Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[GrayMouser]

The main argument in her defense was that her confession may have been coerced while she was held in isolation and unable to contact a lawyer- I'm sure we all agree that confessions made under duress without access to counsel should be thrown out as worthless.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

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

To say that these and other punishments were inflicted by the state and not the church -including Protestants, of course- is dodging the issue- like saying the Communist Party of the Soviet Union didn't actually execute or even condemn anyone to death, and thus has clean hands.

I will never claim that the Church has no blood on her hands, though the blood shed over religious difference is far more disturbing and far more quantitative than the blood shed over sexual morality. Nor will I deny that her teachings were the primary source of the anti-sodomy laws of the later Middle Ages, and that they influenced the late ancient and Byzantine laws.

But your claim that Christianity tout court demanded that homosexual persons be racked, hung, disemboweled, etc. for 1500 years is flat-out absurd, an untrue slur, and frankly just as bigoted and blinkered as the claim that Islam as a monolithic entity is a religion of violence.

The Catholic Church, being at its heart still a Western, European institution, tends to follow the trend toward liberal humanism prevalent there, albeit with a time-lag.

Awfully nice of you seculars to lend us your humanism . . . oh wait. We had it first.

EDIT: Although I cannot say for certain about Judaism historically, I know that today many Orthodox Jewish leaders distinguish between anal sex and other same-sex acts, and considered the latter to be significantly less problematic. Given the general trend in Judaism towards pastorality and meeting people where they are, I'd suspect that the same was true historically, so that the claim that Judaism simplistically demanded that homosexual persons be stoned is quite doubtful.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I will never claim that the Church has no blood on her hands, though the blood shed over religious difference is far more disturbing and far more quantitative than the blood shed over sexual morality. Nor will I deny that her teachings were the primary source of the anti-sodomy laws of the later Middle Ages, and that they influenced the late ancient and Byzantine laws.

Took a lot of time to reply to this, mostly because (ironically?) I'm swamped by having to write, direct, set design, costume, and score two Christmas pageants for kindergartens, one Nativity and one Moses and the Red Sea (that one, they did the Nativity last year and the principal, who is a Christian, wanted something new, but from the Bible.)

But your claim that Christianity tout court demanded that homosexual persons be racked, hung, disemboweled, etc. for 1500 years is flat-out absurd, an untrue slur, and frankly just as bigoted and blinkered as the claim that Islam as a monolithic entity is a religion of violence.

Well, I'm more than willing to listen to any claims from the third century to the eighteenth where Christian spokesmen, expounding the doctrine that loving the sinner while hating the sin, stated that the government shouldnot apply hideous and ferocious punishments to people who indulged in sodomy.

Awfully nice of you seculars to lend us your humanism . . . oh wait. We had it first.

You did indeed- and then it expanded far beyond your reach- not that secularism is blameless. Between Marxism, Freudianism and Evolutionary Psychology, secularism has managed to besmirch itself pretty well on the issue of homosexuality.

How about we all agree that, whether there is a Creator of the ten billion Universes or not, He/She/ It/They does not particularly give a damn about whether two people of the same sex of one of the thousands of species on one of the billions of planets in one of the trillions of galaxies, rub their naugthy bits together?

EDIT: Although I cannot say for certain about Judaism historically, I know that today many Orthodox Jewish leaders distinguish between anal sex and other same-sex acts, and considered the latter to be significantly less problematic. Given the general trend in Judaism towards pastorality and meeting people where they are, I'd suspect that the same was true historically, so that the claim that Judaism simplistically demanded that homosexual persons be stoned is quite doubtful.

To which the only and obvious reply is, who gives a damn what a bunch of backwards bigots think? That some of them have advanced to the point that they reject the primitive savagery of the Bible is good, yes...

[GrayMouser]

And, speaking of nasty bigots:
DADT fail:

http://themoderatevoice.com/94555/dadt-fail/

[GrayMouser]

Look, as far as I can see,there is no problem whatsoever with Christianity accepting total gay equality, the same way it can accept total female equality- it doesn't alter the essential message, which is salvation and forgiveness.

If a Church chooses to draw a line in the sand on something as silly and non-essential as that, they will meet the result that the Catholic Church has met in the West.

I speak as someone having, over the years, met numbers of priests, monks and nuns involved in projects in poor third-world countries, and always having respect for their knowledge, concern and interest in the people they were dealng with- unlike certain other religious denominations; one thing you will come across from even the most hard-core secularists is respect for Catholic workers on the ground.

[inked]

The Church, Roman and Orthodox and Protestant, need not change its teaching to suit the culture at all. Secularists may desire it, promote it, even kill to try to accomplish such change. The Romans did, but you might note that you are not offering a pinch of incense to Caesar and worshipping at his statue to prove you are a genuine citizen.

To confuse the secular feminist agenda and the gay agenda with Christianity is just as erroneous as civilly requiring idol worship. The governing secularists will employ all their power to enforce conformity with their agendas, just check out your history from 1 AD to the legalization of Christianity and the secular administrations of the USSR before it fell (particularly Stalinists) and Red China today.

But the truth of the faith doesn't change to suit the whims of the culture.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Well, I'm more than willing to listen to any claims from the third century to the eighteenth where Christian spokesmen, expounding the doctrine that loving the sinner while hating the sin, stated that the government shouldnot apply hideous and ferocious punishments to people who indulged in sodomy.

It's certainly a fact that Christianity did not often oppose harsh treatment from the government for a variety of issues; in the East in particular, but also in the West, the tendency was to confirm the place of the government in establishment of order. Is this unfortunate? Certainly! Does it indicate that the Church singled out homosexuals to be boiled alive and broken on the rack? That question needs no answer.

A better approach to see ecclesiastical attitudes towards homosexuality is to look at the legislation and application of canonical penalties. They tended to focus on clerical offenders, and usually involved deposition from the clerical state. Even here, though, there was (as always happened in systems based on Roman law) a gap between legislation and application. For instance, St. Anselm of Canterbury (famous for Cur Deus Homo, the so-called ontological argument for the existence of God, and satisfaction theory; generally considered the most important Western theologian between Augustine and Aquinas) in the beginning of the twelfth century advocated leniency and moderation in the application of canonical penalty for sodomy, on the grounds that "the sin is so public and widespread that few even notice it, and thus they enter into it without realizing its gravity."

Not quite the same as demanding homosexuals be flayed alive, now is it?

To which the only and obvious reply is, who gives a damn what a bunch of backwards bigots think? That some of them have advanced to the point that they reject the primitive savagery of the Bible is good, yes...

I rather think the good men and women featured on Trembling Before G-d give a damn. Or is it only secular gays that matter?

Look, as far as I can see,there is no problem whatsoever with Christianity accepting total gay equality, the same way it can accept total female equality- it doesn't alter the essential message, which is salvation and forgiveness.

Here's a news flash for ya: In her doctrine, if not always in practice, the RCC does accept gay equality!

Originally Posted by CCC 2358

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosxual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered [This is language of moral finality, not (as it seems at first) of psychological disorder], constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. [Just like every other Christian.]

Inked: I never received my copy of this much-talked-about "gay agenda." I blame Customs.

[inked]

Do allow the internet to help:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ff...the+gay+agenda

The Gay Agenda, 1983, excerpted .... is rather funny. See search list.

More seriously, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda and the uses of the term.

I am not sure whom you should address in the matter of your failure to get a copy, since, apparently on this matter, you are quite the literalist!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Perhaps this is what is meant:

[inked]

GW, see the abortion II thread about gay adopters and surrogacy et alia and comment there about the issues raised, please.

I posted it there because of the LARGER ISSUES of BABY-MAKING and ABORTION and not because of the homosexual contextualization by the WSJ.

But you will need read the WHOLE article to get to the points about agendas being fulfilled.

[GrayMouser]

Flash updates: belated congrats to USA for repealing DADT.

Congrats to Illinois for recognising civil unions.

Mourning for David Kato, gay activist murdered in Uganda.

(And for anybody who swallows the government's line that he was murdered by a homosexual prostitute, I've got a few Chinese dissidents or Iranian adulteresses you may want to meet. - "Oh, no, that's totally different, those are good people, not some icky gay who deserved what he got.")

[BeardofPants]

Gah. Just, ... GAH.

http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2011/02/...ms-date-night/

Fail on so many levels. You apparently can't be a gay christian. And you certainly can't besmirch their "museum" with teh gayz. Entirely their prerogative, I know, on who they choose to let in, but... EH.

[Earniel]

Tsssk, and just when one thought the creation museum couldn't fail any more than it already had...

[GrayMouser]

They would probably say that since God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Mourning for David Kato, gay activist murdered in Uganda.

I was so horrified to hear about that. The media have power, and when they literally preach murder, murder is what happens.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Gah. Just, ... GAH.

http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2011/02/...ms-date-night/

Fail on so many levels. You apparently can't be a gay christian. And you certainly can't besmirch their "museum" with teh gayz. Entirely their prerogative, I know, on who they choose to let in, but... EH.

Im pretty sure discriminating based on sexual orientation could impact the public funds they receive.

[inked]

The CDC has published the most current data on the GLB demographic and illness and risk et alia. You may view it here:
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20...ce=govdelivery

[Tessar]

I'm not surprised.

[GrayMouser]

I was kind of surprised about smoking.

"For youth to thrive in their schools and communities, they need to feel socially, emotionally, and physically safe and supported," said Laura Kann, Ph.D., chief, Surveillance and Evaluation Research Branch, DASH. "Schools and communities should take concrete steps to promote healthy environments for all students, such as prohibiting violence and bullying, creating safe spaces where young people can receive support from caring adults, and improving health education and health services to meet the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth."

Certainly agree with that.

One question I'd have is that this is about high school students who self-report. Could it be likely that students who are GLBT- oriented but not open to admitting it are skewing the results?

Students who report being gay, lesbian or bisexual and students who report having sexual contact only with persons of the same sex or both sexes are more likely than heterosexual students and students who report having sexual contact only with the opposite sex to engage in unhealthy risk behaviors such as tobacco use, alcohol and other drug use, sexual risk behaviors, suicidal behaviors, and violence, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Certainly when I was in high school gays were much more closeted, but there were absolutely connections betwen being (heterosexually) sexually active and indulging in more risky behavior.

[Nerdanel]

to be fair, i haven't read the article yet, but the results sound promising.

Adams et al. "Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?"

abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014