Comments on: An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part IV)

Comments on: An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part IV) http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:58:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Funky Dung http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-13315 Funky Dung Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:52:32 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-13315 <blockquote>"Read the Experimental Theology essays amba pointed you to, and Weekend Fisher’s post here, and consider."</blockquote> I intend to (eventually). "Read the Experimental Theology essays amba pointed you to, and Weekend Fisher’s post here, and consider."

I intend to (eventually).]]> By: Funky Dung http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-13312 Funky Dung Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:50:28 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-13312 <blockquote>"I think Steve N. is correct in that this is not a matter to be settled by debate, but by experience. Different communities will have to make their own decisions, and will have to wrestle with how to then interact with other communities which have chosen differently. I will continue to try and move my communities in what I consider to be the right direction."</blockquote> It may not be resolved with debate, but I think debate, or at least public discourse, is useful for all involved. It may or may not change minds, but it should help each side to articulate their points more understandably and convincingly and to understand and apprecaite their opponents' points of view. <blockquote>"Funky, you remain a graceful debate opponent, and I’ll acknowledge that I cannot present you with the theological argument you need.</blockquote> Thank you for the kind words, but I know I'm deeply flawed and a long way from arguing with true grace and humility. <blockquote>"If that ever comes, it will need to come from a forceful Catholic thinker like yourself. I still think your explanation of why homosexual desires cannot be ordered except through celibacy is unconvincing"</blockquote> Technically, homosexual desires can also ordered through heterosexual monogamy, but I suspect that that option would regarded by most as unpalatable and/or unsustainable. <blockquote>"I also would still like to see you explain where you differ from the secular argument against gay unions you linked to here. But I respect the fact that you’re still considering secular unions as a viable compromise, and I hope you’ll continue to do so."</blockquote> It's been a while since I've read it. I'll have to refamiliarize myself. I've contacted the author. Hopefully he/she will stop by and clarify, defend, and/or repent from his/her arguments. <blockquote>"I will make one more criticism: For all your efforts at being fair, you (and your readers) do let your revulsion towards homosexuality bleed into your writing, and I do not blame sleipner or michael for responding to that tone with contempt. When pro-gay marriage boosters point out the lack of similar attention for heterosexual adultery among opponents, it is tone as much as political activism which we are talking about. That is bigotry, even if it does not make you a bigot (I would not call anyone a bigot who does not actively want to be a bigot). But I would argue that it is un-Christian, and ungraceful besides."</blockquote> While I do think adultery is a grievous sin, I do not think it is as bad as active homosexuality. Perhaps that is why I speak of them in different tones. While the partner in a heterosexual adulterous relationship is inappropriate because one or both parties are married to someone else, at least each is an appropriate recipient of erotic love from the other. Such is not the case with gay relationships because in all circumstances neither partner is an appropriate recipient of erotic love from the other. "I think Steve N. is correct in that this is not a matter to be settled by debate, but by experience. Different communities will have to make their own decisions, and will have to wrestle with how to then interact with other communities which have chosen differently. I will continue to try and move my communities in what I consider to be the right direction."

It may not be resolved with debate, but I think debate, or at least public discourse, is useful for all involved. It may or may not change minds, but it should help each side to articulate their points more understandably and convincingly and to understand and apprecaite their opponents' points of view.

"Funky, you remain a graceful debate opponent, and I’ll acknowledge that I cannot present you with the theological argument you need.

Thank you for the kind words, but I know I'm deeply flawed and a long way from arguing with true grace and humility.

"If that ever comes, it will need to come from a forceful Catholic thinker like yourself. I still think your explanation of why homosexual desires cannot be ordered except through celibacy is unconvincing"

Technically, homosexual desires can also ordered through heterosexual monogamy, but I suspect that that option would regarded by most as unpalatable and/or unsustainable.

"I also would still like to see you explain where you differ from the secular argument against gay unions you linked to here. But I respect the fact that you’re still considering secular unions as a viable compromise, and I hope you’ll continue to do so."

It's been a while since I've read it. I'll have to refamiliarize myself. I've contacted the author. Hopefully he/she will stop by and clarify, defend, and/or repent from his/her arguments.

"I will make one more criticism: For all your efforts at being fair, you (and your readers) do let your revulsion towards homosexuality bleed into your writing, and I do not blame sleipner or michael for responding to that tone with contempt. When pro-gay marriage boosters point out the lack of similar attention for heterosexual adultery among opponents, it is tone as much as political activism which we are talking about. That is bigotry, even if it does not make you a bigot (I would not call anyone a bigot who does not actively want to be a bigot). But I would argue that it is un-Christian, and ungraceful besides."

While I do think adultery is a grievous sin, I do not think it is as bad as active homosexuality. Perhaps that is why I speak of them in different tones. While the partner in a heterosexual adulterous relationship is inappropriate because one or both parties are married to someone else, at least each is an appropriate recipient of erotic love from the other. Such is not the case with gay relationships because in all circumstances neither partner is an appropriate recipient of erotic love from the other.]]> By: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Hooligan’s Holiday http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-13110 Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Hooligan’s Holiday Wed, 05 Jul 2006 01:20:47 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-13110 [...] An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part IV) [...] By: Tom Strong http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-12869 Tom Strong Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:24:19 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-12869 reposted from ambivablog (with an edit): Well, this has been fun. It's good for me that it's over, as I'm back to having no time for blogs. I think Steve N. is correct in that this is not a matter to be settled by debate, but by experience. Different communities will have to make their own decisions, and will have to wrestle with how to then interact with other communities which have chosen differently. I will continue to try and move my communities in what I consider to be the right direction. Funky, you remain a graceful debate opponent, and I'll acknowledge that I cannot present you with the theological argument you need. If that ever comes, it will need to come from a forceful Catholic thinker like yourself. I still think your explanation of why homosexual desires cannot be ordered except through celibacy is unconvincing, <strike>and relies on an unnecessary complication in your framework. </strike> [I'm striking this based on explication from another source; while I still think the argument is unconvincing, I understand the logic better now]. I also would still like to see you explain where you differ from the secular argument against gay unions you linked to <a href="http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2387" rel="nofollow">here</a>. But I respect the fact that you're still considering secular unions as a viable compromise, and I hope you'll continue to do so. I will make one more criticism: For all your efforts at being fair, you (and your readers) do let your revulsion towards homosexuality bleed into your writing, and I do not blame sleipner or michael for responding to that tone with contempt. When pro-gay marriage boosters point out the lack of similar attention for heterosexual adultery among opponents, it is tone as much as political activism which we are talking about. That <em>is</em> bigotry, even if it does not make you a bigot (I would not call anyone a bigot who does not actively want to be a bigot). But I would argue that it is un-Christian, and ungraceful besides. Read the Experimental Theology <a href="http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2006/04/spiritual-pollution-part-1-is-it_07.html" rel="nofollow">essays</a> amba pointed you to, and Weekend Fisher's post <a href="http://weekendfisher.blogspot.com/2006/06/ethics-what-about-homosexuality.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and consider.
Well, this has been fun. It's good for me that it's over, as I'm back to having no time for blogs.

I think Steve N. is correct in that this is not a matter to be settled by debate, but by experience. Different communities will have to make their own decisions, and will have to wrestle with how to then interact with other communities which have chosen differently. I will continue to try and move my communities in what I consider to be the right direction.

Funky, you remain a graceful debate opponent, and I'll acknowledge that I cannot present you with the theological argument you need. If that ever comes, it will need to come from a forceful Catholic thinker like yourself. I still think your explanation of why homosexual desires cannot be ordered except through celibacy is unconvincing, ~~and relies on an unnecessary complication in your framework.~~ [I'm striking this based on explication from another source; while I still think the argument is unconvincing, I understand the logic better now].

I also would still like to see you explain where you differ from the secular argument against gay unions you linked to here. But I respect the fact that you're still considering secular unions as a viable compromise, and I hope you'll continue to do so.

I will make one more criticism: For all your efforts at being fair, you (and your readers) do let your revulsion towards homosexuality bleed into your writing, and I do not blame sleipner or michael for responding to that tone with contempt. When pro-gay marriage boosters point out the lack of similar attention for heterosexual adultery among opponents, it is tone as much as political activism which we are talking about. That is bigotry, even if it does not make you a bigot (I would not call anyone a bigot who does not actively want to be a bigot). But I would argue that it is un-Christian, and ungraceful besides. Read the Experimental Theology essays amba pointed you to, and Weekend Fisher's post here, and consider.]]> By: Bryan Davis http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-12866 Bryan Davis Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:58:53 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-12866 Funky - As always since you linked me into your blog, I've enjoyed reading your well-thought opinions and arguments. I have to say, though, I don't think your defense in this series has been great. In this session: <blockquote>I disagree. Personal contact can and should impact one’s pastoral approach, but not necessarily one’s convictions.</blockquote> I think this is logical, but betrays a lack of humanity. Convictions, if accurate, should bear you through all, but contact with the unknown, especially when it is contact with the unknown about which you are convinced, tends to reveal poor convictions. Take, for example, a conviction that usury is wrong. It's biblical, right? And we can think of all kinds of examples of nasty banks and credit card companies ripping people off. But then you actually talk to one of the farmers or homesteaders who used a non-corrupt S&L back in the days; who was able to buy a house because of usury, who was able to keep their farm out of hock because of usury, and you see how these blanket assertations of moral certitude need finessing in light of practical, human examples. Now if your conviction of the immorality of homosexuality is based on the certitude of a 3rd party (i.e. Catholic dogma), familiarity with homosexuals may cause you to have to choose between faith and reason, which is always a difficult choice to make.
In this session:

I disagree. Personal contact can and should impact one’s pastoral approach, but not necessarily one’s convictions.

I think this is logical, but betrays a lack of humanity. Convictions, if accurate, should bear you through all, but contact with the unknown, especially when it is contact with the unknown about which you are convinced, tends to reveal poor convictions.

Take, for example, a conviction that usury is wrong. It's biblical, right? And we can think of all kinds of examples of nasty banks and credit card companies ripping people off. But then you actually talk to one of the farmers or homesteaders who used a non-corrupt S&L back in the days; who was able to buy a house because of usury, who was able to keep their farm out of hock because of usury, and you see how these blanket assertations of moral certitude need finessing in light of practical, human examples.

Now if your conviction of the immorality of homosexuality is based on the certitude of a 3rd party (i.e. Catholic dogma), familiarity with homosexuals may cause you to have to choose between faith and reason, which is always a difficult choice to make.]]> By: Funky Dung http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-12844 Funky Dung Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:12:35 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-12844 Please consider commenting on the posts at <a href="http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog" rel="nofollow">Ambivablog</a>. There are different related conversations going on over there that could benefit from your participation. Ambivablog. There are different related conversations going on over there that could benefit from your participation.]]> By: Imago Dei http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-38488 Imago Dei Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-38488 The Post that started it all An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part I) Response to Part I An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part II) Response to Part II An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part III) Response to Part III An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part IV) Both sides are articulate and intelligent. I encourage you to read through them (none of the posts are incredibly long). Tags: Christianity, Homosexuality  The Post that started it all An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part I) Response to Part I An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part II) Response to Part II An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part III) Response to Part III An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part IV) Both sides are articulate and intelligent. I encourage you to read through them (none of the posts are incredibly long). Tags: Christianity, Homosexuality ]]> By: AmbivaBlog http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-38489 AmbivaBlog Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2389#comment-38489  Funky Dung, my partner in disagreement about gay marriage, sent me this -- approvingly. Irony of ironies, it's an account of what I can only describe as a soul marriage between two gay men, although of course it does not speak that name. But the one who's writing says, "[N]ow we are family really. I could no Funky Dung, my partner in disagreement about gay marriage, sent me this — approvingly. Irony of ironies, it's an account of what I can only describe as a soul marriage between two gay men, although of course it does not speak that name. But the one who's writing says, "[N]ow we are family really. I could no]]>