Deceitful Bishop Henderson is praised after being an author of this false idol from Convention not to mention the executioner of the Godly Bishop John-David Schofield yet martyrs for Truth such as Bishop Mark Lawrence are held in contempt by the ruling clique of the Episcopal Church.
To me that is a very clear message.
Intercessor
One has to just swoon as the spinning of the Very Reverend Dr. David Linder begins to peg the tachometer:
[blockquote]”The resolution,” Linder said, is “a truthful acknowledgement of what is…[/blockquote]
As if the actions of the DioNH (among several others now), GC03, GC06, GC09, parishes and dioceses blessing homosexual “marriages,” etc. were just forces of nature which one must simply resign one’s self to, and not the deliberate, calculated deeds of rational adults that have resulted in the tawdry denouement of D025 and C056. Just couldn’t be helped, you know old chap.
I don’t particularly want to comment so much on the details of the Crosswalk article itself, but rather the tone.
I’m quite surprised over it — shocked actually — not so much over [i]the things that are stated[/i] [the “spin” is the way some people describe the piece], which are somewhat predictable, but rather over what appears to be the transparency of the intent of the article.
To make myself clear, the [i]intentions[/i] of the article are not surprising and I certainly understand trying to put a good face on things — but [i]the transparency[/i] of the intentions of the article is surprising to me.
Why is it that when helpful, progressives refer to two people of the same sex marriages or same sex orientations when it suits them and yet ignore the other member of the quartet which is bisexuality which by definition includes at least three persons? Isn’t that blatant discrimination. Also they have yet to include committed, lifelong polyamorous families which will doubtless become the fifth component of the GLBTP quintet.
Why is it that when helpful, progressives refer to two people of the same sex marriages or same sex orientations when it suits them and yet ignore the other member of the quartet which is bisexuality which by definition includes at least three persons?
Because it doesn’t.
Almost all human beings are sexually attracted to many people, but will actually have sex with only a small subset (traditional Christianity suggests that “small” means “one” or “zero”) of the people they are attracted to. For heterosexual persons, the group of people they are attracted to will be exclusively of the opposite sex; for homosexual persons, they will be exclusively of the same sex. For bisexual persons, they will be of both sexes in varying proportions.
Heterosexual persons are not required, by whatever mechanism Bill C believes is operative on bisexual persons, to have sex with everyone they meet who happens to be of the opposite sex; nor are homosexual persons required to have sex with everyone of the same sex. In exactly the same way, a bisexual person does not have a mandate to hop in the sack with absolutely everyone they encounter. This does not make anyone, even the completely celibate, any less hetero-, homo-, bi-, or any other prefix you like -sexual.
This notion that somehow bisexuality mandates polyamory is the reasserters’ version of the shellfish argument.
#6. Don’t understand your last sentence. Bisexuality commonly appears when one person is in a relationship of some sort with two others of different genders. This is the first step in polyamory – indeed, it is polyamory. So is bigamy, for that matter. Larry
Interestingly, Ross supposes that, while sexual attraction isn’t a matter of choice, sexual acts are a matter of choice. The heterosexual has a choice–to have sex or not to have sex with some attractive person. The homosexual has a a choice–to have sex or not to have sex with some attractive person. The bisexual has a choice–to have sex or not to have sex with some attractive person. (He also, for some inexplicable reason–probably polemical–requires that the choices heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals be limited to only one partner.)
The biblical witness and the traditional Christian discipline is that one should choose to have sex, regardless of “attraction”, within the context of the marriage of a male and female.
Of course, lurking in his argument are the two great obsessions of Americans:
1. Sex is all about attraction.
Never mind that the person to whom one is attracted today may be unattractive tomorrow; it’s the reign (and tyranny) of hormones and eros. It is also a major factor in divorce. “Falling in love” with someone is no reason for marriage; one is likely to “fall out of love” at some future time. (Remember the climatic moment in [i]Ordinary People[/i] when Conrad tells Beth, “I don’t think I love you anymore”?)
2. The adolescent insistence that “attraction” [b]must[/b] be acted upon.
He does allow that one can choose among those to whom one is attracted, but one [b]must[/b] act out with one of them.
While the sex drive is a powerful one, it is powerful to insure the survival of the species. And, in the case of humans (yes, humans are different from guppies) the sex act gives pleasure–again a biologically useful trait because it insures the survival of the species. Men and women can chose to abstain. And, Freud not withstanding, men and women who chose to abstain are not necessarily damaged. And the adolescent “I’ll die if I don’t get laid” is mistaken, the adolescent won’t die if (s)he remains a virgin. The pleasure aspect does act as a counter balance to the prospect of the long period and difficulty of nurturing a child to maturity.
But here again it is about hormones (which decrease with age) and eros (which comes and goes).
But Christian love rises above eros–and even philos. When Jesus (quoting Leviticus’ Holiness Code–you know the one that forbids all sorts of sexual activities) tell folks “love your neighbor”, he’s not suggesting that we have sex (eros) with our neighbor. He’s not even telling us to [b]like[/b] (philos) our neighbor. It is that conscious choice to [b]love[/b] (agape) our neighbor.
In many times and in many places, “marriage” wasn’t about eros or philos. It was often arranged by the families of the boy and girl–often when both were still years away from puberty. And what marriage was in those times and places was a covenant, often entered into at puberty. Now that [b]may[/b] have led is some–perhaps many–to abusive relationships and/or adultery; both of which are [b]failures[/b] of agape. But I suspect that some cases it led to agape–which both philos and eros finding expression within that covenant love.
(He also, for some inexplicable reason—probably polemical—requires that the choices heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals be limited to only one partner.)
I did not say that. I said that a person — whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual — may choose to have sex with exactly one person to whom they are sexually attracted. Obviously, they may also choose to have sex with zero, two, three, or any other number of people; or, indeed, to have sex with one or more persons they are not sexually attracted to.
I was specifically refuting the point that a bisexual person must have sex with at least two people or s/he is not bisexual. Since sexual orientation is about attraction rather than behavior, this is obviously a false statement.
The adolescent insistence that “attraction†must be acted upon.
He does allow that one can choose among those to whom one is attracted, but one must act out with one of them.
I did not say that, nor anything remotely like it. In fact, I specifically said that someone could be completely celibate and still be bisexual, if they are sexually attracted to people of both sexes.
I don’t know whose comment you’re attempting to refute there, but it isn’t mine.
Deceitful Bishop Henderson is praised after being an author of this false idol from Convention not to mention the executioner of the Godly Bishop John-David Schofield yet martyrs for Truth such as Bishop Mark Lawrence are held in contempt by the ruling clique of the Episcopal Church.
To me that is a very clear message.
Intercessor
One has to just swoon as the spinning of the Very Reverend Dr. David Linder begins to peg the tachometer:
[blockquote]”The resolution,” Linder said, is “a truthful acknowledgement of what is…[/blockquote]
As if the actions of the DioNH (among several others now), GC03, GC06, GC09, parishes and dioceses blessing homosexual “marriages,” etc. were just forces of nature which one must simply resign one’s self to, and not the deliberate, calculated deeds of rational adults that have resulted in the tawdry denouement of D025 and C056. Just couldn’t be helped, you know old chap.
Sickening.
I don’t particularly want to comment so much on the details of the Crosswalk article itself, but rather the tone.
I’m quite surprised over it — shocked actually — not so much over [i]the things that are stated[/i] [the “spin” is the way some people describe the piece], which are somewhat predictable, but rather over what appears to be the transparency of the intent of the article.
To make myself clear, the [i]intentions[/i] of the article are not surprising and I certainly understand trying to put a good face on things — but [i]the transparency[/i] of the intentions of the article is surprising to me.
The spin is incredible. Thanks to this blogger for exposing this.
This article represents the MO of DUSC for years. Those living within this diocese are like those in the novel 1984.
Why is it that when helpful, progressives refer to two people of the same sex marriages or same sex orientations when it suits them and yet ignore the other member of the quartet which is bisexuality which by definition includes at least three persons? Isn’t that blatant discrimination. Also they have yet to include committed, lifelong polyamorous families which will doubtless become the fifth component of the GLBTP quintet.
#5 Bill C says:
Because it doesn’t.
Almost all human beings are sexually attracted to many people, but will actually have sex with only a small subset (traditional Christianity suggests that “small” means “one” or “zero”) of the people they are attracted to. For heterosexual persons, the group of people they are attracted to will be exclusively of the opposite sex; for homosexual persons, they will be exclusively of the same sex. For bisexual persons, they will be of both sexes in varying proportions.
Heterosexual persons are not required, by whatever mechanism Bill C believes is operative on bisexual persons, to have sex with everyone they meet who happens to be of the opposite sex; nor are homosexual persons required to have sex with everyone of the same sex. In exactly the same way, a bisexual person does not have a mandate to hop in the sack with absolutely everyone they encounter. This does not make anyone, even the completely celibate, any less hetero-, homo-, bi-, or any other prefix you like -sexual.
This notion that somehow bisexuality mandates polyamory is the reasserters’ version of the shellfish argument.
#6. Don’t understand your last sentence. Bisexuality commonly appears when one person is in a relationship of some sort with two others of different genders. This is the first step in polyamory – indeed, it is polyamory. So is bigamy, for that matter. Larry
Interestingly, Ross supposes that, while sexual attraction isn’t a matter of choice, sexual acts are a matter of choice. The heterosexual has a choice–to have sex or not to have sex with some attractive person. The homosexual has a a choice–to have sex or not to have sex with some attractive person. The bisexual has a choice–to have sex or not to have sex with some attractive person. (He also, for some inexplicable reason–probably polemical–requires that the choices heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals be limited to only one partner.)
The biblical witness and the traditional Christian discipline is that one should choose to have sex, regardless of “attraction”, within the context of the marriage of a male and female.
Of course, lurking in his argument are the two great obsessions of Americans:
1. Sex is all about attraction.
Never mind that the person to whom one is attracted today may be unattractive tomorrow; it’s the reign (and tyranny) of hormones and eros. It is also a major factor in divorce. “Falling in love” with someone is no reason for marriage; one is likely to “fall out of love” at some future time. (Remember the climatic moment in [i]Ordinary People[/i] when Conrad tells Beth, “I don’t think I love you anymore”?)
2. The adolescent insistence that “attraction” [b]must[/b] be acted upon.
He does allow that one can choose among those to whom one is attracted, but one [b]must[/b] act out with one of them.
While the sex drive is a powerful one, it is powerful to insure the survival of the species. And, in the case of humans (yes, humans are different from guppies) the sex act gives pleasure–again a biologically useful trait because it insures the survival of the species. Men and women can chose to abstain. And, Freud not withstanding, men and women who chose to abstain are not necessarily damaged. And the adolescent “I’ll die if I don’t get laid” is mistaken, the adolescent won’t die if (s)he remains a virgin. The pleasure aspect does act as a counter balance to the prospect of the long period and difficulty of nurturing a child to maturity.
But here again it is about hormones (which decrease with age) and eros (which comes and goes).
But Christian love rises above eros–and even philos. When Jesus (quoting Leviticus’ Holiness Code–you know the one that forbids all sorts of sexual activities) tell folks “love your neighbor”, he’s not suggesting that we have sex (eros) with our neighbor. He’s not even telling us to [b]like[/b] (philos) our neighbor. It is that conscious choice to [b]love[/b] (agape) our neighbor.
In many times and in many places, “marriage” wasn’t about eros or philos. It was often arranged by the families of the boy and girl–often when both were still years away from puberty. And what marriage was in those times and places was a covenant, often entered into at puberty. Now that [b]may[/b] have led is some–perhaps many–to abusive relationships and/or adultery; both of which are [b]failures[/b] of agape. But I suspect that some cases it led to agape–which both philos and eros finding expression within that covenant love.
#8 Ken Peck says:
I did not say that. I said that a person — whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual — may choose to have sex with exactly one person to whom they are sexually attracted. Obviously, they may also choose to have sex with zero, two, three, or any other number of people; or, indeed, to have sex with one or more persons they are not sexually attracted to.
I was specifically refuting the point that a bisexual person must have sex with at least two people or s/he is not bisexual. Since sexual orientation is about attraction rather than behavior, this is obviously a false statement.
I did not say that, nor anything remotely like it. In fact, I specifically said that someone could be completely celibate and still be bisexual, if they are sexually attracted to people of both sexes.
I don’t know whose comment you’re attempting to refute there, but it isn’t mine.