The Bible is not a clobbering tool... even though it has been used as such. the Bible is not a guiness book of world records or an indexed compedium, nor is it ammo! The Bible is a book of mysteries. Jesus wrote nothing. Biblical authority can't be understood nor is it at the heart of the dispute. The main argument is what the readers are bringing to the texts. what are people putting onto the Bible?
For one the whole idea of how the Bible is against homosexuality or that Jews and Christians should regard it as a sin is something people PUT ONTO the Bible. The Bible doesn't say this, people CLAIM it does. They are bringing to the text their understanding of sexual preference. Ancient people had no idea of preference, nor did people really think about it until Freud started thinking about it. The actual term HOMOSEXUAL is only 100 years old. Invented in 1892 by Charles Gilbert Chaddock and heterosexuality wasn't coined until 8 years later. Prior to that was the term "sexual inversion" which referred to not just same gender relations, but also to any nonconformity to gender roles I.E. political aspirations in women or men who like cats.
So what? Well for one there is no term that is a direct equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek... so not only does the Bible not address the issue, IT CAN'T. it simply doesn't have the language. but there are some passages that refer to same gender sexual ACTS (not homosexuality in the modern sense). The Greek term arsenokoites is as close as one can get but it is rare and of uncertain meaning.
Mark Jordan argues that we're missing the point anyway! here we're not argue'n about homosexuality, we're actually argue'n about what the Bible says.. the argument is over how to interpret the Bible.
I would argue that Jesus did infact give us some guidelines here. Take for example the parable in the mustard seed in Mt 13:31-32. traditionally interpreted this parable is about we have the same "seed" of the kingdom, the Word of God which starts small then all the birds roost in this big tree's branches. that's such a nice poetic parable. but how would a first century jew interpret this story? In stating that this man planted a mustard seed in his garden, the hearers are alerted to the fact that he was doing something illegal. Mustard was considered a weed!! An unclean image thus becomes the starting point for Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God in this parable. what Jesus was saying is that people are always trying to weed out the kingdom of God and this kingdom will keep popping up in unexepected places.
So we need to bring this into our lives as Christians. Find divinity where it isn't supposed to be; in humor, in secular, and in our LGBT brothers and sisters. We are to form lives and see Jesus in others. Worship is a theatre of lived possibility.. and guess what? Sexual desire is in the kingdom of God! We must work to deliver the gift of erotic back to the church. The church doesn't have a homosexual problem.. it has a sexual one. We must strive to be ethical in our sexuality, whichever MODERN definition we fall under.
Post Trackbacks: For the Bible Tells Me So
22 comments:
Hrmmm... Well, how would you interpret Romans 1:26-27? I don't ask to use the passage as a clobbering tool, I am genuinely interested in how you would exegete it because I absolutely see a negative view of homosexuality (even if it doesnt use the word, it certainly describes it in concept).
of course you see a negative view of homosexuality because you know what homosexuality is! Paul didn't. Paul only saw lust.
Paul is writing about uncontrolled lusts, which are bad in any situation, same-sex or not. what is beyond anyone's comprehension in the first century are loving, long-term committed relationships between two same-sex partners.
If you haven't watched it, i would highly recommend "For the Bible Tells me So".
"Paul is writing about uncontrolled lusts, which are bad in any situation, same-sex or not."
"Pathos" is used for "passions" and it is a very generic word for emotion, specifically to describe the "dishonorable passion" of women for women. He then says "likewise" with men, and uses a much more "uncontrolled" word to describe that passion (orexei, or "to be consumed with passion"). He makes the comparison between natural relations (man and woman) for unnatural relations (man and man) - verse 27. Additionally, the greek word for "natural" (phusikos) means "as intended, created, or natural to be." God created a man and a woman to complement each other. That is how Paul defines "natural."
So I would agree that he IS making a statement against uncontrollable lust. However, Paul makes it clear that lust for a member of the same gender is by definition "uncontrolled." This does not mean that the passion or emotion has to be wild or unpredictable, but certainly uncontrolled in the aspect that it is not the "intended, created, or natural" way of sexual relations.
"phusikos" i'd do a word search on that word to see where else he uses it in romans.
Paul is doing a classic stoic debate tactic.. getting his audience all excited in chapter one and then flipping it and saying "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?"
plus homosexuality is natural. scientifically speaking we find it in animals that mate for life, which include penguins, cardinals, purposes, beavers, possums, Gibbon apes, condors, and bonobo apes to name a few.
I couldn't resist chimming in on this....
Brad, you see a definite negative view of homosexuality? Before I refute what you have said, I would ask if you are overly familiar with
1st Century Hellenistic culture or the concept of "Pedastery." This is CRITICAL to understanding this passage and also later passages. (If you need/want, check out John Boswell for further info.)
This is an argument about which people could write more than a few blog entries. (And I'm sure that's the case....) However, with the passage in question I have some serious questions as to its being exegetically against homosexuality. Brad, you bring up the greek translations. I wonder, how much Greek have you had, friend? You are ignoring the word"Arsesin" in vs. 27. This word is built off of "Aresenokoiteys." Now, BAGD -the standard Greek lexicon- denotes this as describing "Pedastery" or, one who forecfully has sex with the underage. This is HARDLY describing a committed monogomous homosexual relationship. Also, your usage of "Pathos" is incorrect. You are projecting your own perceptions into this passage. Please, please, be wary. It's a trap we all fall into, but be wary. Pathos DOES NOT describe anything "Un-natural." What pathos, or "Pathey" in this case, does describe is "Lust or desire." To describe this verb as "Un-natural" is to project meaning. Paul is simply referencing "Lust" in this passage. You are also projecting meaning into what "Natural or phusikeyn" really means. To get an understanding of what "Natural," w/o our 20th cent. biases,means we have to dig deeper into the texts. Generally this involves building an argument off of the creation texts. Brad, I'm not sure of your theological proclivities, but I would be HIGHLY wary of doing such a thing. Thorough examination of the creation texts from Genesis 1/2 show that the J/P authors from both are NOT interested in setting sexual normatives with their writing. (Then again, that's just me and THAT is another argument, I suppose.)
Ultimately, if we look holistically at the Bible, there is NO blanket condemnation of homosexuality. However, there is blanket condemnation of lacivious sexual practices of both heterosexual and homosexual nature. Thus, I would say Luke is exegeting quite well.
Adam Wirrig
United Theological Seminary
Trying to convince an orthodox Christian that homosexuality is not in the bible (or even allowed) is like convincing an American to suspend his right to bare arms for the betterment of society - they are plausible arguments but once you are allowed to do something - humans usually stick to their guns.
I will no get into the Greek and Hebrew concerning this - it's just going to lead nowehere plus we do not trust interpreters to do this for us? I can see why be wary - but then we all better start translating from greek our own version of scriptures - like scribes. Not a bad idea really.
The debate is concerning homosexuality and I am going to state some of the obvious finer points I have seen and observed.
(a) Since we are talking about a 'clobbering tool' - Gay male sex disturbs most men - just being honest. Two females - not so much.
(b) As a straight person and being familiar with the gay community - it does seem not normal practice to me on some levels - namely physically. Men do not use correct holes for their actions (causing many problems) and women cannot do anything without the use of toys (which begs the question - why don't they just go with guys?). In the end - they cannot reproduce - making the relationship in one sense - fruitless.
(c) I cannot find one good reason why we would not warn someone about the consequences of their actions if we knew them quite well. Gay men are the highest group in society (per capita) to develop aids - second being needle users. I would warn a needle user of the dangers involved - just saying. There are some things still to be discussed on this issue concerning health and risk.
(d) The church's attitude concerning/towards gay people is bogus. If they are your neighbor - then you are to love them no matter what you may think about them or how creative your imagination is. I do not care if it is a sin - per se - but that my actions are in the corerct to as not be sinning against them (ie: treating them unequally or less than). My concern is somewhat for them - but I can only mind my own convictions on the matter.
I know I know - too honest.
Now THIS is what I'm talking about! I'm ecstatic that we are rooting this discussion in the text... Thank you (seriously)!
Luke,
"Phusikos" is used in a variety of ways, but being paired with "Kresis" (Louw and Nida: sexual function or use of the same or opposite sex) gives it a very specific and clear meaning.
And the "flipping" you point out is absolutely right. I wholeheartedly agree! We are not to judge a person, but to love. However, we are absolutely called to discern and "weigh and sift" behavior, particularly with other Christians for edification (this is the whole basis of Paul's letters to the Corinthians: loving rebuke).
As for the scientific basis of homosexuality... I'm not terribly convinced... Even if it does, why would the effects of the fall not influence the rest of creation? (appealing to a scientific base-->) one could also argue that evolutionary principles preclude the "naturalness" of homosexuality because it does nothing to enhance survival of the species.
Adam,
I am familiar with 1st century pedastry in hellenistic culture, but am always open to more info. I'll (try to) check out Boswell sometime.
"I wonder, how much Greek have you had, friend?"
2 semesters of Greek grammar, 1 of Greek exegesis, and another exegetical course (in progress) on Acts and Paul. However, I am by no means an expert, and certainly don't claim to be.
"Now, BAGD -the standard Greek lexicon- denotes this as describing "Pedastery" or, one who forecfully has sex with the underage."
I don't have BAGD in front of me, but Thayer, Louw and Nida, and the UBS lexicons all define "arsesin" as "male" or "man." The root is "arsein," not "aresenokoiteys." Louw and Nida define arsenekoiteys as: "m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse — ‘homosexual.’"
They cite 1Cor 6:9-10 as a verse using this definition: "… no adulterers or homosexuals … will receive the kingdom of God" But also add that "It is possible that "arsenekoiteys" in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with "malakos," the passive male partner."
Thayer agrees, but the UBS lexicon defines it more generally as as a "male sexual pervert" (pedastry definitely falls in that category, but cannot be used to interpret it specifically as such.).
Additionally, if Paul and intended ONLY pedastry (which I'm sure he would include in "dishonorable passions"), he would have used "teknon" (child) or "neaniskoi" (young man).
"Pathos DOES NOT describe anything "Un-natural.""
I agree, and didn't say that. The phrase that translates as "unnatural relations" (ESV) is "phusikon kreisin." A more specific translation would be "unnatural sexual relations" (Louw and Nida).
"Thorough examination of the creation texts from Genesis 1/2 show that the J/P authors from both are NOT interested in setting sexual normatives with their writing."
Oh i agree. the primary purpose of Genesis 1-3 is to explain the exodus community that the God that rescued them from slavery is the same God that created the universe. However, the use of "phusikon" elsewhere in the OT and NT support this meaning and is most likely the natural meaning of the text (no pun intended).
Adam, I love these conversations. I love the opportunity to take lofty conceptual discussions into the text itself. I look forward to more of them!
First and foremost I want to say that though I am debating on here. I really do respect all sides of this argument. I do not necessarily agree with all sides and feel it right to critique and question. However, I do respect the fact that we are ALL part of the infinite body of Christ and that in the body one organ's workings may not exactly make sense to the other organs around it.
With that being said:
I am dismayed at the level of projection going on in these arguments.
In response:
1.) The lines about not understanding gay sex are to be expected. However, I suppose, in response, a gay person would say that they do not understand a heterosexual person's sexual proclivities. Also, last I checked, straight people had anal sex too. Thus to say that men do not use "normal" holes is a bit off the mark. Also, most gays I know would say it's the love that makes the relationship, not the sex. There most def. can be love w/o sex.
2.) I agree that we would, and as responsible ministers, should warn people of dangers. However, that does not mean warning them against gay sex. That means warning them against unprotected and non-monogomous gay sex. (As THAT, along with illicit drug usage, has been what is proven to cause such a high rate of HIV transmission in gay males.) Since we are on this argument, I just want to point out that arguing that gay sex leads to HIV -as the original argument seems to point to- is a really moot point. The argument fails to hold when you start to look at other demographics with high HIV rates.
3.) Brad, you are right to say that Phusikos+Kreysis does seem to imply un-natural sexual relation. However, what you are not bringing out is the lynch pin of the argument in vs. 27 where Paul uses "Arsein." In verse 26, we are not givin specifics of what these "Un-natural relationships" really are all about. If this verse stood alone we would be left to assume that it simply meant same sex relationships which were burning with lust. (Which I would still argue does not describe a committed homosexual relationship.) However, thankfully, Paul goes on in verse 27 to specifically describe that which he is finding un-natural: pedastery. Again, an understanding of 1st Century Hellenistic culture/the concept of pedastery is very crucial to properly exegeting this passage!!
4.) I am very heartened to hear both of the other responders say that all is moot compared to loving other people. Good, I'm glad we agree on that. However, I would remind you all that we are called to love unconditionally. We are not called to love with an intent to change or influence. Christ is the judge, we are the tools on the journey which bring people into the Kingdom.
Peace be to ya'll....
Adam
Adam,
If Paul is referring to pedastry, why was he using words that refer to adult males (arsein)?
You didn't really address the argument except to say that I need to understand the contextual ramifications of 1st century pedastry. If it is that influential, Paul would have addressed it with significantly more specificity. As it is, his rhetoric includes pedastry in "unnatural relations," but in NO WAY limits "unnatural relations" to pedastry. And this isn't even considering 1 Cor 6 or Leviticus. You really do have to do some interpretive backflips to prove otherwise.
I want to affirm and agree with loving unconditionally. I have gay friends and have no qualms loving them as such. They do not subscribe to the Christian faith, and it is not my place to judge. But this does not mean that I have to subscribe to or agree with the homosexual lifestyle. If and when they become Christian, I would gladly and lovingly come along side them in their walk to help them understand God's love and walk in His ways.
This is not mutually exclusive with recognizing that ANY behavior or lifestyle is sinful.
Brad,
Ah. This is getting fun! :)
Let me first apologize, I re-read my first post this morning and it became quite clear that I was....well...a bit of an ass. My apologies for that.
Now, I'm no expert either, but after 3+ years of Greek I've got a bit under my belt. You are right to say that the root word in the passage we are debating is arsein. You are right to say that "arsein" is man. My UBS agrees with you. However, and I should have brought this out more fully in the previous posts, we cannot stop at stock definition here. We have to look deeper into the lexicons for cross-referencing. BAGD specifically cross references this under "Arsein" as being what is refered to in Romans 1:27. BAGD also cites this as being the case for 1 Corinthians 6:9. They also refute Thayer and specifically say that the term cannot just mean sexual pervert. Apparently that is way too bland a definition for such a term. I would be leary of defining this as strictly a "homosexual." That, again, seems a rather bland definition to a rather spicy word. Sadly I do not have my TDNT at home, or I would consult with that as well. (Give me some time and I can double check there too.) Though I mean no disrespect to your resources, I would say that with an inclusion of 1st cent. Hellenistic culture and the role of pedastery, arsenokoiteys is a good fit for the passage and an accurate description of what the offense is. With regard to some other things: Teknon would not have been used in this passage necessarily as "child hood" had a different connotation in 1st Cent. Israel. A man in his 20's would arguably be a child still. Thus to say taht Paul would have or should have used such a wording is to project our understanding of child into 1st Cent. Israel. (PS: I would be leary of saying what Paul would or wouldn't have put in place if he was trying to convey something else.....projection is the deadly sin of the minister.)
I find the creation texts as critical to this argument as they seem to be the texts which all arguments lead back to. ("This is the natural way of creation" etc etc....) However, I suppose that's another argument.
I would encourage you, as you sift, to look at the several other passages in the bible which are giving proscriptions against homosexuality. (There's only a few, so that's good, right?) If you can find a passage which proscribes and does not have some element of lust or lascivious sexual conduct in it, I'd really be game to know it. (I haven't found any, but that doesn't mean everything.)
It's rather apparent that you and I are arguing with two different intents. (One to prove, one to disprove.) Thus, I doubt we'll ever really agree on this. However, I do really like these exchanges.
Peace to ya'
ADam
Brad,
One last post and then I'm gone! ;)
I think I rebutted adequately in my previous post. However, I wanted to touch base, briefly, on Leviticus. Though I am NO expert on Hebrew, I would encourage you to dig into the linguistics of the passage. Doing so provides some interesting twists and turns. (Reference Boswell and some of his sources on this if you'd like. He does a masterful job of working through that text!)
Again, Peace to ya'!
Adam
"the "naturalness" of homosexuality because it does nothing to enhance survival of the species." -Brad
maybe it's not supposed to. maybe it's an inbuilt method for population control. this is theorized by Robert Sapolsky in his book "The Trouble with Testosterone."
I'd add that LGBT couples serve a role in the community as well as they are the leading adopters in the US. I've witnessed in my own church the great support and growth these families provide for children born of heterosexual lusts that Paul is speaking against in Romans.
"Since we are talking about a 'clobbering tool' - Gay male sex disturbs most men " -SVS
i'm more disturbed by 12 year olds having sex and producing children. of course you're disturbed, you're a heterosexual. interestingly you don't think two women are bad... like-wise because you're heterosexual!
as for the AIDS idea, the most AIDS/HIV in the WORLD is in africa thanks to heterosexual behavior in noncommitted relationships.
“However, I suppose, in response, a gay person would say that they do not understand a heterosexual person's sexual proclivities” (Adam)
Really? A gay person would struggle with the idea of sex between a man and woman? I am a betting man – I bet against you on this one. I think most gay people do not struggle to understand the sexual pleasure a man and a woman might gain from one another.
“Also, last I checked, straight people had anal sex too.” (Adam)
Agreed, many do. Not saying it’s the normal hole though for the act – it’s just another hole near the hole for the act – that some people get curious about (man is this funny). That hole – they poke into – is actually for taking a crap – thus the reason for a ‘g’ spot up there (sometimes we have to crunch a huge one and it is nice to know it’s not going to be painful).
“Also, most gays I know would say it's the love that makes the relationship, not the sex. There most def. can be love w/o sex” (Adam)
I do not disagree here either – I am just stating some of the finer points we never discuss…I think gay people can and do love one another.
“I just want to point out that arguing that gay sex leads to HIV - as the original argument seems to point to - is a really moot point” (Adam)
Agreed…just stated a known fact is all. Maybe they have no connection whatsoever – I am cool with that also.
“of course you're disturbed, you're a heterosexual. interestingly you don't think two women are bad... like-wise because you're heterosexual!” (Luke)
Just stating what most men are thinking is all. Now I can prove my point – anyone want to take a test to see if this is the case. Here is the experiment:
(1) Gather all the men you know and invite them to view 3 film clips
(a) Porn between a man and woman
(b) Porn between a woman and a woman
(c) Porn between a man and a man
(2) Gauge their reactions to each clip.
As for gay sex between men, I have even heard some lesbians exclaim how gruesome the act is to them – so straight men are not quite alone on this one. So being straight is not quite the only crew that can be disturbed by this.
As for the 2 women idea – I am not thinking outside the proverbial box here either. Did you know the 2nd highest watched porn in cyber-space is lesbian porn? This does not seem to disturb men as much as gay male sex does – this is just an honest fact. Otherwise – gay make porn would be hugely watched – by the men who dominate porn viewing on the internet.
If it were only about me – then you’d be right on the money Luke – I am the one disturbed because I am straight…yada yada yada. I say go and test it out – even ask questions concerning it – you will find I am sooooooo not alone on this one.
What does it all mean? Men seem to have less problem with women being gay (women can speak to this point – I cannot) then with men being gay. One could say, they find it quite abnormal (ie: not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard – Dictionary.com).
We can dance around the dictionary meaning all day – as in ‘straights are the one defining it’ – but statistically – gay males are not the norm in society (thus it can be viewed as abnormal from that standpoint). But honestly, sex between a man and another man doesn’t disturb you? Kudos.
PS: I know I will be hated for these comments - but someone has to say what most common people are thinking (I choose to do that this time).
SocietyVS,
You're entitled to your own opinion, however, I must say yours does disturb me. You seem to be drawing on the perception that you are stating things that "Most normal people are thinking." Generally, I've found that's a very dangerous thing to do as assumption tends to be the mother of all f*** ups.
A large portion of men, at least the ones I know and have talked to, are indeed "disturbed" by gay sex. Frankly, I've found this is mainly due to someone telling them it's okay to not like gay male sex. (Conversely that seems to show why lesbian sex seems to be more widely accepted as it is "Hot.") Thus, I would say most men are opposed to gay sex as they have been conditioned to it.
In regards to your final statement, no, I really can't say that I hate you. However, I feel rather sad for you as it sure seems there is an awful lot of suppressed hatred, or at the very least, willful ignorance in your comments.
Peace to ya'
Adam
Wow......lots of dialogue here.
Just thought I would wade in on the subject.
"Really? A gay person would struggle with the idea of sex between a man and woman? I am a betting man – I bet against you on this one."(Societyvs)
Ok I will start with this one. Its not that a Gay person doesnt understand the idea of pleasure, its just that if they are truly Gay then they would be as likely to be repulsed by the act of Hetero sex as you are Gay male sex. Now I think I know what the problem with most Heterosexual Men is, they think with 2 heads ;)
The reason a man doesnt have a problem watching 2 women go at it, is because they are thinking with their little head(though it may be big in some lol). Their view is based on sex not Homosexuality. When they think of 2 men going at it, they use their other head and then deem it repulsive. Thus the reason they would deem it un-natural. If you base your idea of sexuality only on procreation, then all of it becomes un-natural. So for all of us that would mean only intercourse. No blowjobs, cunnilingus, handjobs, fingering... and so on. Because that wouldnt be procreating. Now the reason you may think Aids may be higher in Gay Men could easily be explained by Lust. This leads men into high risk behaviour with multiple partners. If you are talking long term committed Gay Men, Im sure the incidence of Aids is considerably lower. Look at Gay women and Im sure this is also the case, as Gay women are probably less likely for high risk behaviour. At least not in the same number that men are. What is normal(average) for some doesnt necessarily mean its the only way. Now to bring this back to Biblical Ideas, its pretty obvious even from my amateurish mind(biblically) that the writers arent talking about committed Gay relationships. They are talking about LUSTS and PERVERSIONS. Big freaking difference, dont ya think?
"but statistically – gay males are not the norm in society (thus it can be viewed as abnormal from that standpoint)." -SVS
what is this?! i'm surprised you'd resort to this level of dillusion mi amigo. i respect you for speaking truth as you see it but i disagree and hope to do so without being too harsh.
based on this logic, statistically being a white male is also abnormal because the rest of the world is largely non-white and female. but females and males complement each other and you can't make babies without 'em.
so what are the ethics surrounding a hetero-couple who are barren or too old or just don't want kids? that's unnatural under this logic too.
so what is it about two males that disgusts people? could there be something about the issue of who's doing the penetrating? how could a man give up that role?! that's what the "abnormality" argument really plays on.
Last year theologian Mark Jordan talked on this very issue at LTS. Check it out here.
Then watch For the Bible Tells Me So. Plus there's some great literature about the response and reception LGBT members of the Native Americans (First Nations) people had. You'll be surprised at the acceptance there.
thank you for your comments! and, as usual, John T. RAWKS.
“You're entitled to your own opinion, however, I must say yours does disturb me” (Adam)
This is not really an opinion – it’s just the way it is common society and I am re-iterating the point on this blog. I don’t have any underlying fear or hatred for gay people – none whatsoever – in fact – I get along with the gay community quite well. I am aware of the problems people have with the community though – namely the problem with accepting the act of male to male sex as quite normal.
“Generally, I've found that's a very dangerous thing to do as assumption tends to be the mother of all f*** ups.” (Adam)
Maybe, but it’s not like that point cannot be corroborated either by anyone around any of us. Ask these questions to the people around – gay or straight – and you find this answer about male and male sex disturbs many people. Does that make it wrong? Likely not – but it does mean the acceptance of that act is going to be a tough sell in most communities.
“Thus, I would say most men are opposed to gay sex as they have been conditioned to it.” (Adam)
Again, this is likely so…but most men I know have imaginative minds and are reasonable enough to think this through themselves also…can’t blame only conditioning for their response. I think for most men the idea does not resonate with them very well because they cannot imagine themselves doing that to another man…namely being the receiver in the duo (it’s just not a common male position in sex).
“However, I feel rather sad for you as it sure seems there is an awful lot of suppressed hatred, or at the very least, willful ignorance in your comments.” (Adam)
It would seem that way wouldn’t it…explain gay make sex to me and it’s pleasures then so I can share this knowledge with the rest of the male population and possibly make it acceptable as a sexual norm in society? At present, that’s a very tough sell for many reasons. Most people won’t even allow their minds to go there never mind accepting it.
Feel sad all you want for me – I may very well be ignorant – then again I have to be – I have never given or taken in a male to male sexual relationship. But I am rather open and honest about it all – even more than most men to even talk on the subject…yet that is overlooked because for some reason I am stating the current consensus in society. So who’s really ignorant here? I would say likely all of us – unless we have participated in the act to speak of it.
“but females and males complement each other and you can't make babies without 'em.” (Luke)
Maybe I am out of line with the statistics thing – but just showing how they are used in most polls to describe something ‘not the norm’. I am not a big fan of statistics myself – just thought I’d state the objectionable side of the argument from a common male person view – which might be steeped in ignorance – but is also the common view nonetheless.
I never once mentioned the female – male relationship and breeding – so I am not sure why I have to answer for it…maybe I hinted at it?
Anyways, females and males complement each other – sexually speaking also. I am yet to find proof this true for the male male relationship (or even the female female one). It’s just beyond obvious to me – man and woman fit together – which in turn can produce something (ie: a baby).
As for your example about an older couple or even a barren – granted they cannot produce kids – but the equipment for it is still within the bodies…and in many cases barren people have produced children. So the possibility is still there. As for the elderly – well those years passed them by and the equipment for such an endeavor has passed its peak age of being workable anymore. In these examples, the biological clock is either run out or paused – yet the equipment either could or was able to produce. This is never true for same sex couples. The equipment is the same and non-complementary for the production of anything.
I don’t have kids and I am 33. Am I to be faulted if something is not working? Maybe I never have kids. All I know is the possibility exists. I am comfortable either way to be honest….with or without children. That child would, if born, contain the dna of me and my partner…true? This is an impossibility for any gay union. Now that is a solid fact. I can see why there is debate on the issue concerning the acceptance of gay unions. Something is amiss.
“Plus there's some great literature about the response and reception LGBT members of the Native Americans (First Nations) people had. You'll be surprised at the acceptance there.” (Luke)
Really? I live within the First Nations community and rarely step out of it to be honest. I know of the ‘two-spirit’ idea and the acceptance of the gay community within it…I commend my community for such a step and I respect it fully. I have no problems with gay people at all – and accept them as is. Nothing surprising about knowing my own community’s stand at all…I actually stand beside them in that idea.
I just don’t understand why everyone is having a tough time dealing with what is really going on in your local communities. People on here are acting like what they think is the actual consensus out in society – when it is not quite that clear cut. I know – we all want to just accept gay people – and I am there with you in that…however – you need to know the debate people are having in society also so you an defend your point of view.
Most people don’t actually care to think on these things – but if we want to defend the gay community then we better make sure we know exactly what it is we have to defend. Brokeback – a scene that merely suggested gay male sex – had people leaving theatres and fast forwarding on the dvd – I have even heard some male people say they will not watch the clip (again) because it disturbs them (and I am talking very open-minded people here – not some ignorant person without a grade 12 – very educated people).
I’ll be honest – I have to agree with the majority of these men – it is a little disturbing for even my mind to go there and think upon the act. And this is the case for thinking about other people having sex also – so this is not a big whoop to be honest. But the thing that disturbs men the most is the actual visualization of this act – and that’s the how and why’s of it (and men are very visual).
I had a chance this weekend to ask people about this – living up to my claim – and gauge what they thought. Take a wild one what most men thought? I can’t explain it – but the male male relationship bothers men – just the way it is.
Jason
I know where youre coming from, and I doubt that perception will change anytime soon(if ever). But just remember there was a time when the majority of white people had a hard time invisioning sex with a black person, or Native. It used to repulse the majority back then. It changed, but I wonder how many still dont want to inter marry to this day? The thing is they wouldnt be very forthright if they didnt. It wouldnt be politically correct.
I don't get why one of you keeps arguing that most hetero men are more disturbed by gay men having sex than lesbians. Duh, b/c you're hetero! I, being a hetero woman, would rather watch 2 men have sex than 2 women... because I'm attracted to men. It just doesn't seem like a good point to build your argument around.
SVS,
i was uncomfortable with the entire LGBT idea until i met them. you can read my first "coming out as an ally story" here.
until you're friends with them and see the love there, it's all abstract. until you see the people you just think about the acts in the bed. i dunno about you, but i really don't wanna see what my friends do in bed! (straight or not!)
Post a Comment