The discussion at GetReligion argues whether Moore was bisexual with one of the liberals rejecting the term. I remember a reader at Susan Russell’s site posed the honest question, how can one be monogamous and bisexual. She responded “IGNORANCE ALERT” but didn’t answer the question, so I guess we will never know. It is amazing that these people preach full inclusivity for GLBT and can’t or won’t define what B means.
#1, I am not bisexual, so it is perhaps presumptuous of me to answer your question, but I’ve never understood why this is confusing to so many people. As I understand it, a bisexual feels himself or herself capable of forming an erotic attachment to persons of either the opposite sex or the same sex. There is no implication that they [b]need[/b] to have [b]both[/b] sorts of relationships in order to consider themselves happy or fulfilled. I am a married heterosexual male. I am sexually attracted to women, and I experience that attraction on a daily basis. My commitment to my wife, and to God-ordained sexual morality, prevents me from acting on those daily attractions. I made my choice 36 years ago–quite happily–and I’m therefore “out of the market.” I assume that a person who experiences him/herself to be bisexual is–in theory, at least–similarly capable of making a volitional commitment and living chastely, despite an ongoing attraction to others–in this case, to others of both sexes.
What does it matter whether he was ‘actually’ “gay” or “bisxual”?? What’s it going to change?
Allow me to submit something more important about the man and his church. Something that’s obvious. Something we can all agree on. Something with explanatory power.
That he was sumptuous. He led a sumptuous life, had a sumptuous death. He was surrounded by sumptuous people who follow a sumptuous religion. He has been extended a sumptuous obituary in a sumptuous magazine, with sumptuous photographs of him standing in sumptuous buildings, all analyzed in sumptuous typefont. Tastefully small dollops of thick, sweet, fat, creamy sumptuousness that can hide any number of faults, distract from any amount of decay, and can hold together any number of things that would otherwise fall apart.
Father Dan, I would disagree. If I have erotic thoughts to other males and Freud (and all probably all psychiatrists) states we all do, albeit some consciously, some subconsciously then am I a bisexual? No. If I had a homosexual encounter when I was in college (I did not), repented and never looked back, would I be bisexual? No.
I do find it tiring the lefties are fighting for the rights of bisexuals but can’t or won’t spell out what a bisexuality is, because bisexuality necessitates infidelity (as in this poor, degenerate man). Do we expect more from a group called Integrity?
#2 I simply note the liberal argument is normally made around identity. You are not suggesting that a bi – man or woman deny part of their identity, are you? On the other hand if this is indeed a matter of acting on choices….
I think the use of labels like “gay†or “bisexual†or “heterosexual†are really outdated. Bishop Moore was simply a man who wanted to do his duty in getting married and having children. Apparently, he enjoyed sex with his wife because they had nine children. However, he also liked men and he carried on affairs with men. I suppose you could call him bisexual. Today, people just like sex. I’m in my early thirties and over the course of my life, I have had the opportunity to meet alot of diverse people and see alot of “diverse†behaviors. I’m not surprised by Bishop Moore’s sexual proclivities, especially since he is from the “patrician class.†IMHO, most guys in the old moneyed classes tend to enjoy sex with both women AND men. It also doesn’t surprise me since the Episcopal Church historically is the church of the old money class, that same sex relations is a major problem. When I attended college in the South, I would say that quite a few of the athletes, fraternity guys and many of the popular people on campus experimented with same sex relations. I wouldn’t say that any of them are gay or bisexual. They like sex-period. Here in the Twin Cities were Senator Craig, a married man, was busted for soliciting sex in the airport restroom, the police had arrested hundreds of male travelers for soliciting sex in the airport restrooms. The Star Tribune mentioned that many of those arrested were executives and managers on business trips! Also, let’s not even get into some of the depraved things that married couples engage in, like the “Mandingo society.†One of my best friends has a friend, who is Nigerian, and he is invited out into the wealthy suburbs of the Twin Cities were he is paid to sleep with the husband’s wife while he watches!
The problem of pansexuality is very rampant, especially among upper class and upper-middle class families. We need to not only expose what is going on, but also have better instruction in biblical sexuality in our churches. That is the only way we can tackle this problem.
I think the question raised by GetReligion is an important one. Why does it matter if he was “gay” or “bisexual?” It matters because it goes to the definition of what exactly homosexuality is. You see, one of the things I’ve found most interesting in the sexuality dialogue in the Episcopal Church is how conservative it is. Of course I don’t mean conservative in a moral or ethical sense. I mean it more in an academic sense.
When we discussed sexuality in my university sociology classes it was argued that there is no such thing as a true “homosexual” any more than there is such a thing as a true “heterosexual.” What there is, is a continuum of sexuality upon which every individual moves during his or her lifetime. Some people are restricted more or less to one end of the continuum. I vividly remember one lesbian stating that she hated it when people talked about homosexuality as innate and biological, “It’s my choice” she said “and how can you say you respect me as an individual unless you respect my choices. If you say it’s biological then it can be treated. It’s not, it’s my choice.” The so-called queer studies arena of the academy seems to have far outpaced the discussion in the Church. So imagine my amusement when I graduated from college and went to an Episcopal seminary where those in favor of an “inclusive” church argued that we should bless same sex unions because “people are born this way and can’t help it. We can’t call evil what God calls Holy.” Putting aside for the moment that there is not even a nod to the doctrine of the fall in that sort of argument, it reveals that the argument within the Episcopal Church is happening on a much narrower playing field than the broader sexuality debate. In effect, there seems to be a division in our society–both among homosexuals and heterosexuals–between those who associate sexuality with orientation and those who associate it with behavior. There seems to be a further division among those who believe that participation in a particular behavior defines someone completely. The sexuality debate is first and foremost one of identity.
I personally believe that the gay identity is a modern social construct. That’s not to say that there weren’t people participating in homosexual behaviors down through the centuries, but it is only recently that “gay” or “lesbian” has become a category of identification along the lines of ethnicity. Since it is primarily about identity and by extension political recognition of that identity. then you need to claim everyone for “your side” that you can. Why do you think so much energy is expended to try and prove that this or that historical figure was “gay” when the entire concept is anachronistic, regardless of their sexual behavior? It’s because it lends legitimacy to the idea that “gay” is an identity.
So consider the similarities of behavior. Think back to the buzz when Tiger Woods stated that as a child he had come up with the word “Cablinasian” to describe his ancestry. He was attacked by some within the African-American community because he was seen to be rejecting his “blackness.” Ironically, the old one-drop rule had been reversed. In a similar way those folks, whether heterosexual or homosexual, conservative or liberal, who need sexuality to be innate must therefore label someone based upon their behavior. If Bishop Moore had affairs with men, he must’ve been a repressed homosexual, and therefore able to be claimed in the contemporary identity wars, despite his fruitfulness with his first wife.
The thing is, that way of defining sexuality is dead. It will take it a while to completely disappear from society, but it is dead. The sexual revolution has reached its zenith. All one has to do is look at the malleability of sexuality among younger generations raised in a society wherein traditional gender roles have been rejected. The Washington Times had a good article about this phenomena–especially present among younger girls–in 2004 entitled Partway Gay, it’s in their archive now, so it you want to read all of it you’ll have to pay a small fee:
[…]
Even gay rights veterans such as David Shapiro struggle to explain such equivocation.
Shapiro is head of the Edmund Burke School, a private, college-preparatory program in Northwest Washington. In 2002, Burke held a “diversity day†assembly in which students and teachers stood together in a circle. An adult leader took the group through various exercises, and in one of those, participants were asked to move inside the circle if they defined themselves as gay or lesbian.
One female teacher stepped forward, but no students did.
Then the leader called for those who thought of themselves as bisexual — the broadest label offered. Out of the approximately 60 pupils in the group, 15 obliged: 11 girls and four boys.
[…]
It upsets parents who like to fit their children into easily recognizable boxes (â€Do you like men or women? Pick oneâ€). Older gay rights activists get nervous about the political consequences, because if young women adopt a homosexual lifestyle assuming it’s temporary, couldn’t they also choose to abandon it?
“As gays, we have predicated our acceptance by the culture on something we can’t change,†psychology professor Diamond says. “We say, ‘Oh look at us! We can’t help it!’ That’s what the straights want to hear.â€
Older lesbians who came out in the 1970s can be especially hostile to the idea of flexible sexuality, she notes, accusing the younger women of being “either repressed lesbians or curious heterosexuals who are wasting our time.â€
It is the older lesbians who are wasting their time, according to Savin-Williams. “Identity labels are over,†he says. “This is a cutting-edge issue for all of us.â€
Also, irrespective of what one thinks of their stance on the advisability of psychological treatment of homosexuality, this video from the NARTH conference also looks at how these definitions are breaking down, especially among women:
At any rate, the issues of identity and polities make these issues extremely complex. Of course, it’s always convenient that the people being discussed are dead. If the revelation had occurred while they were living, one could just ask the question.
If I were in a position to speak for all reappraisers, I’d be strongly tempted to offer y’all a trade: you drop the tiresome insistence on misunderstanding bisexuality, and we’ll drop the shellfish thing.
People who are predominantly heterosexual are attracted almost exclusively to people of the opposite sex. People who are predominantly homosexual are attracted almost exclusively to people of the same sex. People who are somewhere in between are attracted in some proportion to people of both sexes.
The church has traditionally said to those on the heterosexual end of the spectrum, “Out of all the people you’re sexually attracted to, you get to marry one.” That doesn’t stop anyone from going right on being sexually attracted to large number of people, but it does sharply restrict what you’re expected to do with that attraction.
The problem from the reappraising point of view is that to people on the homosexual end of the spectrum, the church has said, “Out of all the people you’re sexually attracted to, you can’t marry any of them.” There is a profound difference between “one” and “zero,” and in that difference is the injustice we see being perpetrated.
As for people somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, it doesn’t deny their “identity,” whatever you think we mean by that, to be told they need to pick one person any more than it denies a heterosexual man’s identity to be told he’s not permitted to rut indiscriminately. “Choose one” is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, as long as everyone is given a realistic opportunity to choose their one.
Ross, we are not the cause of the “tiresome misunderstanding.” Look at the sumptuous comment #3 (does anyone else find that use of the word “sumptuous” repugnant?) or the “these terms are obsolete” in #6. These guys are fighting for bisexual rights and can’t even define the term.
And I am not sure that someone who identifies themselves as a bisexual would agree with you. Let’s say there is a person is 53% opposite sex attraction, 47% same sex attraction. We say OK, you must marry someone of the opposite sex. I don’t think that would go over well.
Finally, to your “If someone is predominantly attracted to someone of the same sex, let them marry that someone of the same sex.” That sounds great. Unfortunately, one must deal with the institutional consequences as well. It is my contention that this is incompatible with the continuation of the Christian church. There is overwhelming evidence that a denomination that chooses to bless homosexuality chooses institutional death. Look at Northern Europe where less than a half of a per cent of the population attend church. If you are prepared to accept the demise of Christianity, then go right ahead and bless same sex unions.
#10 robroy, you’ll notice I never said it was reasonable to tell a bisexual they must marry someone of the opposite sex. I just said “one person.”
You are right, of course, to note that “reappraisers” are not all of one monolithic opinion, any more than reasserters are.
As for “institutional death”… maybe. Even if there is such a correlation as you assert, correlation is not causation. I think the ongoing decline of the “traditional mainline” denominations in America and Northern Europe is a complex matter involving many factors, of which the stance that some churches have taken on homosexuality may be one. Do you think that if every liberal American and European church announced tomorrow, “On second thought, homosexuality actually is a sin,” then people would flock back to the pews? There’s more going on then just that one issue.
That decline is a serious problem, of course; but I don’t yet see evidence that “Impose rigid doctrinal purity” is the go-to solution.
#9, Ross: “The problem from the reappraising point of view is that to people on the homosexual end of the spectrum, the church has said, “Out of all the people you’re sexually attracted to, you can’t marry any of them.†There is a profound difference between “one†and “zero,†and in that difference is the injustice we see being perpetrated. ”
The problem with your statement is “injustice we see being perpetrated.” You seem to blame reasserters for this “injustice.” First, reasserters would contend they are not “perpetrating” this restriction to a person of the opposite sex, but, in fact, the Bible and the church canons make that restriction. So, before you loosen that restriction, change what you can change … the church should change the canons, not present the members a fait accompli by approving and consecrating Gene Robinson. But you and I both know that if the canons are changed, the membership will leave in droves, with their money. So the approval and consecration occurred, with all the bishops and deputies saying it doesn’t affect anyone but those in NH, and NH should have who they want as a bishop (even though the same could not be said for SC – until it became obvious to be consistent, the HOB had to give in). But what about changing the Bible? Well, now we have bishops saying it is only a guide that we use through our experience and the culture of our day (see PB’s comments, that our experience informs our approach to the Bible at meeting with SC clergy), and we have other bishops calling the Bible a sweet book of poetry and verses (see Bp of Lexington), and we have other bishops completely ignoring the gospels with impunity (see Bp Spong’s theses), (and then we have 87 year old bishops being inhibited for having a service for another province than the one TEC is in). Now, I agree that solid theology may not be the only reason for folks leaving TEC, but when you look at TEC’s record over the last 40 years and see its accelerated loss of membership in the last 4 years, especially in areas like Atlanta and Las Vegas, where the growth has been phenominal, you have to know that folks are jumping ship because TEC doesn’t have anything worth buying. To have close to 4 million in 1965 when the US population was @150 million, and less than 2 million in 2007, when US population is over 300 million, you have to know that your church no longer has anything valuable to people … the thing that was valuable was a standard by which to live that has been lost – lost through our clergy and bishop’s desires to live secular lives and change the theology of TEC for that purpose – divorce and remarriage ok, as many times as you want (see Bp Righter); fewer worship services; sin is nothing to dwell on – we must feel good about ourselves and the things we do, because God wants us to be happy; respect the dignity of every human being – no judging anyone else’s action for anything because that might hurt someone’s feelings and that would be against their dignity; and besides, there are no standards anymore by which anyone is to judge someone else’s behavior – all behavior must be accepted, or someone’s dignity won’t be being respected; if you take seriously any of the things Jesus spoke out against, especially adultery or fornication, you are a literalist and a fundamentalist and not a true Anglican, where totally opposite postions can be taken and held “in tension” – (Anglicans love that phrase), i.e the principle that fornication or adultery are not sinful and are to be celebrated, if in a monogamous committed relationship, is equally as valid as the principle that fornication and adultery are sins and separate us from God.
People are not stupid. They know when they are being played for fools for the benefit of someone else. The revelations about Bp Moore of NY and about Louie Crewe and their push for the reforms carried out in TEC for their own personal benefits do not resound well with the masses; same with the new theology for Good Friday espoused by Dean Jeffrey John and Ms Russell, which not only omits the atonement, but preaches against it, calling God a psychopath if the atonement was necessary, seemed produced for personal reasons. If wet feel good pablum is all that is being offered by an institution, why waste time or give money to it. Why not stay home, get more sleep, get more exercise – live healthier on Sunday than waste time on this junk. Why do we need to pay money or spend time for someone to tell us God doesn’t care if we are sinful, he just wants us to be happy, just the way we are. That kind of vapid theology for the past 40 years, and especially for the past 4 years, isn’t going to entice anyone to run a race for Christ.
Homosexuality as choice? This may bem but the h9omosexuals themselves say that they had been attracted to men from the time they were very yhoung. T his is not choice, if t heir remarks be true. Now this MAY be genetics or it may be in utero malfunction, we do not yet know. BUt that it many cases the homosexuality set set deeply before the age of choice. To be sure, some may choose it, but it is probable thqat those who claiom choice do so only because their preference already pointed them in one direction.
Now also, it is a spectrum matter as mentioned above. All young boys go through a latency period in which their energy is directed to other boys their age. This doesn’t mean, of course, to actually physical contact. They may masturbate together, e.g. This is homosexuality by definition. But it is submersed beneath heterosexual attractions, although those memories remain. The bell shaped curve will be the same for this issue as it is for all other. But it is also true that t he curve tells us that complete homosexuality is abnormal, and what no one will deal with is that a serious abnormality like this CANNOT be treated as if it were normal. So troublesome is this “normality” issue that the homophile agenda has gone to enormous lengths to act as if normality is either of no consequence or is nothing more than a manufactured construct.
In any case, Moore’s issue is different. He was married, had children because it was desirable for him to do so and had all sorts of sexual adventures with other men, which we may simply call sinful, hypocritical, treacherous, dishonest, what-you-will, and we may correctly conclude that he no more deserved to be a bishop than Oscar Wilde. His behavior was contemptible at every level, and he unquestionably knew it and did nothing about it. And in this duplicity, we see the answer to the question, “Should homosexuals be ordained?” LM
#13, I do not agree with your last statement. Certainly Paul Moore should not have been allowed to remain as a bishop or as priest. But to cast his behavior over all homosexual persons, regardless of their behavior, is too big a generalization, and, in my opinion, not warranted logically or emotionally.
But the evidence, however, circumstantial, is strong. We have seen homosexuality at its many pleasures in both the Anglican and RC churches and seminaries now for years. The results have uniformly been bad. VGR is simply the tip of the iceberg. We have seen duplicity, hypocrisy, betrayal of trust, over and over. Such a statement as mine is therefore warranted on the evidence we have. It is also logical. If you are a homosexual and wish to be ordained in the Anglican church, what do you do? You set up a smoke screen of heterosexuality and keep your homosexual encounters in the dark – which is precisely what Moore did. This is the logical course – if y ou are without integrity, of course, and we have been vgr’ed enough to know that integrity for homosexuals is an organization in California who chief characteristic is that its name is a smokescreen. LM
The discussion at GetReligion argues whether Moore was bisexual with one of the liberals rejecting the term. I remember a reader at Susan Russell’s site posed the honest question, how can one be monogamous and bisexual. She responded “IGNORANCE ALERT” but didn’t answer the question, so I guess we will never know. It is amazing that these people preach full inclusivity for GLBT and can’t or won’t define what B means.
#1, I am not bisexual, so it is perhaps presumptuous of me to answer your question, but I’ve never understood why this is confusing to so many people. As I understand it, a bisexual feels himself or herself capable of forming an erotic attachment to persons of either the opposite sex or the same sex. There is no implication that they [b]need[/b] to have [b]both[/b] sorts of relationships in order to consider themselves happy or fulfilled. I am a married heterosexual male. I am sexually attracted to women, and I experience that attraction on a daily basis. My commitment to my wife, and to God-ordained sexual morality, prevents me from acting on those daily attractions. I made my choice 36 years ago–quite happily–and I’m therefore “out of the market.” I assume that a person who experiences him/herself to be bisexual is–in theory, at least–similarly capable of making a volitional commitment and living chastely, despite an ongoing attraction to others–in this case, to others of both sexes.
What does it matter whether he was ‘actually’ “gay” or “bisxual”?? What’s it going to change?
Allow me to submit something more important about the man and his church. Something that’s obvious. Something we can all agree on. Something with explanatory power.
That he was sumptuous. He led a sumptuous life, had a sumptuous death. He was surrounded by sumptuous people who follow a sumptuous religion. He has been extended a sumptuous obituary in a sumptuous magazine, with sumptuous photographs of him standing in sumptuous buildings, all analyzed in sumptuous typefont. Tastefully small dollops of thick, sweet, fat, creamy sumptuousness that can hide any number of faults, distract from any amount of decay, and can hold together any number of things that would otherwise fall apart.
Father Dan, I would disagree. If I have erotic thoughts to other males and Freud (and all probably all psychiatrists) states we all do, albeit some consciously, some subconsciously then am I a bisexual? No. If I had a homosexual encounter when I was in college (I did not), repented and never looked back, would I be bisexual? No.
I do find it tiring the lefties are fighting for the rights of bisexuals but can’t or won’t spell out what a bisexuality is, because bisexuality necessitates infidelity (as in this poor, degenerate man). Do we expect more from a group called Integrity?
#2 I simply note the liberal argument is normally made around identity. You are not suggesting that a bi – man or woman deny part of their identity, are you? On the other hand if this is indeed a matter of acting on choices….
I think the use of labels like “gay†or “bisexual†or “heterosexual†are really outdated. Bishop Moore was simply a man who wanted to do his duty in getting married and having children. Apparently, he enjoyed sex with his wife because they had nine children. However, he also liked men and he carried on affairs with men. I suppose you could call him bisexual. Today, people just like sex. I’m in my early thirties and over the course of my life, I have had the opportunity to meet alot of diverse people and see alot of “diverse†behaviors. I’m not surprised by Bishop Moore’s sexual proclivities, especially since he is from the “patrician class.†IMHO, most guys in the old moneyed classes tend to enjoy sex with both women AND men. It also doesn’t surprise me since the Episcopal Church historically is the church of the old money class, that same sex relations is a major problem. When I attended college in the South, I would say that quite a few of the athletes, fraternity guys and many of the popular people on campus experimented with same sex relations. I wouldn’t say that any of them are gay or bisexual. They like sex-period. Here in the Twin Cities were Senator Craig, a married man, was busted for soliciting sex in the airport restroom, the police had arrested hundreds of male travelers for soliciting sex in the airport restrooms. The Star Tribune mentioned that many of those arrested were executives and managers on business trips! Also, let’s not even get into some of the depraved things that married couples engage in, like the “Mandingo society.†One of my best friends has a friend, who is Nigerian, and he is invited out into the wealthy suburbs of the Twin Cities were he is paid to sleep with the husband’s wife while he watches!
The problem of pansexuality is very rampant, especially among upper class and upper-middle class families. We need to not only expose what is going on, but also have better instruction in biblical sexuality in our churches. That is the only way we can tackle this problem.
-Vincent
I think the question raised by GetReligion is an important one. Why does it matter if he was “gay” or “bisexual?” It matters because it goes to the definition of what exactly homosexuality is. You see, one of the things I’ve found most interesting in the sexuality dialogue in the Episcopal Church is how conservative it is. Of course I don’t mean conservative in a moral or ethical sense. I mean it more in an academic sense.
When we discussed sexuality in my university sociology classes it was argued that there is no such thing as a true “homosexual” any more than there is such a thing as a true “heterosexual.” What there is, is a continuum of sexuality upon which every individual moves during his or her lifetime. Some people are restricted more or less to one end of the continuum. I vividly remember one lesbian stating that she hated it when people talked about homosexuality as innate and biological, “It’s my choice” she said “and how can you say you respect me as an individual unless you respect my choices. If you say it’s biological then it can be treated. It’s not, it’s my choice.” The so-called queer studies arena of the academy seems to have far outpaced the discussion in the Church. So imagine my amusement when I graduated from college and went to an Episcopal seminary where those in favor of an “inclusive” church argued that we should bless same sex unions because “people are born this way and can’t help it. We can’t call evil what God calls Holy.” Putting aside for the moment that there is not even a nod to the doctrine of the fall in that sort of argument, it reveals that the argument within the Episcopal Church is happening on a much narrower playing field than the broader sexuality debate. In effect, there seems to be a division in our society–both among homosexuals and heterosexuals–between those who associate sexuality with orientation and those who associate it with behavior. There seems to be a further division among those who believe that participation in a particular behavior defines someone completely. The sexuality debate is first and foremost one of identity.
I personally believe that the gay identity is a modern social construct. That’s not to say that there weren’t people participating in homosexual behaviors down through the centuries, but it is only recently that “gay” or “lesbian” has become a category of identification along the lines of ethnicity. Since it is primarily about identity and by extension political recognition of that identity. then you need to claim everyone for “your side” that you can. Why do you think so much energy is expended to try and prove that this or that historical figure was “gay” when the entire concept is anachronistic, regardless of their sexual behavior? It’s because it lends legitimacy to the idea that “gay” is an identity.
So consider the similarities of behavior. Think back to the buzz when Tiger Woods stated that as a child he had come up with the word “Cablinasian” to describe his ancestry. He was attacked by some within the African-American community because he was seen to be rejecting his “blackness.” Ironically, the old one-drop rule had been reversed. In a similar way those folks, whether heterosexual or homosexual, conservative or liberal, who need sexuality to be innate must therefore label someone based upon their behavior. If Bishop Moore had affairs with men, he must’ve been a repressed homosexual, and therefore able to be claimed in the contemporary identity wars, despite his fruitfulness with his first wife.
The thing is, that way of defining sexuality is dead. It will take it a while to completely disappear from society, but it is dead. The sexual revolution has reached its zenith. All one has to do is look at the malleability of sexuality among younger generations raised in a society wherein traditional gender roles have been rejected. The Washington Times had a good article about this phenomena–especially present among younger girls–in 2004 entitled Partway Gay, it’s in their archive now, so it you want to read all of it you’ll have to pay a small fee:
Also, irrespective of what one thinks of their stance on the advisability of psychological treatment of homosexuality, this video from the NARTH conference also looks at how these definitions are breaking down, especially among women:
An Overview of the Next Generation of “Lesbian” Women
At any rate, the issues of identity and polities make these issues extremely complex. Of course, it’s always convenient that the people being discussed are dead. If the revelation had occurred while they were living, one could just ask the question.
It matters distinctly in that it puts the lie to monogamous, stable, lifelong and all the other codewords …
If I were in a position to speak for all reappraisers, I’d be strongly tempted to offer y’all a trade: you drop the tiresome insistence on misunderstanding bisexuality, and we’ll drop the shellfish thing.
People who are predominantly heterosexual are attracted almost exclusively to people of the opposite sex. People who are predominantly homosexual are attracted almost exclusively to people of the same sex. People who are somewhere in between are attracted in some proportion to people of both sexes.
The church has traditionally said to those on the heterosexual end of the spectrum, “Out of all the people you’re sexually attracted to, you get to marry one.” That doesn’t stop anyone from going right on being sexually attracted to large number of people, but it does sharply restrict what you’re expected to do with that attraction.
The problem from the reappraising point of view is that to people on the homosexual end of the spectrum, the church has said, “Out of all the people you’re sexually attracted to, you can’t marry any of them.” There is a profound difference between “one” and “zero,” and in that difference is the injustice we see being perpetrated.
As for people somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, it doesn’t deny their “identity,” whatever you think we mean by that, to be told they need to pick one person any more than it denies a heterosexual man’s identity to be told he’s not permitted to rut indiscriminately. “Choose one” is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, as long as everyone is given a realistic opportunity to choose their one.
Ross, we are not the cause of the “tiresome misunderstanding.” Look at the sumptuous comment #3 (does anyone else find that use of the word “sumptuous” repugnant?) or the “these terms are obsolete” in #6. These guys are fighting for bisexual rights and can’t even define the term.
And I am not sure that someone who identifies themselves as a bisexual would agree with you. Let’s say there is a person is 53% opposite sex attraction, 47% same sex attraction. We say OK, you must marry someone of the opposite sex. I don’t think that would go over well.
Finally, to your “If someone is predominantly attracted to someone of the same sex, let them marry that someone of the same sex.” That sounds great. Unfortunately, one must deal with the institutional consequences as well. It is my contention that this is incompatible with the continuation of the Christian church. There is overwhelming evidence that a denomination that chooses to bless homosexuality chooses institutional death. Look at Northern Europe where less than a half of a per cent of the population attend church. If you are prepared to accept the demise of Christianity, then go right ahead and bless same sex unions.
#10 robroy, you’ll notice I never said it was reasonable to tell a bisexual they must marry someone of the opposite sex. I just said “one person.”
You are right, of course, to note that “reappraisers” are not all of one monolithic opinion, any more than reasserters are.
As for “institutional death”… maybe. Even if there is such a correlation as you assert, correlation is not causation. I think the ongoing decline of the “traditional mainline” denominations in America and Northern Europe is a complex matter involving many factors, of which the stance that some churches have taken on homosexuality may be one. Do you think that if every liberal American and European church announced tomorrow, “On second thought, homosexuality actually is a sin,” then people would flock back to the pews? There’s more going on then just that one issue.
That decline is a serious problem, of course; but I don’t yet see evidence that “Impose rigid doctrinal purity” is the go-to solution.
#9, Ross: “The problem from the reappraising point of view is that to people on the homosexual end of the spectrum, the church has said, “Out of all the people you’re sexually attracted to, you can’t marry any of them.†There is a profound difference between “one†and “zero,†and in that difference is the injustice we see being perpetrated. ”
The problem with your statement is “injustice we see being perpetrated.” You seem to blame reasserters for this “injustice.” First, reasserters would contend they are not “perpetrating” this restriction to a person of the opposite sex, but, in fact, the Bible and the church canons make that restriction. So, before you loosen that restriction, change what you can change … the church should change the canons, not present the members a fait accompli by approving and consecrating Gene Robinson. But you and I both know that if the canons are changed, the membership will leave in droves, with their money. So the approval and consecration occurred, with all the bishops and deputies saying it doesn’t affect anyone but those in NH, and NH should have who they want as a bishop (even though the same could not be said for SC – until it became obvious to be consistent, the HOB had to give in). But what about changing the Bible? Well, now we have bishops saying it is only a guide that we use through our experience and the culture of our day (see PB’s comments, that our experience informs our approach to the Bible at meeting with SC clergy), and we have other bishops calling the Bible a sweet book of poetry and verses (see Bp of Lexington), and we have other bishops completely ignoring the gospels with impunity (see Bp Spong’s theses), (and then we have 87 year old bishops being inhibited for having a service for another province than the one TEC is in). Now, I agree that solid theology may not be the only reason for folks leaving TEC, but when you look at TEC’s record over the last 40 years and see its accelerated loss of membership in the last 4 years, especially in areas like Atlanta and Las Vegas, where the growth has been phenominal, you have to know that folks are jumping ship because TEC doesn’t have anything worth buying. To have close to 4 million in 1965 when the US population was @150 million, and less than 2 million in 2007, when US population is over 300 million, you have to know that your church no longer has anything valuable to people … the thing that was valuable was a standard by which to live that has been lost – lost through our clergy and bishop’s desires to live secular lives and change the theology of TEC for that purpose – divorce and remarriage ok, as many times as you want (see Bp Righter); fewer worship services; sin is nothing to dwell on – we must feel good about ourselves and the things we do, because God wants us to be happy; respect the dignity of every human being – no judging anyone else’s action for anything because that might hurt someone’s feelings and that would be against their dignity; and besides, there are no standards anymore by which anyone is to judge someone else’s behavior – all behavior must be accepted, or someone’s dignity won’t be being respected; if you take seriously any of the things Jesus spoke out against, especially adultery or fornication, you are a literalist and a fundamentalist and not a true Anglican, where totally opposite postions can be taken and held “in tension” – (Anglicans love that phrase), i.e the principle that fornication or adultery are not sinful and are to be celebrated, if in a monogamous committed relationship, is equally as valid as the principle that fornication and adultery are sins and separate us from God.
People are not stupid. They know when they are being played for fools for the benefit of someone else. The revelations about Bp Moore of NY and about Louie Crewe and their push for the reforms carried out in TEC for their own personal benefits do not resound well with the masses; same with the new theology for Good Friday espoused by Dean Jeffrey John and Ms Russell, which not only omits the atonement, but preaches against it, calling God a psychopath if the atonement was necessary, seemed produced for personal reasons. If wet feel good pablum is all that is being offered by an institution, why waste time or give money to it. Why not stay home, get more sleep, get more exercise – live healthier on Sunday than waste time on this junk. Why do we need to pay money or spend time for someone to tell us God doesn’t care if we are sinful, he just wants us to be happy, just the way we are. That kind of vapid theology for the past 40 years, and especially for the past 4 years, isn’t going to entice anyone to run a race for Christ.
Homosexuality as choice? This may bem but the h9omosexuals themselves say that they had been attracted to men from the time they were very yhoung. T his is not choice, if t heir remarks be true. Now this MAY be genetics or it may be in utero malfunction, we do not yet know. BUt that it many cases the homosexuality set set deeply before the age of choice. To be sure, some may choose it, but it is probable thqat those who claiom choice do so only because their preference already pointed them in one direction.
Now also, it is a spectrum matter as mentioned above. All young boys go through a latency period in which their energy is directed to other boys their age. This doesn’t mean, of course, to actually physical contact. They may masturbate together, e.g. This is homosexuality by definition. But it is submersed beneath heterosexual attractions, although those memories remain. The bell shaped curve will be the same for this issue as it is for all other. But it is also true that t he curve tells us that complete homosexuality is abnormal, and what no one will deal with is that a serious abnormality like this CANNOT be treated as if it were normal. So troublesome is this “normality” issue that the homophile agenda has gone to enormous lengths to act as if normality is either of no consequence or is nothing more than a manufactured construct.
In any case, Moore’s issue is different. He was married, had children because it was desirable for him to do so and had all sorts of sexual adventures with other men, which we may simply call sinful, hypocritical, treacherous, dishonest, what-you-will, and we may correctly conclude that he no more deserved to be a bishop than Oscar Wilde. His behavior was contemptible at every level, and he unquestionably knew it and did nothing about it. And in this duplicity, we see the answer to the question, “Should homosexuals be ordained?” LM
#13, I do not agree with your last statement. Certainly Paul Moore should not have been allowed to remain as a bishop or as priest. But to cast his behavior over all homosexual persons, regardless of their behavior, is too big a generalization, and, in my opinion, not warranted logically or emotionally.
But the evidence, however, circumstantial, is strong. We have seen homosexuality at its many pleasures in both the Anglican and RC churches and seminaries now for years. The results have uniformly been bad. VGR is simply the tip of the iceberg. We have seen duplicity, hypocrisy, betrayal of trust, over and over. Such a statement as mine is therefore warranted on the evidence we have. It is also logical. If you are a homosexual and wish to be ordained in the Anglican church, what do you do? You set up a smoke screen of heterosexuality and keep your homosexual encounters in the dark – which is precisely what Moore did. This is the logical course – if y ou are without integrity, of course, and we have been vgr’ed enough to know that integrity for homosexuals is an organization in California who chief characteristic is that its name is a smokescreen. LM