These are important questions. It is often argued by those who favor same-sex marriage that the institution of marriage will transform same-sex relationships, and make them more committed and monogamous. But what if same-sex relationships, if they are guided by this corrupt definition of monogamy, serve actually to undermine the church’s traditional understanding of monogamy? That’s one reason why the answer to this question is so important.
Rod Dreher Chimes in on the Monogamy issue
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, * Religion News & Commentary, --Civil Unions & Partnerships, Ethics / Moral Theology, Lutheran, Marriage & Family, Other Churches, Same-sex blessings, Sexuality, Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion), Sexuality Debate (Other denominations and faiths), Theology
[blockquote] It’s also important that I once again exhort readers from both sides (all sides?) of this controversy to conduct the combox dialogue dispassionately. I will delete comments that bring more heat than light to this discussion.[/blockquote]
Let’s all try to keep this in mind this time.
Dreher is raising relevant issues that seem already plague the heterosexual community. However, he seems to insinuate that serial monogamy and adultery are more serious among gay people than heterosexual people. He also implies that gay people are somehow responsible for straight people. Not sure how that works.
Is he saying that because adultery is the only grounds for divorce, an adulterer MUST be divorced? If the couple comes together in reconciliation, that seems to be grounds for rejoicing. Why is adultery prior to other sins? It’s wrong, but those who sincerely repent can be forgiven.
Physician, heal thyself!
No, he doesn’t “seem” to be saying anything of the sort. What Dreher is saying, echoing Terry Mattingly, is that as bad as serial monogamy has been for heterosexuals, there are homosexuals who are attempting to redefine normative behavior in ways that make serial monogamy look positively quaint.
As I listen to reappraisers talk about the structure or form of a bisexual’s relationships, I don’t think they can be consistent and still advocate for the traditional understanding of monogamy. If these reappraisers intend to include bisexuals(according to the “continuum theory”) then the most they can contend for is serial monogamy.
#4 one of the conceptual issues, phil, is that in a marriage, a generic man does not just marry generic woman. It’s Bill and Sarah, who have found each other through the spirit, and recognize in each other the image of God. Bill and Mary would have been a bad fit, for a number of other reasons.
Just as Bill had to choose between Mary and Sarah, a Bisexual bill would have had to choose between Mario and Sarah. For reappraisers it is not just any marriage but a good marriage where the two individuals become more faithful to Christ (as represented by the constituent elements of a joyful union).
It sometimes seems to me that reasserters would much rather have gay Bill be in a very unhappy marriage with any woman (who has to be satisfied with a man who isn’t attracted to her), than a union of mutual joy between two people who love each other.
Jefferson, I must have not gotten how homosexual couples seeking Christian marriage are redefining marriage any differently than the way plenty of straight couples have already done so. Those who want other forms of intimacy don’t care much about church anyway. It’s the gay couples who already attend church, are active in their churches, who wonder if the church loves them as they feel God does.
Phil, I agree. I would like to hear a reappraiser address this.
This is actually for the reappreaisers to address and define. I do not get beyond the initial sinful behavior which is sex outside of the marriage (between man and woman) relationship. For me the discussion of a “committed and monogamous” sexual relationship outside of marriage is simply managing the sin. It is kind of like planing a bank robbery in such a way as to make sure no one is harmed. It’s not a defense to bank robbery if you do it politely.
[blockquote]Jefferson, I must have not gotten how homosexual couples seeking Christian marriage are redefining marriage any differently than the way plenty of straight couples have already done so. Those who want other forms of intimacy don’t care much about church anyway. It’s the gay couples who already attend church, are active in their churches, who wonder if the church loves them as they feel God does. [/blockquote]
Plenty of straight couples may define their marriages as open to having sex with others, but that’s no reason the church catholic ought to acquiesce in the sin. BTW, do you agree it is a sin?
Yes, God loves homosexuals. He also loves pedophiles, zoophiles, coprophiles, etc. He just doesn’t love what they do.
#6 Br. Michael says:
If by “this” you mean Phil’s comment in #4 that:
…then all I can say is that reappraisers have addressed this question, multiple times, here on this forum. I’ve done it more than once myself. Inevitably, whatever we say produces only bafflement and incomprehension from the reasserting side.
There’s obviously some fundamental conceptual gap involved in this question, which makes communication across it difficult if not impossible. I find this curious, because while I know that there is a similar fundamental gap involving the nature and authority of Scripture, and I’ve learned to recognize that and be aware when it’s necessary to point out basic hermeneutical disconnects — I’m not entirely certain what the gap here is about.
I know that some (not all) reasserters reject the notion of sexual orientation entirely, and to me that smells like it’s related but not exactly the nub of the matter. There’s something root-level about what reappraisers mean by sexual orientation, or sexual identity, or something in that area, that apparently means something very different to reasserters; and I haven’t put my finger on exactly what it is yet.
Ok, Ross. Please explain again. What exactly is bisexuality and what do they want? Is bisexuality actually different from either homo or heterosexual behaviors and if it is one or the other why bring it up at all? After all it is your side that brings up the alphabet soup of GLBT.
I do not think there is such a thing as orientation. Quite frankly your side is all over the place when it comes to the transgender issue talking about a sliding scale of sexual identity and gender. But for the sake of argument do the GLBT apologists argue that there is a bisexual orientation? If so what is it and how to you all claim that it works? Do you require the bisexual to make a homo or hetero sexual choice?
Here’s how I would put it:
Sexual orientation is basically about attraction. If the people to whom you are sexually attracted are all (or nearly all) of the opposite sex, then you can be described as being heterosexually oriented. If the people to whom you are sexually attracted are all (or nearly all) of the same sex, then you can be described as being homosexually oriented. If the people to whom you are sexually attracted include both sexes in significant proportions, then you can be described as being bisexually oriented. The “continuum” that Phil mentioned simply expresses the fact that some people are exclusively attracted only to one sex, while others are attracted mostly to one but partially to the other, or more or less equally to both, in varying proportions.
By this definition, it obviously follows that orientation is not contingent upon behavior. A person with numerous sexual partners, a person with only one sexual partner, and a person who remains lifelong celibate, would all still have sexual orientations; they would just be acting (or not) on their attractions in different ways.
And equally obviously, this is all distinct from the question of whether reappraising Christians consider it godly, or sinful, or a good idea or bad idea, to have zero, one, or many sexual partners, serially or in parallel, within or without the context of a committed relationship. Before we even get to that question, it should be obvious by the above definitions that a bisexually oriented person (that is, someone who experiences sexual attraction to both sexes) can live in a monogamous relationship, just the same way as anyone else can — by committing to one person for life and remaining faithful to that person until death. That point has to be established first before we can consider the question of whether we (or anyone else) believes that a bisexually oriented person should live in a monogamous relationship.
But so many reasserters are sticking on the first point — as I said, I presume that foundational definitions are in play here — that the discussion, to the sharply limited extent that there is a reappraiser/reasserter discussion on this topic, can’t move past it.
10 good. So what is even the point in bisexuality? For a bisexual to live in a classical monogamous relationship they must choose either a homo or heterosexual relationship. What is the point in the B in the GLBT alphabet?
I think that is one sticking point. You are saying that a bisexual must chose a either a homo or heterosexual behavior. It can’t be both and still be monogamous. So a bisexual must deny his or her attractions to be monogamous. Right?
#11/12, that’s been my question, too, and I haven’t seen any satisfactory response to it from a revisionist. Operationally, a “B” must be either heterosexual or homosexual. Either that, or have his/her multiple partner sexual relations acquiesed to by the church. Am I missing something?
13, I don’t think so. Based on what Ross has said, and Susan Russell on the closed thread, TEC would not approve of a bisexual lifestyle. This in, effect, throws bisexuality under the bus, if the ultimate goal of the bisexuals is to be able to go both ways if they want to. So the question again is what is the point in having B in the LGBT? And I agree that we have not yet had an answer.
[blockquote]Based on what Ross has said, and Susan Russell on the closed thread, TEC would not approve of a bisexual lifestyle.[/blockquote]
I don’t think Ross has said that at all. Read his penultimate paragraph…it’s all very much up for discussion it seems. I suspect that Rev. Russell is aware of this, hence her cutting off of discussion before that manifested itself.
The argument for the rightness of same-sex acts is that a person has this deep orientation and to deny that person the moral right to act on that deep orientation is to deny that person the right to have a rich and fulfilling life. In other words, in order to be happy, a person must have the right to express his/her deep sexual orientation, of course, in a mutually loving way. The reasserter says that human happiness is not determined by the right to express his/her deepest attractions, orientations, affections, etc. Rather, happiness and a rich and fulfilling life is determined by following the moral law. If acting on one’s sexual orientation is contrary to the objective moral law then it would never be humanly fulfilling to so act.
Now, if the reappraiser is right about human nature, that our happiness is dependent on our right to express our deepest sexual orientation, then limiting the bisexual person to only one form of his/her orientation is denying that person’s right to happiness as defined by reappraisers. Reappraisers who ask bisexual persons to be committed to a life-long monagamous relationship are denying the very basis for their argument for the rightness of same-sex acts. Or they don’t believe that bisexuality is a deep orientation.
15, You may be right, but I am trying to nail down what they are saying. I would like to have a response before we move on. Until we determine what we are talking about we can’t move on.
16, your post is the next step once we have determined what the bisexual position is. But we are not there yet. For the purpose of this discussion we need a response from Ross or someone else who presumes to speak for the bisexuals.
I don’t mean to make Ross the spokesman, but you did volunteer.:)
I don’t know that it is fair, unless we get no response, to set out what we think they are saying and then respond to it.
If a bisexually oriented person chooses to be monogamous, then yes, they are obviously “denying” their attraction to all but one of the people to whom they are sexually attracted. (Or, theoretically, denying their attraction to all of them, if they commit to a person they are not attracted to.) This puts them in the same boat as roughly 99.9% of all the other people who choose monogamy.
I’m not sure I understand your question about the “point” of the “B” in LGBT. Some people who are bisexually oriented choose to identify themselves as bisexual. “Identifying” is not the same thing as being oriented one way or another; it means choosing to make one’s orientation a proclaimed part of one’s identity. Not everyone chooses to do that, of course. I happen to be near-sighted, which certainly affects my life in various ways, but I don’t choose to make it an aspect of my identity. I do not think of myself as “Ross: Nearsighted Person” in the same way that I think of myself as “Ross: Male Person” or “Ross: Christian Person.”
Of course, someone who chooses to identify as bisexual may also choose to be monogamous, in which case they are obviously not being sexually active with partners of both sexes. In this case, they might be like, oh, say, a child of Chinese immigrants who is a U.S. citizen but who describes himself as Chinese — which would only mean that he considers his Chinese background a fundamentally important part of who he is, even though he is not Chinese by citizenship or residence.
In other words, there are at least three distinct concepts involved here: being bisexually oriented, proclaiming bisexuality as part of one’s identity, and being sexually active with partners of both sexes. Just because one experiences the first doesn’t mean one has to choose the second; and whether or not one chooses the second one is not compelled to choose the third.
(I suppose in theory one could proclaim bisexual identity without experiencing bisexual orientation, but that would be kind of an odd thing to do.)
All of this, as I say, is prior to the question of what choices reappraising Christians like myself think a bisexually oriented person (or indeed any person) ought to make. To the extent that TEC has moved towards recognizing and blessing same-sex unions, it has done so with the expectation that they be monogamous in the same way as heterosexual marriages blessed by TEC — which does, yes, preclude being sexually active with multiple partners, no matter what their sexes. That is not “throwing bisexuality under the bus,” assuming by that we’re referring to either bisexual orientation or bisexual identity. It is throwing promiscuity under the bus, however. On that point, at least, I would think that we would agree.
16, I think your post is the crux and is where we get derailed. You reflect the logic of the bisexual position, but when we say that, they say that that is not what they mean. So we need to get them to commit to what they mean.
18, Ross thanks. I don’t mean to be difficult, but I don’t grasp your last post. I see a lot of words. Can you break it down? Look at Phil’s post which is where we are going.
Quite frankly your post is the point where most of these discussions break down. Can you break it down so it can be discussed point by point?
Ross, #18, you put a lot of effort into telling us what we already know. We know about orientation, what we’re interested in is [i]behavior[/i] and what [i]behavior[/i] the church finds acceptable.
Revisionists, by and large, make the implicit assumption that if one is homosexual, then one should not be asked to refrain from homosexual acts as such acts are apparently assumed to be natural to homosexuals, no matter what Scripture has to say. But it raises the question about bisexuals, insofar as their orientation toward sexual relations with both men and women. Why should their “natural” tendencies be squelched by the church? Having dispensed with Scripture for gays and lesbians, it seems arbitrary to invoke it for bisexuals, no?
Phil, the issue is the moral right which you see as pre-existent somehow, as if it were an issue of inalienable rights, something declared intuitively and inalienably the possession of every man. Have I stated your position correctly? But a Declaration of Ind. right is not a moral right. If we have both a moral and constitutional right to happiness, there is no thing forbidden to us if it interferes with our attaining the happiness we seek. Such a position is simply a rationale for endless self indulgence.
More important, copulation between men is limited to sodomy and is of radical order different from copulation between a man and a woman. Nothing can change this. Am I to understand that you are arguing that sodomy can and should be be sanctioned by both church and state so that a person can express his deep sexual orientation? If this is the case, the I await your argument with real interest, especially since it will be a declaration of normality, a declaration that simply cannot make statistical sense.
Moreover, I must take issue with your statement that if acting on one’s sexual orientation were contary to moral law, then such acts could never be fulfilling. This position does not appear to match the real world, for drug addiction is, I am told, fulfilling and necessary to continue for the addict, and sado-masochism is also fulfilling. And then there is pedophilia. Surely these are against objective moral law. Outside of sexual issues, the vices are fulfilling indeed; this is why they are vices. One can find a dozen such examples easily.
Larry
Oops…make that “tends them toward…”
22, I think Phil is on your side. My reading was that he was trying to articulate Ross’s side of the discussion.
Br. Michael, probably not unsurprisingly, I agree with your #19 post. I don’t think Ross and others have grasped the argument, most likely because of an uncritical acceptance of ‘deep feelings’ or ‘orientation’ as being a guide to human action.
Ross, thanks for your efforts. You are doing the heavy lifting for your side here and I appreciate it.
Thanks Phil. This is a good discussion. I just want to nail down what we are really talking about. Then we can discuss other things. So we need to determine what the bisexual component is and what they want that is not subsumed in homosexuality.
Well, for starters, when Phil says:
…I can’t speak for all reappraisers, but that’s not the argument that I would make for “the rightness of same-sex acts.” The argument I would make is that it seems there is nothing inherently wrong with same-sex sexual activity, in that it does not intrinsically harm anyone and many people find it joyful and life-affirming, and nobody has successfully shown otherwise. At this point we would get into a protracted argument about Scripture, authority, natural law, and the validity of certain studies; but my point is, I’m not basing my position on a “need” to fulfill deep-seated urges. I’m saying that, if a deep-seated urge can be fulfilled in an appropriate and Godly way, then the church has no reason to oppose it and indeed ought to actively encourage it. That being so, the real question is whether that is indeed possible in this case. At first glance it seems to me that it is — I see no a priori reason to think it cannot — and so I consider the onus to be on the other side to show that it cannot.
All of which is a long and roundabout way of saying that the basic question is whether homosexuality is inherently sinful or not. And the basic question under that is how we know the answer to that question. But at this point we’re diverging from the main thrust of this thread.
Given this, I’m not sure I’m your go-to reappraiser for this argument, unfortunately. I know that there are reappraisers who make the “fulfilment of deep-seated orientation” argument, but I think they’re reaching the right conclusions by the wrong path so I can’t really argue for them.
I’m afraid that may be less helpful than you had hoped.
[blockquote]The argument I would make is that it seems there is nothing inherently wrong with same-sex sexual activity, in that it does not intrinsically harm anyone and many people find it joyful and life-affirming, and nobody has successfully shown otherwise.[/blockquote]
That’s a good defense in the secular realm for decriminalization of adult, same-sex contact, one I’m fine with. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
So what is it about multiple-partnered bisexuals, homosexuals or, heck, even heterosexuals that makes it unacceptable in a Christian sense? If one cannot show concrete harm, why are these people frowned upon?
Well I am going to dinner, but our discussion as to what bisexuals actually want is in danger of being derailed and at precisely the point that Ross complains of. I would really like an answer. Do they want to play both ways or not?
#29 Jeffersonian:
Well, again I can’t speak for all reappraisers, but my answer would be: because I know, from my own life and the lives of people close to me, that thoughtless promiscuity is bad for you. It’s physically dangerous, of course, but it’s also spiritually deadening. It numbs love and stunts joy.
In this, it’s simply a particular case of a general principle: any time you treat another person as anything other than a person, any time you treat them as just an object or as just a means to an end or as anything other than a living breathing human being, then you are causing yourself spiritual harm… and, quite likely, harm to others as well.
That’s why, I would argue, the Christian church (for that matter, any church) should refuse to sanction promiscuity.
Larry Morse, what I have inartfully tried to express is what I believe to be the reappraisers'( am I using that term correctly?) view of the morality of same -sex acts. Which is that human happiness or fulfullment is conditioned on the moral right to act on one’s sexual orientation(of course, in a mutually loving way). If this is a correct statement of the reappraisers’ morality then I think they are inconsistent when they suggest that bisexuals(assuming that’s an orientation) should limit themselves to a life-long monogamous relationship.
I don’t believe that drug addiction or any vice is really humanly fulfilling. Vice is what appears to be a human good,but objectively is not. I think we’re in agreement.
#30 Br. Michael:
If by “what bisexuals actually want,” you mean “bisexuals within TEC,” then I would suggest that the answer is probably:
a) To be able to proclaim their bisexual identity in a church that does not believe that God hates this, and
b) The right to marry someone, whether that person happens to be of the same sex or the opposite sex, on the same terms that a straight person can marry their opposite-sex partner.
I understand what you are saying, Ross (#31), but doesn’t this, at the core, put the DSM in place as Scripture? What about those who disagree with your assertion about promiscuity, that it doesn’t deaden them at all, in fact it makes them feel alive, cherished and fulfilled?
I think you can see where this is headed.
Phil, if I have misread your entry, please accept apologies. Larry
#34 Jeffersonian:
Well, yes, I dare say that I do. But all I can do is witness to what I know from my own life and experience, and the shared experience of others, and hope that that persuades as many people as possible. I don’t have the epistemological certainty of having the infallible written Word of God to guide me, because I don’t believe that Scripture is that; but I do know that God moves in my life and I believe that he guiding me (mostly kicking and screaming, naturally) towards glimmerings of truth and wisdom.
Let me address Ross, then, for this is the proper direction of my questions.
Yoou use the phrase “in an appropriate and Godly way.” My question is therefore: How can sodomy be seen as an appropriate and Godly way? The initial issue is bisexuality, but the overriding issue of sodomy still is the proverbial gorilla in the living room. I submit that there can be NO Godly way for sodomy to be carried out.
Scripture is obviously clear about this.
If we leave scripture aside for a moment and answer your question as to whether homosexuality is inherently sinful or not,we may safely say that if it violates the simplest rules of evolution, then is is sinful because evolution, at all times greater than we are, establishes the very rules by which we live at all – it is the very air we breath – and sin, in this case, is a pollution of that air. Sodomy is fundamentally life-denying; universally practiced, there is no human race. Evolution will not “tolerate” this abuse; its very essence is life-affirming. We call it fertility in both its simplest and its most conceptual senses. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reduce life’s essentials to simpler and more obvious terms.
Bisexuality is therefore no more than a riff on this theme. On the bell curve, it is still well beyond one standard deviation. Not as far as homosexuality, but still, by definition abnormal. Because this is unalterably so, bisexuals and homosexuals can never “marry on equal terms with heterosexuals,” for heterosexuality is normative. To assert such equality is a hopeless contradiction, like asking what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object.
Larry
Huh, I think the system just ate my reply to Larry’s #37. Let me try again.
(Let’s try that again…)
#37 Larry:
First of all, if anything is clear in this debate, it’s that we do not read Scripture with anything like the same assumptions and hermeneutic. When you say, “Scripture is obviously clear about this,” that’s true — given your assumptions about what Scripture is and how to read it. Given my assumptions, Scripture has something rather different to say.
Now, as to evolution. You say, “…evolution, at all times greater than we are, establishes the very rules by which we live at all…”. I disagree vigorously. Evolution in itself is as mindless as gravity: it has no purpose, no goal, no reason, no authority, it simply is. Any intentionality is present only because God has a purpose for all of creation, of which evolution is merely one aspect.
Furthermore, evolution is about more than the survival of the individual. It is a trivial biological result that ensuring the survival of a sufficient number of your close genetic relatives can result in passing on more of “your” genes than having a child yourself. Worker honeybees would have no biological incentive to toil for the good of the hive if that were not so.
As for “sodomy” being “life-denying” — everything you say about sodomy applies, by the same logic and with exactly equal force, to celibacy. Would you argue that celibacy is sinful? In any event, nobody is suggesting that either celibacy or homosexuality should be “universally practiced”; both are the natural inclination of a small minority of the population, and the overall impact on the reproductive capacity of the species is negligible.
#36, with all respect, I think you are part of a church, but it’s not Christian and it has one member: You.
I very much appreciate Ross’ willingness to engage in thoughtful dialog. In that vein I would question what appears to be his fundemental premise in #10: orientation produces behavior.
As Ross notes (apparently without agreement), the origin and nature of orientation is unclear. Indeed the evidence that large numbers of those self-identifying as homosexual later identify as heterosexual seems to disprove orientation is immutable, although I recognize there could be two categories.
However, I would urge Ross to consider whether repeated behavior that triggers pleasure could not become a pattern that we call “orientation”, i.e. a Pavlovian response. It is my understanding that this is what happens in the case of sexual fetishes. Reinforcement by pleasure ingrains the behavior. I am not sure why we should expect a different pattern in the case of homo-/hetero-/bi-sexuality.
Finally, on a humorous note, the gay community has an interesting saying: “You are gay, straight, or lying.” (No opinion as to accuracy.)
Several points to Ross’s #28 and then I’m out of commission until tomorrow. I hope we can go at least a few more rounds until the horse is dead. Perhaps we can begin to understand our disagreement.
Ross says that if we can act on our deep needs or orientation in a Godly and appropiate way then he sees no reason for the church to oppose it and, in fact, should encourage it. Then Ross realizes that he has begged the question,so he admits that it comes down to whether a homosexual act is by its nature immoral. He then asserts that the moral default position is to allow the act when in doubt. However, the moral axiom is “when in doubt, don’t”. And because Ross is not basing his argument on the “fulfullment of a basic need”, there is even less reason to favor the act when in doubt.
#41 Bill Matz:
I don’t think I argued anywhere that “orientation produces behavior.” Nobody is required to act on their attraction to anyone else. I suppose you could say that I have argued that orientation precedes behavior, if you felt it was a relevant point to make.
However, that’s beside the point for my argument. Indeed, as far as I’m concerned, it makes not the slightest difference whether orientation is inborn and immutable, or voluntary and transitory, or what-have-you. The relevant question is, as always: can this orientation (whatever its provenance) be expressed in an appropriate and Godly way? Is it, in a word, necessarily sinful, or not? And if the answer is that it is not necessarily sinful, then it matters where it comes from as little as it matters where one acquires a taste for stamp-collecting — the only concern is to do it in such a way as to be pleasing to God.
#42 phil swain:
I think you mis-characterize my process 🙂 You seem to imply that I find myself tangled in my own web, come to “realize” that, and am then forced to “admit” that it “comes down to whether a homosexual act is by its nature immoral.” In fact I’ve been saying for some time that this is the key question, and that underlying it is the even more fundamental question, which is how we know the answer to that.
So now that you’ve cleverly caught me out in saying exactly what I intended to say all along: from whence do you derive the peculiar idea that “the moral axiom” is “when in doubt, don’t”? We would all do very little if that were the case. Is it moral to engage in this blog discussion, which takes some modicum of time and effort and will almost certainly change no one’s mind? Are you sure of your answer? If you’re in doubt, then you should not blog.
To be slightly less flippant: I think that the test for whether an action is of God or opposed to God — I use this language here instead of “moral” and “immoral,” because I think it strikes closer to the heart of the matter — is whether it produces joy (which is different from happiness), love, creation, growth, abundance, and richness… or instead despair, apathy, destruction, diminishment, and poverty. In my experience — Jeffersonian will doubtless consider that this phrase reinforces his point in #40, but so be it — by this metric, homosexual relationships are as likely to be of God as heterosexual relationships. And when they are not, as they often are not, then it is not the same-sex aspect of the relationship that is the fatal flaw but rather the same failings that poison so many opposite-sex relationships — abuse, jealousy, faithlessness, and all the rest.
That is the basis for my assertion that same-sex activity should be considered “moral” as a starting assumption, until proven otherwise.
Well I am back. And I see that we have not resolve the basic question of bisexuality and what they want.
On the other hand it’s a great thread.
Ross, great job. But on a later thread when I bring up the unanswered question of what bisexuals want, don’t be to harsh with me as I have earnestly tried to get an answer.
Br. Michael, is my #33 not an answer? If not, what is lacking?
How easily we are twisted to and fro manipulated by evil, brought to question our beliefs. Do any believe that Satan is real? If human nature was good we would not need to turn away from it, if I see a beautiful woman and lust after her should I act on this because it is my base sexual orientation? Certainly not, yet we are asked to believe that others must head their basest instincts, open your eyes to reason. Wake up people you’ve been fed a line of bull and it is tearing us apart. Now who do you think is enjoying that?
(gotta ask – opposite-sex sodomy is still ok, right?)
Ross your 33. sorry I missed that. I apologize. Clear answer.
#30 Br. Michael:
[blockquote] If by “what bisexuals actually want,†you mean “bisexuals within TEC,†then I would suggest that the answer is probably:
a) To be able to proclaim their bisexual identity in a church that does not believe that God hates this, and
b) The right to marry someone, whether that person happens to be of the same sex or the opposite sex, on the same terms that a straight person can marry their opposite-sex partner.[/blockquote]
But how is this any different from homosexuality or heterosexuality?
If hetero we will never know the differance. If homo we will. So what is the differance that the bisexuals bring to the converstaion?
As to your first point do they procalim that they can sleep with what ever sex they want to? How is that monogamous?
I have a little anecdotal information here that may or may not help.
First, I’d like to admit that I am a reasserter, and not just of Christianity, but of pretty much every religion. Not that I claim every religion, but that I have a hard time listening to a yogi eating a cheeseburger, and not just because his mouth is full. And don’t get me started on invent-a-religion paganism (if you say you worship Zeus and you’re not sacrificing some bulls, then you’re just letting the bull-by-product build to high heaven).
Second, what follows will refer to the Biblical and moral aspects of the actions very little (I hope to preclude anyone feeling any part of this statement is an encouragement of anything).
Somehow I have managed to develop a friendship with quite a few gay and lesbian people, and have a habit of asking usually offensive questions so matter-of-factly that it rarely offends. Such questions are “so what about bisexuals?” The surprising thing is the unanimity of the response: “There’s no such thing as bisexuals, they’re just very confused.” This is, oddly enough, nothing they would ever say in front of bisexuals, or in front of anyone with an anti-gay agenda. This attitude seems to lead to a certain “closeted” bisexuality within the gay community, bisexuals are more likely to be straight people coming out of the closet while someone who identifies themselves as “gay” is more likely to have their heterosexual encounters as a secret part of their lives. There does seem to be some forgiveness within the community for “experimenting” if one has [i] never [/i] had heterosexual sex, and especially if it was a “three way” that had a straight defined person actually participate in the homosexual act.
All this is within the “GLBT community”, along with other interesting prejudices (it seems gay men and lesbians don’t like each other much). What I’ve always found interesting was the standard view on the “T” part of the equation, and especially those “trans(sexual/gendered)” persons who could not be identified as at least chromosomally homosexual (“chromosomally” is my new word, I invented it just now, according to the spell check. It means, of course, “pertaining to the chromosomes, specifically: the last two chromosomes within the sequence that determine sex. Uses: Jan is female on her drivers license, but ‘chromosomally’ she’s a man. The man had a baby, but only because ‘chromosomally’ he’s a woman.). Such persons would be “transgender” lesbians/homosexuals, a person who used to be (for this example) male and has become a female, and now identifies themselves as a lesbian. The larger portion of the GLBT seems to find no hypocrisy in discrimination against such persons, while at the same time a straight transvestite is perfectly acceptable so long as he marries a straight woman.
That last line should finish “so long as his preference is straight women”. The marital status of the transvestite has nothing to do with it.
No.47 – If you see a beautiful woman and desire her, you may, if you wish develop a relationship with her, resulting in marriage, and morally act upon that desire.
#49 Br. Michael:
I suppose, in a strictly functional sense, a bisexually oriented person committing to a lifelong monogamous relationship is no different than either a homosexual or a heterosexual person doing so, in that the relationship is either same-sex or opposite sex. But to the internal experience of the couple, and each of the members of the couple, it might well make a difference.
There’s a webcomic I glance at occasionally that is essentially the author’s diary, in comic form. I forbear from giving the URL, because it is often not at all work-safe. The author is a women who identified as a lesbian, but it happened that she fell in love with, and eventually married, one of the few men she was attracted to. She has a couple of comics expressing her quandary about how to identify herself after this — she still doesn’t consider herself straight, and “lesbian with a husband” required a lot of explanation. For a while, she settled on just “queer,” but most recently she seems to have rejected the idea of labels entirely.
My point is, it’s complicated; and while from the outside it may seem as simple as “opposite-sex = straight, same-sex = gay,” from the inside it may be much more nuanced than that.
Now, as to: “do they procalim that they can sleep with what ever sex they want to?” — no. To proclaim bisexual identity is to proclaim that one is attracted to both sexes, and that one considers this an important part of who one is. It says nothing about one’s future plans for sleeping with anyone. Saying, “I am a bisexual, and I intend to be monogamous,” is not a contradiction.
#48 Clayton. So that I am not misunderstood: Sodomy is sinful regardless of whoever so engages. Scripture is clear. Ross does not read it this way, but most of us understand scripture as being clear and straightforward in this matter. To speak plainly, sodomy is unclean – dare I use this word? – in every sense, from the most literal to the most conceptual. Is this not obvious and incontrovertible? The difference here is that heterosexuals have an option. By choosing sodomy, their sin is all the greater (I would argue). It is,by any standard definition, a perversion. How else can it be described?
Heterosexual intercourse is not unclean – provided one is healthy, you understand. Evolution has seen to it that this MUST be so or the inevitable child will die in utero. Evolution has literally spent millions of years “perfecting” this process. The act and the end of the act or beautifully matched and scripture sanctions it. Scripture, like heterosexual intercourse, is fundamentally and purposefully life-affirming. Sodomy is the perfect reverse. Accordingly,whether the numbers of those who so practice are great or miniscule, the act falsifies the affirmation of life that is at the heart and soul of scripture: Christ died that we might live and yet live forever. Normal intercourse is this great truth but writ so small that even the meanest life can grasp the principle.
Ross is right, that evolution is not purposeful in the usual sense, and yet this remains true: the great evolutionary test is this, “Are you fit to live?” This is true individually so that it may be true in the species. Larry
I, for one am very glad that Ross is disavowing the, “God made me gay and God doesn’t make mistakes.” This passes for “doing theology” for many like Susan Russell et al.
The next step is to lay out foundations: A fundamental question is whether assuming Scriptures does condemn homosexuality, are we still free to ignore it because we know so much more than those first century primitives who didn’t know about “loving homosexual relationships”? Can we do arithmetic hermeneutics which a lot of liberals do? “There are only seven clobber passages condemning homosexuality, so we can ignore them.”
Great thread carried out at a high level of intellectual engagement by virtually all participants. I find it particularly interesting the degree to which “evolution” is being used by various commenters looking at the issue from different positions.
I have one question for Larry Morse: what is “sodomy” in scriptural terms?
53, but surely the point is that if a bisexuals natural orientation (an idea with which I disagree but accept for this discussion) is to go both ways, then the requirement of monogamy is an unnatural imposition. This flows from the homosexual argument that their natural orientation is toward the same sex and that to insist that they have relations with the opposite sex in unnatural and unfair.
This line of argument seems to contradict your line of argument for the bisexuals who would, I assume that because their orientation is to go both ways they should be able to have relations with both male and female and enter in to some form of approved unions with them, unless you are saying that the requirement for monogamy trumps one’s natural orientation. Buy if you say that why can’t you say that the requirement of opposite sex relationships trumps homosexual orientation?
50 makes some good points which maybe should be explored. I also wonder that if things are as nuanced as you suggest and as fluid as 50 points out does the concept of orientation really have any meaning? Are not all these arguments simply justifications for people’s sexual behaviors, that is a matter of choice?
Br. Michael, I think you get it when you say that the concept of orientation has no real meaning for reappraisers.
I think it’s fair to say that Ross is saying that if a person experiences joy and life affirmation( and doesn’t harm anyone else) as a result of engaging in a same-sex act then the person ought to do that act. The morality of the act itself is of no consequence. This isn’t anymore sophisticated then “what’s good for me is good for me and what’s good for you is good for you as long as we don’t harm anyone else”. Of course, “good” and “harm” are subjective. too.
58, no I don’t think so. The two might be combined but what I am trying to figure out is why bisexuality is included the the GLBT agenda and what they claim for themselves. I am also trying to probe the internal consistency of the arguments. It seems to me that if we follow the GL argument and apply the same logic then, if there is a bisexual orientation (sexual attraction to both male and female) and if they (like the GL folks) are entitled to engage in the sexual behavior to which their orientation leads them, then we are talking about a triad with the bisexual having a male and female partner. Why should we honor hetero and homo sexual orientation and not the equally distinctive bisexual orientation? I guess to that extent it would be a form of polyamory. And as we have seen in article I guess you could argue that there could be monogamy within the triad.
Unless of course all these arguments are simply bogus and are nothing more than justifications of behavior. I tend to think that the matters of bisexuality and transgender undermine the GL arguments.
#57 Br. Michael says:
I refer you to my comment at #28. The argument you cite — that one must be allowed to follow one’s natural orientation — is not the argument that I am making. There are reappraisers who take that line, but I’m not one of them because I consider it flawed (although they do end up reaching the same conclusion that I do.)
My argument is this: if a desire can be expressed in a moral way — I used the language “appropriate and Godly” up above, which comes to much the same thing — then the church has no reason to prevent people from so expressing that desire… and in fact, to the extent that expressing that desire leads to joy, love, growth, etc., should positively encourage people to do so.
Thus, for instance, suppose I had a deep desire to make beautiful music, and a modicum of talent for it. (Sadly, I don’t; but suppose.) Can this desire be expressed in a moral and Godly way? Yes, of course it can. It can also be expressed in immoral and un-Godly ways, for instance if I were to become a jealous, backstabbing, success-obsessed musician, concerned only with reviews and status compared to other musicians. The church, insofar as the church is involved, should encourage me to express this desire in the right ways and not in wrong ones.
On the other hand, suppose I sometimes have a deep desire to punch people in the face. Can this desire be expressed in a moral and Godly way? Perhaps on rare occasions it can, but in general, no; and so the church should discourage me from acting out on this desire.
Therefore, my argument goes, if it is the case that a monogamous same-sex union can be a moral and Godly expression of two peoples’ love for each other — and I believe that it can, although of course you do not — then the church should not prevent it and should in fact encourage it when it seems to be a blessing for the two.
Since my argument does not rest on the supposed need to fulfil one’s orientation, I am not forced to concede that bisexually oriented people must be allowed to have at least one male and one female partner. Instead, I say that the church should allow them to marry whom they please, whether that person is same-sex or opposite-sex.
#59 phil swain says:
I can see why you would get that from my comments, but that’s not exactly what I am saying. Instead it goes more like this:
1) One should do what is moral, and not do what is immoral.
2) That which is of God is moral, that which is opposed to God is immoral.
3) Things that are of God can be distinguished because they lead to joy (as distinct from happiness), love, creation, growth, abundance, and richness. Things which are opposed to God can be distinguished because they lead to despair, apathy, destruction, diminishment, and poverty.
4) Therefore, if a given act appears to lead to joy, love, etc., and not to lead to despair, apathy, and so on, then it may at least tentatively be considered moral.
#62
I think we find in your statement the large communication gap that exists between reappraising and reasserting camps in this debate.
Your first two clauses to the reasserter mean that Scripture must be adhered to rather closely. If that which is moral is of God and Scripture is from God, and that which is opposed to God is immoral, then that which is opposed to Scripture must also be immoral as well, regardless of time, era, and epoch. If a certain commandment is not being adhered, it is only because it was fulfilled and amended by the sacrifice of Christ (i.e. Sabbath observance, purification rituals, temple sacrifices, etc); such amendments are given us specifically within the Scriptural narrative (Acts 15:24-29), the important moral code (regarding lying, slander, gossip, murder, sexual immorality, etc) is still to be followed, as repeated throughout all the Scriptural epistles. Such Covenant is in place until the Second Coming.
Reappraisers use the same Acts narrative to support their innovations, apparently claiming the Church in council reveals the will of the Holy Spirit regarding the moral practice of the age (or the localized [i] modern [/i] age, of course provinces just emerging from the stone age won’t be able to grasp it). Thus sexual immorality can be redefined not as [i] actions [/i] but as attitudes. Any relationship that can be defined as loving, nurturing, fulfilling, and supportive is moral; while any relationship that is hateful, co-dependent, possessive, and jealous is immoral.
Many reasserters would also argue that the attitude is important, that without Love and faith, works are useless; but that a faith without action is fruitless, and a faith that produces a different sort of fruit altogether is from a very different tree.
There was no pun whatsoever intended in the last line. I almost wish there were.
#63 Didymus:
Well, yes, the fact that reasserters and reappraisers approach, read, and interpret Scripture in very different ways is well known. And, as you observed, in my #62 I did not invoke Scripture at all, because I do not make the equation which you make, that “word of Scripture” = “word of God.”
In fact, the point of my #62, in part, was to answer a question which reasserters sometimes pose: if we do not know what is moral or immoral based on the word of God as recorded in Scripture, on what basis do we know it? My answer was we know it by whether it has the characteristics of those things that are of God (joy, etc.) or of those things which are opposed to God (despair, etc.)
Ross, I would suggest that some desires are sin and immoral per se. They cannot be done in a holy way. Can murder be made acceptable if the victim is dispatched quickly and humanely? So we have a fundamental disagreement. I would suggest the fact that a relationship is loving and committed can not make a fundamentally sinful act sinless. David and Bathsheba comes to mind.
I do thank you for attempting to argue the GLBT side and to make arguments that they might make even if they were not your own.
#66 Br. Michael:
I don’t think we’re disagreeing here. My point in #61 was exactly that just because something is a desire does not mean it is moral to act upon it. But if it can be acted upon morally, then the church should not oppose it.
(Also, specifically in regard to murder: murder means wrongful killing, and is therefore by definition immoral. Killing itself is usually immoral, but may be moral under certain specific circumstances, e.g., self-defense.)
Now, of course, I think that a same-sex sexual desire is capable of being acted upon morally, and you do not. We’re not disagreeing about whether all desires can be morally acted out (obviously that is not true) but specifically about whether this desire can be morally acted out.
And for the record, while I think that “loving and committed” is a minimum standard and a good start, I think it takes more than that before a relationship can be said to be truly Godly. See the list I’ve cited above: joy (as distinct from happiness), love, creation, growth, abundance, and richness… keep adding words in that vein.
Ross, then this is a gap that cannot be bridged by any argument. A same-sex desire canNOT be acted upon morally or in a Godly manner. You say it can. Scripture refutes this clearly. You may say you read it differently, but this is torturing a text; it is a mere idiosyncracy.
Well, so be it. The arguments above are still born because the common ground, which gives life to any real debate, does not exist. The debaters here have been very polite, but civility cannot take the place of substance, and here no substantive debate is possible. Larry
Larry Morse: what activity does scripture describe as “sodomy”? Does it address heterosexual sodomy?