Not Broken



The thing that I want most to tell my Christian brothers and sisters is that gay does not equal broken--at least, not any more than straight equals happy and complete. Part of the conflict that exists for gays, and part of what keeps many gays teetering on the edge of depression, may well be the fact that we constantly have this conversation. The knowledge that they aren’t truly accepted at churches or in the minds of a good percentage of others can’t be easy. That kind of stress would make the chores of life even more difficult than they are normally.

Gay does not necessarily mean broken and most gay people don’t want to be “fixed.” They are happy with who they are, they just wish you were okay with it, too.

I’ve had a similar conversation before and I’ve had friends point out to me that part of what bothers them about gays is the gay lifestyle. The infidelity, the promiscuous behavior, and some behavior that it would be pretty easy to name perverse. My response, of course, is that you get all of the above in straight communities, too, and you can register your disapproval in both cases. Just because the occasional, otherwise straight, rancher or goatherd likes to do naughty things to sheep doesn’t mean that all straight men can’t be trusted with the livestock.

And if a gay man or woman can have a fulfilling, loving relationship while proclaiming the glory of God and living a full life, can their action really be a sin? Could Paul be wrong? I think Paul may have been wrong and I think that the new covenant stripped away many of the rules of the Old Testament. Ten years ago I wouldn’t have said these things, but between seeing both good and bad gay relationships and searching my own heart, I decided that there was no way that I could personally condemn homosexuality.

-- zombyboy

Share this

I do love the idea of the

I do love the idea of the "personalist" school; sex is all about an orgasm to those people, which is just the strangest concept.

Amendments to previous

Amendments to previous post:

Depo-Provera is acting as an abortificacient rather than contraception 43 percent after 12 months, 32 percent after 24 months.

Patient Information brochure. "Now available in the U.S.: Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection.” Upjohn Phamaceutical Company, December 1992.

Okay, what I should have said is not that the technology doesn’t exist, but that it is so poor that no product is on the market claiming to stop ovulation that does not also act as an abortifacient.

the website joe linked I

the website joe linked

I don't have the numbers with me; but I think it's something like 60% of the time DepoPravera works as an abortifacient rather than actually preventing ovulation.

Hus- The catechism is a

Hus-

The catechism is a man-made tradition. None of the apostles of your Christ would have had a clue regarding most of its teachings.

I was using the catechism as a reference for the churches position. It is gap filling, but I think when you’re looking at the Bible, there are gaps that must be filled as many issues aren't directly addressed.

You can talk about it all you want to. I tolerate communists, the religious, etc. equally.

I'm glad your tolerate me. I'm not sure how to feel about be categorized with communists, though.

Joe-

Really? The RCC still keeps the Sabbath? I thought that went away, too. Let’s face it, the Church cherry-picks its Old Testament passages to fit its prejudices. Shrimp: yummy so no kosher laws. Gays: yucky so keep it an abomination.

The Catholic Church still keeps the Sabbath. The day of the week has changed (I'm not sure why, I probably new at some point, but I'm at school right now and my catechism is at home.)

Christ gave two moral commands. Love thy God with all thy heart and love thy neighbor as thyself.

I was trying to say that if you agree with the Catholic biblical interpretation that life begins at conception, the unborn would qualify as a neighbor, and should not be killed.

Neither of those seems particularly consistent with the Church’s treatment of gays. And neither has much to do with wearing a condom or preventing ovulation.

The treatment of gays and usage of condoms (as well as surgical sterilization if that's what you mean by preventing ovulation) come do come from that about which Jonathan’s original post stated, which comes from loving God if you believe that this natural law shows the way that his gifts should be used. The position on abortafacients comes form the fifth commandment.

Lisa-

I’m pretty sure that’s what the pill does.

Most oral "contraceptives" do three things. Mucus is thickened, so the sperm is less likely to reach the egg. If the egg is fertilized the uterine lining is altered (I don't remember if it's thickened or thinned, I have a book at home, but I'm at school right now), so it can't implant and is flushed out. If it does implant, hormone levels are still changed as if it hadn't, menstruation still occurs, and the embryo is flushed out.

As I was looking at the same

As I was looking at the same Wiki article I found this:

Finally, a number of thinkers of the "personalist school", most notably Karol Wojtyla, who was to become Pope John Paul II, argued that contraception is contrary to the interpersonal union that sexual intercourse should cement. The most popular form of this argument asserts that sexual union should involve total mutual bodily self-giving if it is not to be a form of self-deceit. Contraception holds back something significant, namely fertility, and hence is argued to be objectively anti-unitive, even if the couple subjectively feels united (that something is held back is clearest in the case of barrier methods, but it is argued that other methods still involve holding something back from giving). But to act anti-unitively is, it is argued, to act against marital love, and this is wrong.

This from a guy who never had sex? Who never married? :lol:

The Pill works by preventing

The Pill works by preventing ovulation, as well as making the uterus less likely to accept implantation of an embryo if one is created, and thickens the mucus in the cervix making it more difficult for sperm to reach any egg. Taken correctly, it is the single most reliable form of reversible contraception, with less than one in 100 women using the pill becoming pregnant in a year of continuous use.

Several different types of 'the pill' exist. Generally, they all have revolved around different synthetic estrogens and progestins, chemical analogues of the natural hormones estradiol (an estrogen) and progesterone (a progestagen). Most common brands use 20 to 40 micrograms of ethinyl estradiol as the estrogen component and either a fixed or varying (the bi and triphasic pills) amount of either levonorgestrel or norethindrone as the progestagen component.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contraceptives

Joe Miller, Anyway, I

Joe Miller,

Anyway, I thought that the Index still existed, it is just more "relaxed" now. I can't believe they put Laurence Sterne and Voltaire on it. Jackasses.

Joe Miller, They apologized

Joe Miller,

They apologized for burning Giodarno Bruno at the stake too (aftert they nailed his tongue to his jaw). Unlike Gallileo Bruno wouldn't renounce his scientific or religious ideas and for his courage and convictions they murdered him. Culture of life my ass. :wall:

Joe Miller, Well, it was

Joe Miller,

Well, it was always was futile for them to ban books. The knowledge is gonna get out.

Thea,

Ahhh, WTF?

Lisa Casanova,

That's what most forms of oral, etc. birth control do (they do other things too like change the cervical mucus to block sperm).

Thea, I'm pretty sure that's

Thea,
I'm pretty sure that's what the pill does.

Thea, http://kidshealth.org/t

Thea,

http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html

preventing ovulation. The

preventing ovulation.

The technology to do this does not exist to my knowledge.

I think most people are

I think most people are fairly libertarian on the issue in that, as long as it doesn't effect me, I don't care what people do. However, now that its being pushed into public school curriculum and the courts in regards to marriage, those who otherwise wouldn't care are defending their own beliefs.

When someone is minding their own business, good for them. When someone throws their business in my face, thats a bit different.

Thea, _They are both Old

Thea,

_They are both Old Testament references, but as you said there are many parts of the Old Testament that New Testament did not negate (like the Ten Commandments)._

Really? The RCC still keeps the Sabbath? I thought that went away, too. Let's face it, the Church cherry-picks its Old Testament passages to fit its prejudices. Shrimp: yummy so no kosher laws. Gays: yucky so keep it an abomination.

Christ gave two moral commands. Love thy God with all thy heart and love thy neighbor as thyself. Neither of those seems particularly consistent with the Church's treatment of gays. And neither has much to do with wearing a condom or preventing ovulation.

Hus, _Well, at least they no

Hus,

_Well, at least they no longer advocate burning apostates at the stake as Aquinas did._

Yes, they're quite the progressives now. Apologizing to Galileo and hinting at the same for Darwin gets them almost to the Enlightenment. And they stopped banning books in the 1960s. I give them 300 years and they'll hit the 21st century.

Now fundamentalists, on the other hand...let's see they're still working on widespread literacy, so it's probably going to be a while.

Thea, You can talk about it

Thea,

You can talk about it all you want to. I tolerate communists, the religious, etc. equally.

Thea, The catechism is a

Thea,

The catechism is a man-made tradition. None of the apostles of your Christ would have had a clue regarding most of its teachings.

Basically the RCC believes in "gap-filling." Which is alright; but it would be nice for them to admit that they are just making it up as they go. :)

Joe- They are both Old

Joe-

They are both Old Testament references, but as you said there are many parts of the Old Testament that New Testament did not negate (like the Ten Commandments). There are New Testament references like the unborn John the Baptist stirring in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary comes to visit her alerting Elizabeth that Mary is pregnant with Jesus that would also suggest the personhood of a fetus, but the two references above are the ones that people use all the time (and are in the catechism).

I was more trying to suggest that if you believe the Catholic interpretations of those versus, Jesus' teachings of protecting the weak and helpless (Good Samaritan, etc.) would suggest that killing the unborn is unacceptable.

Hus-

As long as you keep your ignorant goat herder religion to yourself, we’ll be on good terms.

If by this you mean I would never support legislation to ban birth control or advocate burning heretics or what have you; we're cool. If you mean that I won't talk about it or discourage others I know from disrespecting the sanctity of life as I define it; we might have problems.

I do disagree with Aquinas on several accounts (I was once told that Aquinas would advocate burning me for how I view free will), but I agree with almost all of the catechism. Hopefully, we can still be friends and perhaps a little more civil in our word choice.

Joe Miller, Well, at least

Joe Miller,

Well, at least they no longer advocate burning apostates at the stake as Aquinas did. :behead:

EssEm,

Its a human created institution which is as amenable to cultural change as any other human created institution.

EssEm, _And then how does

EssEm,

_And then how does the Roman Church teach 1 billion members about this issue?_

Well, a nice starting point would be to acknowledge the folly of basing one's theology on Aristotelian metaphysics. We've known for a long time that Aristotle's (and by extension Aquinas') claim that everything has one specific function is just false. The church has recognized this in its (limited) acceptance of Darwin. Why it insists on clinging onto clearly false mideval philosophy that is itself grounded in even more clearly false ancient physics and metaphysics is beyond me. It's particularly puzzling that the RCC clings to these outdated views of the world in the realm of sexual ethics while having ditched it in other areas without too much grave consequence.

One would think that the RCC would have learned the folly of embracing theologically-driven explanations of the world that simply don't mesh with the world as it exists sometime in the centuries after Galileo, but alas, some take longer to learn things than others.

_Whether you agree with the axiom or not, I think you have to admit that it is self-consistent and capable of providing responses to a variety of sexual questions._

Sure, it's consistent. Consistently providing insane answers is still consistent. While consistency is a good thing, it's not really all that good if it's not also attached to, say, plausibility.

There is a single and

There is a single and fundamental axiom which holds together the entire sexual ethic of Catholicism: that the sole enactment of human sexuality which fulfills its natural (and therefore divinely constituted) purpose is the intercourse of a married man and woman, which is open to the transmission of life. Whatever is incompatible with this is excluded: premarital and extramarital intercourse, masturbation, homosexual intercourse, artificial birth control. To depart from this axiom is to initiate the unravelling of the entire ethic. Whether you agree with the axiom or not, I think you have to admit that it is self-consistent and capable of providing responses to a variety of sexual questions. You may not like the answers (I certainly don't) but any significant exception will, as I say, eventually lead to the dissolution of the whole thing. And then how does the Roman Church teach 1 billion members about this issue?

It is painful for gays and lesbians (believe me, I know this) but to expect that the Catholic Church would risk self-destruction to please such a morally minor constituency (even though a not negligible number of its priesthood is homosexual) is to expect something that is not going to happen.

And politically, the strength and future of the Church is in the Third World, where Catholicism battles with Islam and evangelical Protestants, and where anything like a gay identity is microbial in size. It would be only a self-inflicted wound to embrace homosexuality. The example provided by the train-wreck of Anglicanism in Britain and North America shows the likely outcome of an orthodox Christian Church embracing the agenda of secular liberal culture. Why would Rome ever want to go down that road?

It is easy for outsiders to Catholicism (and some insiders, I note) to say, "If you don't like the rules, find another Church". That may be the right answer, but Catholicism is not a surface identity. It's archetypal, almost genetic, like Judaism. So to leave it is exile. But for many gay Catholics, to remain in it is torture. Exile or torture: what a choice.

Incidentally, the passages

Incidentally, the passages that Thea cites are not interpreted that way by religious Jews. Judaism does have some restrictions on the use of birth control, but those restrictions are derived from the commandment againt spilling one's seed, not from a belief that personhood begins at conception.

Joe Miller, The variants of

Joe Miller,

The variants of Christianity are as much a culturally constructed religion as the Bible is a culturally constructed text.

Francis W. Porretto, The RCC

Francis W. Porretto,

The RCC had a lot of insight when it was burning Hus to death (after it promised him protection no less) I'm sure. Sorry, the RCC has absolutely no place claiming any sort of historically sanctioned moral authority. Its been whipped into the corner (and thus behaving) by a few hundred years of secularism. One only hopes that it stays there.

Thea,

As long as you keep your ignorant goat herder religion to yourself, we'll be on good terms.

_________________________________________

I find it rather strange that when homosexuals make the effort to convince people that their actions are not evil (after all, didn't the recently deceased call homosexuality an "ideology of evil?") its bad form on their part. Now, imagine treating the efforts of interracial couples to also be accepted similarly?

The “problem”, as it

The “problem”, as it were, is the product of both secular homosexuals and moralistic religionists.

If homosexuals must find happiness in the acceptance of the general (traditional) public, then they may well be indefinitely frustrated. If “the church” insists upon claiming the mantle of “moral authoritarians”, then they ought not be surprised at the diminishing congregations world-wide.

As a “believer”, I’m responsible for my philosophy, not that of my neighbor. As for Paul, he didn’t speak from his own intellectual reservoir, lest the Bible be rendered worthless. He spoke of homosexuality as a “mind-set” that is imposed upon an individual; such is not subject to choice, per se. (Romans 1:27-28)

Thea, It's been a long time

Thea,

It's been a long time since Sunday School, but I seem to recall that Jeremiah and Psalms are in Old Testament, along with some other things about stoning adulterers and refraining from eating shrimp.

Catholics seem happy enough to ditch the kosher laws based on Christ's having severed the old covenant. Indeed, Jesus explicitly rejects the stoning of adulterers thing. That doesn't necessarily mean that Christ rejects all of the Old Testament, but, at best, tt seems odd to defend the claim that the Church's teaching on birth control follows directly from Christ's teaching by citing passages in the Old Testament.

It seems even odder to interpret poetry literally, but maybe I'm missing something there.

This is not a consequence of

This is not a consequence of any teaching of Christ’s. Rather, it arises from the Church’s interpretation of natural law. The same is true of its position on birth control, another subject that puzzles many persons.

I think the churches position on birth control (I’m assuming you mean abortifacients rather than condoms; if you mean condoms I agree.) can be extrapolated pretty easily from the teachings of Christ if you believe that Jeremiah 1:5 : Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I consecrated you. and Psalms 139:13-15 : You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb…My very self you knew; my bones were not hidden from you when I was being made in secret, fashioned as in the depths of the earth. imply that a person is a person from conception.

I know that a lot of people don’t believe the Bible to be a definitive source of moral conduct, and many others would not interpret those verses in that was, but oposition to birth control comes from the fifth commandment if you do.

Phelps, read that bit again.

Phelps, read that bit again. My point was not that they are unhappy with their sexuality, but that they are unhappy with the lack of acceptance. Indeed, most gays are happy with who they are and unhappy that they continue to have to justify themselves. Make sense?

There is no "internal cognative dissonance" there at all. While I am happy in one area of my life (my sexual orientation), I am not necessarily happy with my entire life (work pressure, health, whatever).

As for your assertion that the vast majority of homosexuals are "f-ed up from the neck up" is simply off base. Cite studies, show me proof that gays are less happy with their sexuality and that they are disproportionately subject to mental maladies (especially ones not connected to their feeling unwelcome by society at large). I've known gays that were well adjusted, happy people and gays who were insecure, screwed up people--just like the straights that I know.

Phelps, That's not my

Phelps,

That's not my experience with homosexuals. Maybe I am hanging out with too many gay chemical engineers.

I’ve never met a

I’ve never met a homosexual person who did not have deep seated personality problems. I’m sure that they exist, the same as there are people who are sado-masochists who are “well adjusted,” but there is no denying that ‘f-ed up from the neck up’ is the norm.

After having read "Healing The Shame That Binds You" By John Bradshaw, I have to agree with this.

Beyond the theological

Beyond the theological argument, I found the internal cognative dissonance in the post itself interesting. Pose

many gays teetering on the edge of depression

vs.

They are happy with who they are

I've never met a homosexual person who did not have deep seated personality problems. I'm sure that they exist, the same as there are people who are sado-masochists who are "well adjusted," but there is no denying that 'f-ed up from the neck up' is the norm.

Follow-Up Catallarchy linked

Follow-Up
Catallarchy linked my post from last week about homosexuality and the church. The conversation that grew up on their site is well worth the time to read through.

I think Paul may have been

I think Paul may have been wrong and I think that the new covenant stripped away many of the rules of the Old Testament.

That's a very Gnostic point of view.

There are plenty of

There are plenty of Christian and Christian-ish churches that will accept homosexuals and homosexual sodomy. If memory serves, one of them recently consecrated a homosexual bishop. However, the Catholic Church, though it will accept the orientation, will not accept the action. The Church regards homosexuals as having been specifically "called to chastity."

This is not a consequence of any teaching of Christ's. Rather, it arises from the Church's interpretation of natural law. The same is true of its position on birth control, another subject that puzzles many persons.

Catholic doctrine places the individual's conscience at the pinnacle of his Earthly judgment. God will judge you on how faithful you were to the dictates of your conscience, not by some extrinsic set of laws. In other words, if you sincerely believe you haven't sinned by doing X, then God will not hold you to account for it.

If homosexuals could just satisfy themselves with that, there would be no need for controversy. But homosexual activists insist that the Church change its teachings, which suggests that their consciences aren't all that clear after all. But hey, there are plenty of Christian and Christian-ish sects that will accept them as they are and as they do, so what's the big deal?

Could it be that they perceive the Church, its teachings, and its two millennia of tradition as possessing...dare we say it...insight? Or as it's sometimes phrased, moral authority? Of a sufficient degree to make them actually doubt themselves? What a dilemma!

I did find interesting that

I did find interesting that the one thing that got the Muslims, Jews and Christians together in the so-called "Holy Land" was a gay pride celebration in Jerusalem. Of course the same group was in Rome in 2000, their presence causing the Papacy to demand that the Italian government stop their gathering. So much for the right to assemble and free speech.

Lisa, _I agree with

Lisa,

_I agree with Joe._

Wow, there really is a first time for everything. :smile:

Lisa Casanova, Is listening

Lisa Casanova,

Is listening to the Smashing Pumpkins indicative of a disease? :end:

Lisa Casanova, I wonder if

Lisa Casanova,

I wonder if atheism is a disease according to Phelps? :roll:

Hus, Yep. Quit wasting your

Hus,
Yep. Quit wasting your time on discussion boards and seek help now!:grin:

Phelps, I agree with Joe.

Phelps,
I agree with Joe. What defines homosexuality as a disease? Why is it abnormal or deviant? If it's just because it's "different", the world is full of people who are not like the majority. Are they all, by definition, deviant? I think your comparison with fat acceptance is off, as well. Fat acceptance does not glorify obesity. It's about people asking others not to treat them as lesser people in an effort to motivate them to change.

Phelps, BTW, you'd have to

Phelps,

BTW, you'd have to first demonstrate that homosexuals are more dysfunctional as a norm before you can even begin to discuss the chicken and egg issue. So far you have given an unsubstantiated claim. In the real world we get to call bullshit on such until it is substantiated. :wall:

Phelps, *gasp* Someone asked

Phelps,

*gasp* Someone asked you to demonstrate the verity of your claim and that is a "tautology?"

Then you follow-up with a bunch of question begging assertions about the physical or psychological origins of homosexuality. :roll:

Phelps, I think that yours

Phelps,

I think that yours is the tautology problem in this case. You have defined homosexuality in such a way that it's bad regardless of its explanation.

More to the point, I don't see any justification at all for the claim that, if homosexuality is rooted in physical origins, then it's a disease and shouldn't be embraced. Why should the fact that a person is biologically wired in such a way as to sexually prefer members of his own biological sex indicative of a _disease_? That follows only if one _already_ assumes that homosexuality is problematic. It fundamentally begs the question.

Z, you have a tautology

Z, you have a tautology problem there. You challenge me to "show me proof that gays are less happy with their sexuality and that they are disproportionately subject to mental maladies (especially ones not connected to their feeling unwelcome by society at large)." The problem is that there is a good chance that you have a chicken/egg situation there. If homosexuality is physical (likely then to be from a hormonal imbalance) then it IS an illness and likely causes physiological mental disorders (the same way schizophrenia is a physiological disorder rather than a behavioral disorder). If it is all behavioral, on the other hand, then it is likely those very same inability to connect with society at large that caused them to have an altered behavior.

If homosexuality is physical, then it is an illness. No one "embraces" an illness. If it is all behavioral, then it is a deviancy. People rarely have a single behavioral disorder in isolation. Homosexuality, if behavioral, is likely to be a defense mechanism for other deep-seated behavioral problems. I think that there are a lot of really, really messed up people out there who have been harmed in the "acceptance" movement in this regard. Homosexual acceptance is no better, and I believe does more harm, than "fat acceptance" (which glorifies obesity rather than addressing the problem.)