God's judgment. You will be able to enter God's presence and the community of heaven ONLY and ONLY IF you are MORE [ie MORE] faithful than those who teach the bible and try to say what God wants.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    There are some things which seem very much about “food is only fuel”, and some advice which is along the lines of x is a good source of y which gets very close to food as fuel rather than something which is enjoyable, or might be part of a social gathering with family or friends.
  • Just to say, buildings and pets, new aeroplanes and ships, can all be blessed, yes? But they would know nothing about it. Yet, loving couples, straight [civil partnership people] and gay, cannot have a blessing? Basically, some CofE people [fundamentalist, nitwits] are so obsessed with sex they want to tell people when they are allowed to do 'it'. My mother remarried in church after my father died. She was 'past child-bearing age, but she wasn't cross-examined about her sex life. What has happened in the last few decades?
  • What happened was LGBTQ and other liberalizations. Church says no.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I think the left and liberal wing of the student church got extremely far left and liberal during the 1970s and fell out of touch with the wider organisation and vice versa, as a result of which the left liberal wing didn't have a cohort or continuity coming through, while the conservative and charismatic evangelicals got better organised and funded.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Heternormativity has had an impact on my life greater than I can describe. I consign it and all of its proponents and defenders to the profoundest pit of hell.

    As a former proponent and defender of it, I am sorry @ThunderBunk.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    My mother remarried in church after my father died. She was 'past child-bearing age, but she wasn't cross-examined about her sex life. What has happened in the last few decades?

    It was decided that the Christian view of morality is only and exclusively about sex. The Seven One Deadly Sins.
    1. Lust
    2. Gluttony
    3. Avarice
    4. Sloth
    5. Wrath
    6. Envy
    7. Pride
    orfeo wrote: »
    It's funny how many people believe that sex is about reproduction (blithely ignoring that even straight couples do it because it's damn fun and also creates bonds) and yet never apply this same approach to, say, eating being about fueling your body.

    Because why would the church concentrate on a non-sin like gluttony?
  • BroJames wrote: »
    There are some things which seem very much about “food is only fuel”, and some advice which is along the lines of x is a good source of y which gets very close to food as fuel rather than something which is enjoyable, or might be part of a social gathering with family or friends.
    It is a site selling stuff.¹ But source ≠ accuracy, so let's talk about the bullshit they actually have on their site.
    They start by implying that human's early diet and health were inherently good. This is rubbish. Early humans often suffered malnutrition and typically died younger. Early man did not get
    optimum nutrition to aid their physical performance
    they got enough to survive well enough to breed the next generation. They are selling a myth to sell products.
    Our bodies crave fat and sugar because they are calorie dense and that helped our species survive. Sex feels good for the same reason.
    One can see food as fuel² and still eat poorly. The problem with our modern world is we do not constantly move around as we evolved to do and because it is easier to obtain food which is calorie dense.

    ¹ For a site promoting food as fuel, it seems odd that they feel the need to add flavours to their products. Hmmmm...
    ² I know some people like this, some of whom are fat.

    And as to the social aspect, how many friends of yours would accept your invitations if the food you served was merely nutritions and not also tasty?

    "John throws a hell of a dinner party, I received just the 650 calories I needed for that portion of my day!"
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    I think the left and liberal wing of the student church got extremely far left and liberal during the 1970s and fell out of touch with the wider organisation and vice versa, as a result of which the left liberal wing didn't have a cohort or continuity coming through, while the conservative and charismatic evangelicals got better organised and funded.

    Isn't it also true that the C of E painted itself into a corner in the 1970s? As I recall, it had been moderately supportive of reform, leading to the 1967 legalization. But then it was outflanked by the more secular gay groups, who in some ways resented Christians, seeing them as patronizing and moralistic, and also conservative Christians didn't like the more liberal position. Of course, this is all hazy now, maybe you have more accurate recall.
  • AnteaterAnteater Shipmate
    edited January 29
    Orfeo:
    It seems to me you don't actually understand my point, which is not about what could be argued in theory, it's about what is actually argued in practice
    .I can see that except for the words in theory. So I have reluctantly used the term hetero-normative because I can see that my current view is in that orbit, and it may well be that in practice hetero-normative views consistently embrace binary-gender and oppose LGBT. I don't know - having only come across the term yesterday. You may believe that believing there to be an ethical link between sex and reproduction whilst denying the rest of the agenda is only possible in theory but I don't see why. Maybe you don't, and maybe you believe that advocating hetero-sexual relations to be in any way ethically preferable without the suggestion that other relations are unacceptable (which appears to be the current CofE stance), is in itself homophobic. If so I don't quite see your point.
    In practice, people raise procreation only in the context of homosexual couples, not in all the other contexts where procreation doesn't occur.
    That sounds as if you are unaware of the RCC debate on artificial contraception, which extends to many conservative Jews Muslims and Protestants.
    In practice, you've said yourself that the church avoids food related issues. In other words, right after saying the analogy didn't prove my point, you actually agreed with my point.
    Well it is notorious that the Church over-prioritises sex issues, over things like food, or even warfare issues which is is happy to leave open. My priority is to arrive at a view - if possible - that I can honestly hold, and which removes any barrier between me and LGBT christians. I am unlikely to be condemned or even resented if I hold views on food or warfare ethics, although I admit there is still some abuse of pacifists. But there is plenty of abuse directed at perceived homophobe, even those who are not convinced they are guilty as charged.

    Re: IngoB. I have never shared his view on this and still do not. Though I enjoyed his posts and miss him a bit. But as of now, I am not comfortable with denying that " homosexual sex falls short of some norm", for those for whom heterosexual sex it is a genuine possibility.

    You may think I am making light of this when I quote "weep with those who weep" as something which, because my character precludes it, I cannot be bound by it. Believe me there are other areas in which this applies. I am not offended by those who believe that inability to express the normal range of emotions is, in and of itself, a disadvantage, but there is no point me worrying about it.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Suspended
    I'd like to see more unpacking of this term "most fitting". Because I dont recall ever hearing it said about anything other than sex before.

    And in that context, it appears mostly about the shape of body parts.

    But this type of reasoning doesn't appear to work in many other contexts; the shape of human toes suggests it is most fitting to walk around shoeless. The shape of lower limbs suggests it is most fitting to walk rather than use mechanised transport. The susceptibility of humans to disease suggests it is most fitting for humans to mostly die of easily preventable diseases rather than having medical treatment.

    We are not just a collection of things that are "most fitting" based on observable characteristics of the human body.

    Literally nobody thinks that.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Under what circumstances is someone having sex with someone of the same sex when having sex with someone of the opposite sex is a genuine possibility? If they're in a mixed-sex brothel that would be the case but I think most Christians would agree that the ideal there would be to not have sex at all. Otherwise, I think ideally it takes time to build a relationship. If you've got romantic possibilities develiping with one person I can't see that anyone should call a halt in case someone equally compatible but of a more normative gender arrives in your life.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Suspended
    Them homos just aren't trying hard enough.

    Or something.
  • Well, gay sex is yukky, isn't it? All that flailing around with cocks and orifices, good grief. Straight sex is nice ... no, hang on a minute.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    On the one hand, the world must be peopled.

    Why?
  • Or simply fun. That isn't the official line of any Christian organisation, as far as I know, but it's what I observe. To all you happily married types, who regularly have sex with the light of your eyes, is it any more bonding than sharing a hobby you both enjoy? Like trainspotting or bridge?

    Sex releases endorphins that trainspotting and bridge do not, if I remember my non-extensive, non-recent reading.
  • Anteater wrote: »
    That sounds as if you are unaware of the RCC debate on artificial contraception, which extends to many conservative Jews Muslims and Protestants.

    Ofeo is well aware of this, and quoted IngoB on the subject. The RC claim that sex with a condom (98% efficiency in theory, more like 85% in practice) is wrong, whereas natural family planning (which can be 99% effective in theory) is perfectly OK is manifest nonsense.
    Anteater wrote: »
    I am not comfortable with denying that " homosexual sex falls short of some norm", for those for whom heterosexual sex it is a genuine possibility.

    This view seems to completely ignore the way that people actually behave.

    To be clear, we are talking about sex within the context of a committed relationship. I think it's clear that casual promiscuity does not meet the Christian ideal, so we're not talking about people who are looking for some kind of sex at all. If you're looking for someone to have sex with, you're doing the wrong thing regardless of what sex of person you're looking for.

    People who are bisexual (those who you seem to be addressing in this comment) do not, as a rule, decide that their next partner should be of a particular sex, and then restrict their search to members of that sex. They meet someone, there's a mutual attraction, and a relationship progresses from there.

    What you're really asking here is for bisexual people to reject the possibility of a relationship with a member of the same sex, and hold out for a suitable member of the opposite sex to come along.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Or simply fun. That isn't the official line of any Christian organisation, as far as I know, but it's what I observe. To all you happily married types, who regularly have sex with the light of your eyes, is it any more bonding than sharing a hobby you both enjoy? Like trainspotting or bridge?

    Sex releases endorphins that trainspotting and bridge do not, if I remember my non-extensive, non-recent reading.
    Well...
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Or simply fun. That isn't the official line of any Christian organisation, as far as I know, but it's what I observe. To all you happily married types, who regularly have sex with the light of your eyes, is it any more bonding than sharing a hobby you both enjoy? Like trainspotting or bridge?

    Sex releases endorphins that trainspotting and bridge do not, if I remember my non-extensive, non-recent reading.
    Well...

    Well, bridge, then.
  • Admin furry hat on
    (and for the first time, you lucky people)

    Hosts have requested that this thread move to Epiphanies. I have opened the vortex and hopefully I can navigate the warp successfully.

    DT
    Admin
  • ... and we're back.

    Can posters not familiar with the slightly different ethos of Epiphanies, please (re)acquaint themselves here.

    DT
    Admin
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Given that gay couples can now adopt, surely children are a complete red herring anyway?

    If you think children are the dividing line, then on one side of the line you have straight and gay childless couples, and on the other side you have straight and gay families. If you think it's specifically procreation that matters, then the side of the line opposite straight biological families contains straight and gay childless couples, straight adoptive couples, and gay adoptive families.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    lilbuddha - thanks. Thought provoking. If I hadn't had an experience of being moved to tears of joy and excitement by a palentology exhibition in the local museum, I might have just written off the train spotter. (Being a bit more inhibited in my expression it was quieter and less obvious to the throngs of people around me though.)

    Maybe it's a case of whatever floats your boat.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I am having problems with this statement:
    Homophobia, to somebody coming at it for the first time, would imply a strong aversion to and/or irrational fear of LGBT practices and people.

    Dorothy Riddle of the American Psychological Association (1973-1974) came up with this continuum of homophobia:
    Repulsion: Homosexuality is seen as a crime against nature. Gays/lesbians are considered sick, crazy, immoral, sinful, wicked, etc. Anything is justified to change them: incarceration, hospitalization, behavior therapy, electroconvulsive therapy, etc.
    Pity: Represents heterosexual chauvinism. Heterosexuality is considered more mature and certainly to be preferred. It is believed that any possibility of becoming straight should be reinforced, and those who seem to be born that way should be pitied as less fortunate ("the poor dears").
    Tolerance: Homosexuality is viewed as a phase of adolescent development that many people go through and most people grow out of. Thus, lesbians/gays are less mature than straights and should be treated with the protectiveness and indulgence one uses with children who are still maturing. It is believed that lesbians/gays should not be given positions of authority because they are still working through their adolescent behavior.
    Acceptance: Still implies that there is something to accept; the existing climate of discrimination is ignored. Characterized by such statements as "You're not lesbian to me, you're a person!" or "What you do in bed is your own business." or "That's fine with me as long as you don't flaunt it!"
    Support: People at this level may be uncomfortable themselves, but they are aware of the homophobic climate and the irrational unfairness, and work to safeguard the rights of lesbians and gays.
    Admiration: It is acknowledged that being lesbian/gay in our society takes strength. People at this level are willing to truly examine their homophobic attitudes, values, and behaviors.
    Appreciation: The diversity of people is considered valuable and lesbians/gays are seen as a valid part of that diversity. People on this level are willing to combat homophobia in themselves and others.
    Nurturance: Assumes that gay/lesbian people are indispensable in our society. People on this level view lesbians/gays with genuine affection and delight, and are willing to be their allies and advocates.

    Point is, homophobia is not just black or white, you have it or you don't, but that each of us are likely on this scale and, in fact, may move up or down it given different circumstances.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited January 29
    If your curate really is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender then he must have a wild social life.
    This is one aspect that tends to annoy me. Why do people who are not hetrosexual have to be lumped together as LGBT? or LGBTQ etc. For example, If a man is gay, let's just say that he is gay.

Sign In or Register to comment.