lumen
|
|
response 330 of 404:
| 
Nov 24 03:40 UTC 1998 |
re #328: Reminds me of what a Christian friend of mine said to me at work.
She believes homosexual activity is a sin (as many Christians do), but then
she notes that we are all sinners. If having homosexual sex is a sin, is this
sin therefore greater than other sins, as some claim? And if this is so, then
should they be ostracized? She doesn't think so. Let me explain why I think
not, as well.
The Biblical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth state that he made friends that
were considered questionable. They include the following:
1. Publicans, or Roman taxcollectors. These poor souls were probably not paid
a living wage by the Romans. They often overtaxed the people so they might
be able to have enough money to live on. One could agree this was a dishonest
practice, so Jewish leaders considered them outcasts, besides the fact they
worked for the Empire.
2. Women who worked as prostitutes. If a woman did not have a family or was
disowned, this was one of the few ways of making money.
3. Samaritans. They were looked down upon by pious Jews because they had
married outside the covenant, and engaged in foreign practices, although they
kept the law of Moses to a substantial degree.
4. Other sinners.
This is interesting in light of the fact that Jewish leadership had become
less spiritual, or religious, and more political. Interpretation of the law
had become quite ritualistic, and there were several factions in the religion.
Now I don't doubt that homosexuals were included in the list, but they are
not noted. When the law was created, some homosexual practices were tied to
foreign religions, and it is very likely the practice was excluded in the
Jewish religion because of their outside influences. In fact, it has been
noted that many of the Ten Commandments distinguish the Judaic faith from
religions at that time that threatened to consume it. Another example is the
prohibition of graven images (or idols) that was common in Egyptian belief.
Even if homosexuality per se is contradictory to the principles of Judaism
and Christianity, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't a problem.
Even though the glb community may dislike the writings of Paul, some scholars
have theorized that 'the thorn in his side' may have been his way of saying
he was homosexual. Therefore, his advice of celibacy may have been
misinterpreted by early followers. In any event, I understand that some gay
Mormons remain celibate to remain strong in the faith. This has been
encouraged at times, and they have been compared to women who have not had
the opportunity to marry.
There are also Mormons who have been widowed, or have separated. Widows and
widowers may choose to marry again, but not all. Those who were sealed
(married for eternity) remain sealed to the spouse who has passed on. Some
separate, but do not obtain a cancellation of sealing, or what is informally
known as a temple divorce. Of course, one cannot remarry while the sealing
is still in effect, and I have never heard of those who obtain a second
sealing. This is why Mormons tend to look at marriage as a one-shot deal.
Therefore, there are other singles who are abstinent, but are not gay.
Of course, this does not sit perfectly well with me, because I know of many
disgruntled g/l/b (mostly g/l; so sue us for het privilege) Mormons who leave
the church or discontinue their activity because of its policy. One of them
is my sister, as I have said before. I would rather hope that these people
would choose to commit to only one person of the same sex if that is what they
choose, thereby following very similar principles that constitute the LDS
(Mormon) definition of the law of chastity. Therefore, such people would
remain faithful to their partners, and abstain from sex until they were
chosen.
I understand some believe this is fruitless because society has not accepted
a concept of gay marriage, and some gay Mormons are probably quite upset that
they cannot attend LDS temples or hold the Priesthood. But I would think that
it would be easier to continue to attend an LDS congregation and remain true
to their core beliefs, rather than denounce some of them (besides the ones
they aren't allowed to participate in) to fit in to another Christian
congregation that is tolerant of g/l/b lifestyles. Despite the fact that
homosexual sex is not accepted in the LDS Church, it has been made quite clear
that they are loved and accepted.
Other options have diminished. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints, a splinter church that formed after the death of founder
Joseph Smith, has been accepting of homosexual couples (who likely followed
principles I described above), but has recently denounced the Book of Mormon
in order to receive money from Christian organizations. The church has been
bankrupt for years.
I would bet that many gay Mormons who have left their church practice serial
monogamy, and have changed some of their standards almost in retaliation.
Most, I am sure, do so very quietly. In any case, this saddens me.
If you'll forgive my tangential wanderings, my point is that even the most
conservative and outwardly pious people have problems that effect their
happiness. Let me suspend the word 'sin' for a bit. Alcoholism,
homosexuality, and mental illness are just a few of the things that are not
sins-- but are conditions that may impinge on people's happiness. Anything
out of moderation can fit this category, too. Everyone's got problems and
perceived imperfections. Rarely, if at all, are these imperfections portrayed
in ways that are beneficial, and much of the time, they are seen as things
that make people inferior or harmful.
In any interest group, you have radicals and conservatives. Radicals are
always pushing for change, and conservatives try to keep things as they are.
Believe it or not, both groups are beneficial. Conservative g/l/bs are rather
invisible because they either aren't heard or don't raise their voice. Garry
Trudeau's portrayal of Mike's politically conservative boyfriend probably
isn't a myth, but you don't guess these folks are gay. Most probably stay
in the closet, or carefully hide themselves. But it's a shame their views
don't get heard much; stereotypes probably wouldn't be a prevalent if they
spoke once in a while.
I'm fairly moderate myself, and I do think that the medium is rather happy
at times. It puts me in a good negotiating position, and it is easier to see
opposing ends of an argument, for me, sometimes. I'm fairly mellow, too, so
I rather enjoy talking a subject out. I wouldn't doubt there are a lot of
people in this category.
In terms of sexuality, most people are said to be moderate, too. As we said
earlier, Kinsey's proposal that most people are bisexual is puzzling sometimes
when so many identify as heterosexual. But then, people are still really
uptight about discussing sexuality, as has also been said, especially if it
contradicts what is said to be the norm.
<ramble set= off>
|
bookworm
|
|
response 333 of 404:
|
Nov 24 06:35 UTC 1998 |
I don't believe anybody is "incapable" of having a serious friend-based
relationship with an openly homosexual person. If you'll permit me, Paul.
I think what you mean is this:
Any person who fears homosexuals and homosexuality so much that their fear
interferes with any healthy, friend-based, relationship with an open
homosexual (or even conversation with said homosexual) is probably homophobic.
To my mind, this should not mean that we (meaning Gays, Lesbians, and
Bisexuals) should treat that person with fear or hatred (homophobophobia?).
We should attempt to make the person more comfortable, provide needed
information, not allow them to make us angry or fearful, and, when all else
fails, pity them. I always feel sorry for someone who allows their fear to
stand in the way of a possibly rewarding friendship.
If fear and hatred should lead to violence on the part of the homophobic
against the homosexual, then it is advisable to fight for all you're
worth--spare nothing and take no prisoners.
Fear and hate should not be a reason for more fear and hate. Our purpose is
to survive and thrive, not to denounce those who act in ignorance brought on
by fear of the unknown.
|
lumen
|
|
response 346 of 404:
|
Nov 25 22:41 UTC 1998 |
re: last debate-- I would suppose the idea seems ridiculous if you're not a
religious person. But if you are, then refusing to condone might be an issue.
We're all for religious freedom here, and some of the major religions still
do not accept homosexual practices (sex, that is) in their tenets.
But that doesn't ban the homosexual from continuing to worship in that
religion. Re: #332, yes, it is a Gordian knot sometimes, and I, for one, am
in one somewhat, but shessh, I chose my priorities.
However, I'll admit that it's really ultimately a private matter, and between
you and God or whoever your higher power is. My beliefs are my own, so I keep
'em, however fandangled and tied up they may be.
I just hope folks would learn that no one can force you to do anything, nor
can they deliberately corrupt you or steal your soul.
(nope, neither God nor the devil nor anyone under the sun)
|
