I may or may not blog again on the case of Kevin Jennings. I do have another post in my mind, but it’s basically just an expansion on a point I made in my last post on the topic.
I hope the readers who brought up the issue of “gray areas” in this case appreciate that I did indeed acknowledge those areas (perhaps implicitly) in the very post to which they attached their comments. For I grant that, in this case, there are indeed gray areas (on the part of Jennings but not “Brewster’s” lavatory lover). But, there aren’t always gray areas.
But, it seems sometimes that all too many of our fellow gays (and a large number of straights, particularly men) have decided to replace the Manichean division of sexual expression (“good” when inside marital bonds, otherwise, “bad”) with the notion (to borrow a line from the movie Saved!) that “it’s all a gray area.” No, it’s not.
It is wrong for a man (or woman) to have sexual relations with a minor. It is wrong for a married man or woman to cheat on his spouse. It is wrong to promise fidelity to your boyfriend (or girlfriend) while carrying on with someone else. And there are other things, many involving coercion, which are clearly wrong.
That said, the older I get, the more I realize how amazingly complicated our sexual expression is (and the more, many more, gray areas I find). I still remain convinced that the highest form of sexual expression is between the two partners in a committed monogamous union. But, not all of us are so fortunate to find ourselves in such a state, hence the gray areas.
That said, I fear that all too many in the gay community echo that silly notion from Saved! that it’s all a gray area. This mentality suggests that, as we pull back from a narrow form of “acceptable” sexual expression which included all forms of same-sex physical intimacy, some are especially eager to reject not just those limitations preventing sexual relations outside the matrimonial union, but all limitations on sexual expression, throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
And it is unfortunate that today we have reduced discussions of such limitations to the rules of safe sex. We might better be able to make a convincing case for state recognition of gay marriage if we were able to talk about such limitations and the ends they serve. And to understand why it is that there are far fewer (far, far, far fewer) gray areas for married couples than there are for single individuals.
NB: I changed the title as the original made it seem the gray areas of sexual expression and marriage were one in the same–or similar, quite the opposite of my actual point.
Second time trying to leave a comment (I always have problems leaving comments on this site.)
“…as we pull back from a narrow form of ‘acceptable’ sexual expression…some [people] are eager to reject…all limitations on sexual expression.” This is why I oppose gay marriage and the normalizing of homosexuality in general.
The gay rights movement is both an effect and a continuing cause of the rejection of sexual limitations. People who support gay marriage and the normalizing of homosexuality have no credibilty objecting to any other aberrant sexual expression. What standard can such people appeal to to justify their objection? They can’t appeal to traditional morality because they’ve been undermining that for decades in order to pave the way for the acceptance of homosexuality. So, what’s left? Answer: nothing, except political expediency.
Gay marriage has been/will be legalized precisely because the concept of sexual limitations has all but collapsed. The tolerance that allows Hollywood to rally around Roman Polanski is the same tolerance that says gay is ok. You really can’t have one without the other and remain intellectually honest. This tension will be relieved, not by society restigmatizing homosexuality, but by society destigmatizing adult/child sex. That’s what I fear. And that’s why I oppose “gay rights”. Sorry, but that’s how I feel.
Sex outside a lifelong, sexually exclusive, publicly accountable relationship is wrong. I hope people will take a look at the ELCA’s statement on human sexuality which covers more than just gay relationships but addresses the problem of casual and exploitative sex. Here’s a link:
http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements-in-Process/JTF-Human-Sexuality.aspx
P.S. This comment fits better here:
OK, now that I’ve established a transition–I had a “Yep, I’m gay” moment at church today. I’ve been out to the people I interact with, but today, we had a discussion of the document on sexuality in which the ELCA welcomes gays. I spoke up at this meeting as to how much that document meant to me, a gay man. It was the first time I came out to the whole church. I talked about wanting to express my sexuality in a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship and how important for me it is to be in a church that supports this. Actually, not everyone in our church is so happy with the ELCA right now, and I might be one of only a few gay voices. Still, it was a great feeling.
I’m sure the Man In The Sky will no longer want to punish me with boils and that He will reward me with cake the way He does for all good little boys and girls who obey Him. I think He’s smiling–don’t you? Isn’t that sunbeam really God’s smile?
Gee, I wish I were as highly evolved as Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, Paula Poundstone, David Cross, Seth McFarlane, etc. so I didn’t have to worry about The Man In The Sky. But I’m just not as clever as they are and I never will be. Boo-hoo. So I’ll just work on my silly, clumsy way of asking my pal Jesus what He wants me to do with my sexuality. And I’m glad a whole bunch of dumb Lutherans think that Jesus our buddy actually wants gays to have lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships.
I have to go talk to my invisible friend now.
“This tension will be relieved, not by society restigmatizing homosexuality, but by society destigmatizing adult/child sex.”
The flaw in your argument is that you’re equating consening adults doing something you find objectionable with the sexual exploitation of children. This is the same moral relativism you claim to be disgusted by, and worse. People who rape and exploit children are sadists at best, and people who think pedophilies are “just like gays” are naive at best.
This is depravity at it’s most basic. Because gays adults marry you hink we as a society wil be forced to accept people raping infants, selling children and committing incest? That’s asinine. And what’s more all those things are acceptable in Wahabbi dominated Muslim countrie and “revolutionary” countires like Iran and Nicaragua. In Iran the first Khomeni ruled you could gratify yourself with an infant by “using her thigh” and Daniel Ortega is was widely know to have had raped his step-daughter before being elected president of Nicaragua.
Muslim U.N. peacekeepers in Africa have a horrific record on child rape, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and most other Muslims countries allow child brides to be married off to adult men. None of these countries accepts adult homosexuality and gays are persecuted by all, including now the UN where the new assembly chief said homosexuality was “unacceptable” in a speech.
Gay Americans have the same rights as you and I, and as a Republican I believe strongly that as long as protections for religious organizations are recognized gays should be married. I will not side with communists and Islamists in persecuting gays, and neither should you.
Dan, I’m one that hardly ever looks at things black and white, but I have to agree with everything you said in your post. Regarding sex with minors, what will help in that regard is to have uniform age of consent laws of 18 years. And make 18 years old the minimum age for marriage as well, with or without parental approval.
I’m sure the Man In The Sky will no longer want to punish me with boils and that He will reward me with cake the way He does for all good little boys and girls who obey Him. I think He’s smiling–don’t you? Isn’t that sunbeam really God’s smile?
Ashpenaz, are you suggesting God has evolved on this issue, or did you mean to state that God never wanted to punish sexually excuslive same sex relationships?
And I’m glad a whole bunch of dumb Lutherans think that Jesus our buddy actually wants gays to have lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships.
Besides the fact that I don’t believe anyone, Lutheran or otherwise, is dumb for believing that Jesus wanting gay persons to monogamous relationships (with persons of the same sex), it is still the case that a lot of people think otherwise. See Seane-Anna above.
You really can’t have one without the other and remain intellectually honest.
Seane-Anna, I strongly disagree with this. While it is true that there are many in the gay community that believe that it should be okay for 50-year-old persons to have sex with 15-year-olds, does not mean the rest of us believe that such behavior is abhorrent and criminal. These are two different issues.
Further, just because there are straight people who also believe so, and engage in such criminal behavior does not mean that your rights as a straight women should be abridged.
Pat, I was caricaturing, dismissing, and stereotyping my own faith before ILC came in and did it for me.
Ash, you over-estimate your importance.
Also, I’ve never dismissed your faith. Rather, I’ve challenged you to live it better. For example: Not bearing false witness against people, as you seem to do with me often. I must hit a nerve in you, or something.
As for the matter of the thread:
Yes, and I would add: Things which threaten your health and/or the health of others, are also wrong.
I disagree about where the “gray areas” lie exactly. In principle, what is not morally wrong is morally acceptable. If you’re an adult worthy of trust, having a healthy and honest relationship with a fellow adult worthy of trust, in principle you are morally in the clear, regardless of the exact degree of your mutual commitment. “The devil is in the details.” For example, are you taking the right health precautions? Is your partner really trustworthy? Are you really trustworthy? Etc. Simple human error, in other words, introduces or creates the “gray areas”. That aside, it’s more black and white: either what you are doing is basically OK and you shouldn’t wring your hands about it, or what you are doing is basically wrong and you should stop immediately.
Pat, I’ve come around to the that basic view. I would be willing to make it 17, but no lower.
I figure, what is the legal age of responsibility in other contexts? You have to be 18 to vote, 17-18 to enlist in the military, 17-18 to stand trial as an adult as a matter of course. (They bend it lower sometimes, but not as a matter of course.) Why should the sexual age of consent be lower? You’re not old enough to vote or to be tried as an adult – but you’re (supposedly) old enough to say ‘yes’ to a predator? That makes no sense. We should have a uniform age for all such matters, either 17 or 18.
Wow, what an amazingly narrow minded view. I guess anytime I see phrases like “most of the gay community,” I don’t really even have to look at the author of the post anymore. Have you considered blogging about something more specific than your narrow minded views that encompass “most of the gay community?”
The fact is that we live in a world with an amalgam of ideas on what we think “love” is and isn’t. We’ve somehow combined Romantic era love and courtship with Victorian ideals of purity and chaste, along with Medieval concepts of “death do us part” (never mind at the time human lifespan never went beyond about 30) and roll them all up into some package that we all are supposed to strive to. In actuality, there is no “traditional” form of marriage. Most often in history it was a condition that arose of our socio economic needs of family and tribe, and even the Bible, our justification for so much condemnation has rampant examples of slavery, incest, prostitution, etc. What sort of patriach of all the world’s religions should be held up who fucked his sister and then her concubine when she wouldn’t produce offspring. Honestly, this is what you’re holding and judging me against?
It’s very judgmental and self righteous to sit here and justify any sort of legal restrictions on gays due to your vision of morality. First, morality and rights aren’t the same. By this justification, I should not let any straight people have marriage rights due to people like Britney Spears and Liz Taylor. There are very many gay people who are mature and value long term monogamous relationships enough that they should have the same rights. If anything, 5 years later Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate on record since pre WW2 statistics, and Bible Belt states have some of the highest rates of divorce. And yet, you still want to go into other people’s relationships and bedrooms and play emperor. I know of MANY long term couples who have open relationships and are PERFECTLY HAPPY with the arrangments. Mature adults can have a discussion on the differences between emotional and physical and spiritual connections and be secure enough in themselves and their relationships to have purely physical encounters with others and not threaten the relationship.
Now, granted, that kind of trust and security takes a lot of time and maturity. But it happens and everyone should have the right to it. What works for you is fine, but mandating it’s the only viable option is selfish and narrow minded. We’re now a species that has advanced technologically enough where we live often to 100, and our relationships no longer need to be constricted to our belief in ancient sky gods, Bronze age tomes of morality, or be limited by our in tribal needs, responsibilities to child rearing or any other environmental condition that often because reason for our “traditional” methods of coupling. Anyone with any sort of anthropological background knows this.
I agree with that sex or relationships with people of too feeble a mind or maturity is not appropriate, but beyond that, what real justification do you have for the righteousness to condemn anything between consenting adults. Often many situations can involve consequences like veneral diseases, heart ache, and maybe even learning a lesson. But who are you to stand against learning the lessons of life or holding anyone back from the consequences of bad decisions? Most of the people I’ve met in this lifetime have had to learn many things the hard way. You may know that their decisions are going to end up badly, but taking some moral high ground or even going so far as to want to put legal restrictions on the behavior is far from reasonable.
I personally, don’t aspire to any sort of open relationship. I don’t look for it in partners, but one of the things that the gay movement has brought is an openness to at least look at other options. Many gay people, throwing off your judgments of them, have found many good arrangements that satisfy their needs. Maybe if straight people were more open to these and more comfortable, they wouldn’t need the threat of eternal hellfire over their heads to stay scared enough to make sure they never open their minds to any other possibilities. Often, infidelity, divorce, bad parenting and the like can be directly correlated to the pressures of trying to keep up the facade of the appearance of your “ideal” when it simply doesn’t work for everyone. Instead of discussing it or working it through, they are fearful of being judged by righteous folk such as yourself, and them it just ends up worse in the end.
The indignation you show towards non-monogamy is the same righteous tone taken by religious fundamentalists to judge and continue to deny basic rights toward gays. Let people live their own lives without your input. You can at least afford them that much dignity.
The term “gray” areas symbolizes to me the unwillingness to pass judgment. Whether in sexual or other behaviors people are not willing to stand on principle about a person’s dishonest/irresponsible behavior. I find this to be highly dangerous in that any kind of behavior can be excused. That’s really the issue. Americans are unable to make moral judgments.
Wow, Tim, fascinating rant and insight into an interesting worldview. Indignation I show toward non-monogamy? Same as the righteous tone taken by religious fundamentalists? You really do miss the point of my post.
Just go back and read my stuff on gay marriage. It’s fruitless to try to defend myself against your attacks. I have said before that if people don’t want monogamous unions, that’s their choice, but it’s a sham to call such relationships marriage as the institution itself is based on sexual exclusivity.
I can make this plea, but daresay it will fall on deaf ears. Familiarize yourself with my arguments before leveling your attacks. And especially my acknowledgement of these vast gray areas and appreciation for the the complexity of our sexual and my basic libertarian attitude when it comes to sexual expression.
Thanks for the reply Dan.
I will give you credit acknowledging the grey areas. But when you are still saying one is better than another, as you do in the post, you are passing judgment. Maybe you can argue in more detail WHY you believe this is the pinnacle and best that can be achieved? Maybe you could go into more discussion of the grey areas. You didn’t do either of these, you simply said you acknowledge it exists, and that you still hold onto black and whites, ie child molestation bad, monogamous marriage good.
Or maybe you could discuss some of my points. Like your sweeping vague generalizations of “all gay people.” Or historically how we hold up monogamous relationships when there is no historical basis for doing so. Or that people can be perfectly happy with mature open emotional or sexual relationiships. Again, you did none of these. You’re falling into the same knee jerk reactive traps you characterize your opponents on the left for, yet actively display them yourself when taken on.
You can do better, friend.
We don’t decide what is moral and what isn’t. God does. We don’t decide who we get to have sex with or how many of them. God does. Anything else is sin and despair and estrangement. Or, as Kierkegaard would say, the Sickness Unto Death.
That’s so tortured and confused, it’s almost impossible to make sense of it.
If we’re talking about State marriage licenses: they’re not a right – not for anybody – not even straights. Who the State offers them to – gays, straights, both, or neither – and under what conditions, is a public policy question. Not a question of rights. Witholding them from gays is not a “legal restriction on gays”. Sodomy laws would be more of an example of a “legal restriction on gays” and fortunately, those have all been struck down. Except in the relatively rare cases when a foreign national is involved, lack of State marriage licenses for gay or lesbian couples in no way stops them from committing to each other if they want to, or from implementing that commitment with legal arrangements like inheritance, medical power of attorney, etc. I think it would be a very good idea if society did extend State marriage licenses to gays – as a policy matter; as a way of saying that settling down in stable and monogamous unions is a good idea even for gays. Not everyone agrees with me on that. I accept that not everyone agrees with me, and that gay marriage, if and when it comes, should be enacted democratically.
I’ve been around for decades and have yet to meet couples, gay OR straight, who, at one and the same time, (1) lived by that philosophy, (2) had a relationship that they themselves would choose to describe as a true “marriage”; and (3) were authentically happy and mature. I’ve met various couples who had any two of the three preceding elements. Never all three. Not if we’re being honest.
Ash-
God does? Does he talk to you personally?
You would think a God who lived eternally and is all knowing and all seeing would find a better method of communicating his beliefs than using King James English stories about nomads and fucking your sister and knocking up a married women and crucifying her son to pay for a chick eating an apple. Just me thought….
ILC-
Is it tortured and confused to separately morality and law? I can think of many things legal that aren’t morally wrong. Driving 76 mph I would say. And lots of things morally wrong that aren’t legally wrong. Teaching your kids about mythical people and things that don’t exist, possibly grey areas like euthanasia or abortion.
You’re saying that everyone must agree with you on the state’s interest in monogamy before allowing gay people to have equal marriage rights. I would argue the equal protection clause says that we don’t need a majority to realize there are certain basic rights people should be afforded. If the state has an interest in providing those and does to straights, gays should have equal protection and afforded equal rights under the same law, without needing everyone’s approval.
As to your never seeing all three, a)why do you care? Do you really have such a strong interest in the private relationships and associations of others? b)I live in a town of less than 100,000 and can easily name 4 or 5 couples who would disagree those exist. I have no clue of your locale or social circles, but I don’t know that “I don’t ANYBODY” is necessarily a good basis for an argument. I don’t like women or have too many as friends, but I don’t campaign for their voting rights to be taken aware. Happy gay couples in open relationships aren’t unicorns. Just cause you don’t know any doesn’t mean they don’t exist or you shouldn’t respect anyone’s right to be in that situation without judgment.
6.Pat, I was caricaturing, dismissing, and stereotyping my own faith
Ashpenaz, I kind of understood that, and was addressing the substance of what you posted.
I agree with that sex or relationships with people of too feeble a mind or maturity is not appropriate, but beyond that, what real justification do you have for the righteousness to condemn anything between consenting adults.
Tim, first I would suggest that an older person having sex with a 15-year-old would suggest that the older person has too feeble a mind to be having sex at all. It could be possible for some 15-year-olds to be ready and mature for sex, but an adult should know better that it is, at best, inappropriate, and should be criminal. And a 15-year-old that is mature enough, would be mature enough to realize to wait until at least 18 to have sex.
You also address open relationships. Perhaps this is a gray area. It involves two consenting adults who agree that they are not committed to each other. While I personally dont approve of it, I don’t see how laws can prohibit such a thing. But I also believe this is not a marriage either. I also agree with you that we should not aspire to many of the traditions of marriage, including the ones you stated. But in the past 100 years or so, marriage has come to understood, among other things, a sexually exclusive relationship. Frankly, I believe that should stay the case for all marriage, including same sex. No, I don’t think we can mandate a law for such, but that doesn’t mean that same-sex marriage should change the definition and expectations of marriage (except for the gender of the two persons involved).
The indignation you show towards non-monogamy is the same righteous tone taken by religious fundamentalists to judge and continue to deny basic rights toward gays. Let people live their own lives without your input. You can at least afford them that much dignity.
We make judgments all the time. For example, I make judgments on people who believe I should be denied marriage.* I also make judgments on those who liken what happens to two consenting adults to pedophilia.
*For those who state that I have the privilege to marry a woman, I’m well aware of that. But since, in my view, my marrying a woman would be morally wrong, because o my sexual attraction, I don’t always feel the need for that superfluous quantifier.
14.We don’t decide what is moral and what isn’t. God does. We don’t decide who we get to have sex with or how many of them. God does. Anything else is sin and despair and estrangement. Or, as Kierkegaard would say, the Sickness Unto Death.
Ashpenaz, I’m afraid I can’t agree with that. First of all, there are various different opinions as to what has decided is moral, with different religions, and even within a religion. This includes sex. Also, even within a religion, morality has evolved. In fact, you have been a witness to that even in your own church.
Pat, good comment. The trouble is always: Knowing God’s will. People who claim they have an inside track on that are effectively presuming to speak for God. And, are thus liars.
At least I got to the dismissing, caricaturing, and stereotyping before anyone else did. But it was nice of all of you to chime in. Did you follow the link to the document the ELCA wrote? You might find that the sort of reasoning they used really doesn’t involve the sort of weird superstitious irrationality you think it does. There is nary a reference to The Man In the Sky. But there is a discussion of God, revelation, human experience, history, Scripture, and all that. I look forward to your comments on the document. Here’s that link again:
http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements-in-Process/JTF-Human-Sexuality.aspx
Or you can just throw out a bunch more stereotypes. That’s fun too, isn’t it?
On the contrary. You clearly didn’t understand my comment.
Why Tim, I believe I was responding to a comment that you made. (ILC checks #15 again.) Yup, I sure was. That’s what people do in blog threads, you know.
(sorry, didn’t close the blockquote correctly… what is after “unicorns” is my words)
Ash: Let us all know when you’re done with your martyr’s pity-party.
Tim’s argument basically boils down to this: he wants recognition from a moral code he spits upon, protection via laws that he ignores at will, and access to an institution whose very basis he considers outdated and useless.
And he demonstrates Seane-Anna’s point very nicely.
NDT…
I lost interest in trying to have a discussion with Tim a while ago. approving of Bawney Fwank’s condo and massage parlor defending a coverup of sexual assault and encouraging sex with minors shows he’s not worth talking with.
Oh, I’ll probably quit the pity party about the time you make the effort to follow the link and read the document. But I’m sure you’ll find it much too long and hard for you. Which is no doubt true of all sorts of things.
You make me laugh 🙂
In fact Ash, your comment is timely because GayPatriot has a thread for you:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/10/04/whey-do-men-badmouth-those-whose-affection-they-seek/
It’s about men who want a person’s goodwill, and think that badmouthing him will win it. In your case, you want people (e.g., me) to do something on your agenda, and think that casting insults might inspire cooperation. Funny! 🙂
It is wrong for a man (or woman) to have sexual relations with a minor.
A 21-year-old woman with a 17-year-old minor boy? Is that so wrong?
No! A thousand times, no!
23.Tim’s argument basically boils down to this: he wants recognition from a moral code he spits upon, protection via laws that he ignores at will, and access to an institution whose very basis he considers outdated and useless.
I’m sorry, what are you talking about? What is with the inability to address direct points. I spit upon a moral code? I ignore laws? All I’m asking for is equal protection under the law. What is wrong with the regulars here who can’t argue a concept like equal protection and instead resort to name calling and personal attacks? C’mon.
LiveWire, you’re not any better. I was giving Barney Frank as another example of hypocrisy, the whole point of the thread. I try to have a reasoned discussion about age of consent and reality in a case where you are only using hyperbole and accusations.
Is there anyone on this blog who actually uses reasoned arguments instead of personal attacks? It’s getting really old.
Ah Tim…
Personal attacks = linking to your own words.
I’m not the one encouraging 15 year old boys to go out and get molested. You are.
Ashpenaz, I skimmed through the document, and from what I saw, it’s fine by me. It’s possible that I missed something, but I didn’t see anything that we have to wait for God to decide for us, when and who to have sex with, and/or lifelong partnership with. At least not more than any other decision we make. Sometimes when we wait for others (including God) to do the work for us, we end up waiting for a lifetime. And then when we die, and ask God why he didn’t do x, y, and z, for us, His response will be something like, “I did. I gave you a brain and the power to make decisions for yourself. What else did you want, an engraved invitation to do something that was apparent for everyone else?”
I don’t know where I was dismissing, caricaturing, and/or stereotyping. I was responding to your points, and was expecting the same in return.
A 21-year-old woman with a 17-year-old minor boy? Is that so wrong?
Daryl, I would first say that the genders involved doesn’t make a difference. As for the ages, I personally believe that anyone under 18 should not have sex. However, I don’t propose to make it illegal for someone underage to have sex with someone around their age. “Romeo and Juliet” laws can cover the situation when one is an adult and the other is a minor. I will say that four years difference is even stretching it. Besides, if the 17-year-old is mature enough, why not wait until he is 18? If the 21-year-old is mature enough, why not wait until his partner is 18?
Pat,
That’s why I refer to myself as a ‘two boats and a helicopter Christian’ After the joke where the guy says he’s waiting for the Divine to save him from a flood and waves off all attempts at rescue. When he dies he confronts the Divine and demands to know why he wasn’t saved.
“What do you mean? I sent you two boats and a helicopter, you idiot!”
Agree. And age differences are magnified at younger ages: among twelve year olds, for example, an age difference of one year is pretty big. What is a 21 year old doing with a 17 year old? It’s a college junior, going out with a high school junior. A little creepy.
Have you heard of “half your age, plus 7”? It’s a rule of thumb for the line where the age difference starts to get creepy. I don’t propose it for our laws or anything, it’s just amusing to think about. Take a few examples. For an 18 year old, “half his age plus seven” works out to 16. In other words, 16 is pushing it and if he’s dating a 15 year old, one ought to wonder why. For a 21 year old, the line is at 17-18. For a 60 year old, going out with a 37 year old is pushing it… while going out with, say, a 25 year old will make most people go “Eww!” outright. Everyone try it with your age.
(My case: 44 calculates a line at 29. So if I go out with say a 35 year old, people won’t react; but with, say, a 22 year old? Eww! And I wouldn’t want to; I’d find the person too immature.)
I’m not exactly sure why you think Christians are people who sit on rooftops waiting for God to speak to them directly. Christianity is about relationship and community, in the Trinity, in the church, in the family, in the world. You have a framework for what is right and wrong, but within that framework there’s a lot of activity. I believe that God reveals Godself in the daily events of my life, and if I pray and meditate, I can discern a path. But I have to keep moving and doing.
However, I’m pretty sure that a 50-year-old man with an 18-year-old boy is off the path. And I think that a talk show host having sex with his employees is off the path. And an adult director sodomizing a young girl is off the path. In fact, I would argue that sodomizing a young girl is the definition of “rape-rape.”
I’m glad that the ELCA has written such carefully reasoned document which reflects both a deep understanding of Scripture, tradition, and sexuality to help me better discern the path. But it’s still my path to walk.
26 here *sigh* not like I’ll be dating anytime soon.
Does break down though, I’m more mature than my second ex, and she’s 13 years older than I. 😛
Livewire, I was thinking about that joke when I made that comment. Just modified it for the situation. And even though it was a joke, it leads to a philosophy of using your gifts, talents, and resources, and not waiting for someone or Someone for an engraved invitation to get something done.
ILC, I like that formula. When I was 38, I dated someone who was 25, which does fall just outside that formula. I did consider the age difference, and thought it might be too much, but decided to give it a shot. And while I can’t attribute the breakup six months later to the age difference, I think it was a contributing factor. When I told my parents about the next person I dated (who is my partner now), the first thing my mother asked was if he was closer to my age (only a five year difference).
Ashpenaz, I wasn’t thinking about Christians in general. And perhaps you yourself aren’t waiting for God to speak to you directly. And I understand the meditating and praying, and that’s fine. I know it’s better late than never, but the path gets shorter and shorter, as time goes by.
TL: That’s why you’re The Livewire 🙂
I wonder if it could have anything to do with individuals who frequently claim Christianity in public discussions, but then say things like “I have sex with who God tells me to” without qualification (or for shock value)? Also who speak for God in moral discussions, make demonstrably false statements on people who challenge them, cast insults without regard to Jesus, make racist statements and then claim that it would be up to others to prove their statements wrong, and so forth.
I’m not making any statement here about Christians in general, nor complaining. Only offering one possible answer to the question.
Here’s another good article about why it is impossible for human reason to come up with sexual morality:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/oct/02/religion-ethics
I didn’t say who God “tells” me to–finding my lifelong sexual partner involves prayer and discernment, and accountability to a believing community, not direct communication.
Max Payne, an African-American, made the exact same comments about the black community as I did. On Glenn Beck the other day.
They’re not demonstrably false statements–they’re snide and snarky comments which require a gay sense of the ironic to grasp.
Too bad for you, then, that it *is* possible for human reason to come up with sexual morality.
Qualifications that you added, reluctantly, *after* I started challenging you on the patent absurdity of your original statements in the matter. Good for you, Ash. One thing where you did adjust.
Black people are capable of being racist, too, you know. Where reason and honesty hold sway, “somebody else said it too” is not a recognized defense for inappropriate comments (unprovable, ridiculous comments that cast aspersions on all individuals with a certain group membership status).
Because, Ash, that’s what Jesus would have done? But in fact, no: They were demonstrably false accusations. Period. Or “bearing false witness”, as the Bible calls it.
Sorry, try again.
Do you EVER follow ANY of my links? I really thought that was a good article, and it wasn’t particularly religious.
Jesus was known for being snarky.
It’s hard for me to see the difference between “defending Mark Foley” and “defending Mark Foley’s defense.” I guess that’s because I think what he did, along with Kevin Jennings, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Roman Polanski, David Letterman, et. al., was ABSOLUTELY indefensible. Which means–not because I or group of people like me think it’s wrong, but because it goes against the moral absolutes which God created as a foundation of the universe. Which He revealed in Jesus–the Word of God made flesh. And there is no other way except Jesus that we can find these moral absolutes. (I’ve been reading a lot of Karl Barth lately–you might google him.)
I didn’t say who God “tells” me to
That’s not the impression I got. Maybe it was a case of being snide and snarky, and it went over my head.
finding my lifelong sexual partner involves prayer and discernment, and accountability to a believing community, not direct communication.
Ashpenaz, it also involves action. Good luck.
they’re snide and snarky comments which require a gay sense of the ironic to grasp.
A suggestion. If someone ele interprets a comment to be a falsehood when it was intended to be snide, sarcastic, or whatever, it is best to say so, instead of repeating the falsehood. For example, you might say, “When I said all (or most) Blacks (or gays) are (some horrible thing), I really meant to say…”
Which means–not because I or group of people like me think it’s wrong, but because it goes against the moral absolutes which God created as a foundation of the universe. Which He revealed in Jesus–the Word of God made flesh. And there is no other way except Jesus that we can find these moral absolutes. (I’ve been reading a lot of Karl Barth lately–you might google him.)
That may be so, Ashpenaz, but in reality, it is impractical. Since the only communication any of us is indirect, and the interpretations of all such communications is different, it is incumbent on us mere humans to sort things out. Things change in time as well. Also, not everyone believes in the same God, and not all those who worship the God of Abraham recognize the divinity of Jesus.
God may have laid down the moral absolutes. We’re just not privy to it.
Insert “has with God” between “us” and “is.”
Do you EVER understand my comments? You provide the wrong links, at the wrong time. When you desperately need to provide evidence for some sweeping claim you’ve made about blacks or gays or whatever, you’ve got nothing… nada… zip… zilch. No evidence. On the other hand, in matters of DISCUSSION (not evidence) where links mean absolutely NOTHING because all they are is just somebody else’s opinion, you expect me to be impressed that you found someone who agrees with you… even after I explain to you, again and again and again and again, that there is NO REASON WHATEVER why I, or anybody else, should be thus impressed.
First, that’s false – He was known for having LOVE for people so deep that it changed their lives – But let’s leave that aside. The other point is: you’re comparing yourself to Jesus now? Fits the pattern.
Which has nothing to do with anything, because, again, I did neither. And I’ve made that clear to you several times now. Yet you keep repeating (or at least implying) the LIE that I somehow did. “False witness”, as the Bible calls it.
For the record, in the Foley-related discussion that we’re talking about, here is what I had to say about him and his activities:
That’s “defending” him? Or even “defending his defense”? False witness, Ash. Keep working on that whole ‘false witness’ thing.
But not learning much from the good Professor, apparently.
man prays to God “Please let me win the lottery.” Week after week he prays, and never wins.
Finally he cries out, “God! Why won’t you let me win the lottery?”
A voice booms out from the heavens, “Ash. Meet me half way… buy a ticket“
Livewire, your joke reminds me of the following:
A man buys a ticket each week for the lottery and always ends up losing. So he prays to God, “Please let me win the lottery.” God replies, “Buy two lottery tickets. It will double your chances.”
So, next week, he buys two tickets. Lo and behold, he wins. But still as disappointed as before, and asks God, “Why did You have me buy the second ticket? The first one was the winner.”