Gay virginity?

[dsdrane]

As I've read about the Equity Riders and the various posts about the moral and ethical aspects of what they are trying to do, I've noticed a reoccurring theme between those defending the right of the religious schools to their policies and the rights of GLBT people to be treated equally.

Those defending the schools say that GLBT students are being treated no differently than the straight students in being asked to abstain from sin. Sin is sin, whether its sex out of wedlock, homosexual "behavior", cheating, stealing, etc. Groups like Soulforce counter rightly that GLBT students are not allowed to marry and, therefore, can never expect to express their love sexually...which, of course, means they are being singled out for punishment, not to mention psychological abuse.

This started me thinking. Considering the wide range of past experiences and current belief structures reflected in our group, I was wondering how people would approach pre-marital sex if GLBT people were allowed to marry.

So, if GLBT folks were allowed to marry, would you consider it a sin to engage in pre-marital sex?

Discuss.

:inspector:

[BruceChris]

Most straight people have premarital or extra-marital sex, and this has been going on quite commonly, in all times and cultures that we are aware of. And most modern sex educators are far more concerned about pregnancy, STD's, and other damage that can result, than they are about the sin part.

"Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy that there is, and abstinence education, the least" (I forget who said that)

And when the CC's found out about Bill and Monica, they absolutely went ballistic. A B.J. is an impeachable offense, but killing hundreds of thousands of people, and wasting 3 trillion dollars apparently is not.

Many CC's seem to consider sin as if it were a stain that cannot be washed out, a poison for which there is no cure, proof positive of Evil inherent in a person.

More progressive Christians tend to see sin more as a matter of being imperfect, of making a mistake, of not being as perfect as God. I look at "Original sin" as simply meaning that when we are born, we don't know anything, and we will never learn it all.

Note: To a strict Biblical literalist, if you are a virgin, you cannot be gay, since to him, being gay is not who you are, it is only defined by what you do, and then only after you do it.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[BenL]

Sex is one of the most basic drives in the complexity called a human being. Controlling sexual activity for the good of society has been an elusive goal since way before Christianity or the modern era.

Traditionally sin has been any activity that separates a person from God. The problem becomes, who gets to decide what separates a person from God? Progressive thought distinguishes between activities that are hurtful to self or others and those that don't harm self or others. Traditional thought relies on a pre-existing code of behavior.

Intimate relationships between human beings are among the noblest of human activities when two people are united body and soul and achieve a spiritual, beyond-physcial union. The term soulmates comes to mind, although that kind of relationship need not include sexual activity.

Sexual relations that don't live up to that noble standard seem less acceptable. Two people copulating who aren't hurting each other or anyone else (like a third person who is a partner/spouse) but who aren't in love may be sinning in some sense, but to me it's not as grievous as taking someone's life or exploiting people who can't defend themselves.

Somehow, in 20th century and now 21st century America, sex has become the worst sin in the book, whether that book is the Bible or the law books. To me that is a warped view of human relationships. Marriage itself, while noble in concept, can be far less so in reality. People who abuse their spouses, physically or emotionally, are engaging in far worse behavior than unmarried people who have sex which at least satisfies some need.

So, to answer your question, I think the nature of the sexual relationship -- not the specific acts but the motivation -- is more important than whether a person is married. (Disclaimer: I'm not talking about children here, but consenting adults.) As BC said, a BJ is far less culpable than war and subjugation of a captive people. BTW, I'm not advocating for sexual impropriety in high places, just trying to put them in context.

I think these are the kinds of standards we should hold all people to, gay or straight.

[andrewlittle]

Caroline Osiek has had a lot to say on the fascination of the church with sex and virginity. She believes it stems from misunderstanding and misconstruing significant parts of Paul's and other New Testament writings.

She has pointed out the increasing use, in simile and metaphor, of marriage to signify the church in Ephesians and later deutero-Pauline works. What began as simile, the husband/wife relationship is like the Christ/church relationship, developed into a metaphor where males became associated with Christ, by virtue of having the same gender as Jesus, and females became designees for the church. Furthermore, by integrating metaphors from elsewhere in Paul’s writing, the authors of Colossians 1 and Ephesians 4 developed the marriage metaphor into a notion of Christ, and therefore man, as the archetypal head or principal component of the body and the church, and consequently woman, as the body of Christ.

This later development gave rise to the conditions prompting Henriette Visser T’Hooft to write in a letter to Karl Barth concerning the latter’s use of “St. Paul’s theology” in his debasement of women in ecclesiastical roles, “I hope you understand: I am only opposed to the decapitation [of the woman] and the disembodiment [of the man].” Through this deformation of both genders, Visser T’Hooft claimed as early as 1934 that men had elevated themselves to a position of truly human, while at the same time relegating women to an inferior position, thereby completing the transformation of the actual church to a patriarchal system and depriving both genders of their “true, God-given identity.”

The metaphor of marital relations for the Christ/church relationship would break down on another basis, unless men could have envisioned themselves as a “higher” order than women. Largely because of Rev 18:23, a metaphor developed where Christ was likened to the bridegroom and the church to the bride. Men and women were members of the church and, as such, made up “the bride” of Christ. Ancient archetypes of the “pure bride” speak of the value of unsoiled virginity in the female marriage partner that was not required, perhaps even negatively viewed, in the male partner.

Osiek quoted Margaret McDonald as writing that the “union with a pure female body has symbolic importance in expressing the nature of the separation from a past way of life. As a reflection of the holy and unblemished church, the pure bride stands in contrast to the evil world outside.” The church became identified with the biological functions of womanhood: wives became mothers who produced and raised children, provided services for those around them, etc.

But by personifying the church as female, complete with the imperfect temporal stain of menstruation with which women in a male-dominated record of history have been denegrated, this required the more Christ-like men be set apart from the worldly church, in the same manner as Jesus Christ is over and above the church. Men would not view themselves in these distinctly feminine terms. Combining these thoughts with Paul’s discourse on the parts of the body in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12, reinforced the view that men were the ‘head’ and women the ‘body’.

With the change in social and ecclesiastical structures brought on by reducing the inequities experienced by women, men (most notably conservative men) have begun to fear losing their "specially ordained" status as head of church and being inherently more "worthwhile" than women. Another group of people became necessary with which to accomplish the chest-beating, pontificating claim to superiority.

In my mind, this is the function of GLBT folks. They are not considered fully endowed humans, because they are needed to feed some men's need to feel superior - to be the "head of the church" and "Christ-like". Since women are more and more dismissing the male hegemony that these men have sought to impose, GLBT become the "replacement". Someone has got to be inherently and, by their very nature, sinful so men can feel truly human and superior - if women can no longer be relied upon to fulfil this lowly position, GLBT unwillingly become the scapegoat with which "men" can ignore their own sins.

The value of virginity or purity then, is a traditional construct of the male need to engage with purity that befits their special status as God's special class of humans. Amazing the power of the penis, isn't it? The one with the special place, or the true male penis, doesn't need to be "holy", but regains "holiness" by despoiling the virgin, and retains holiness by damning sexual sinners other than themselves.

Seems like a lot of work to me. If I felt this way, perhaps I should do as Origen did and make sure I was never tempted to sin with lowly women, or now lowly GLBT. Of course, I can't see a lot of conservative men standing in line for voluntary castrations.

[tdogg]

Our sexuality is a gift, sex is a gift. And as with any good gift, we are best when using responsibility in enjoying it. The level of responsibility would appropriately be put upon the receiver of the gift. In other words, what we do with our sexuality and sexual selves is pretty much between us, our sexual partners and who, if any, we consider our God.

I personally do not believe it's a sin to have sex outside marriage - define marriage. For me, having sexual encounters apart from my relationship when in a commited relationship is not something I would consider, and I would hope not to fall prey to temptations in that regard. In other words, I'm currently in a commited relationship with my partner and I wouldn't dream - well, ok possibly dream but not act on it - of having a sexual encounter with anyone else but my partner. I made that commitment to myself when I determined I would like to spend a very long time with her. I would not hold anyone else to my personal standard.

Even when we finally obtain the equality and ability to be considered married as any hetero couple has, I would say if I were not in a commited relationship I would be open to having sexual encounters and wouldn't necessarily consider it to be a sin. What is sin? Ok, I have my opinion (rules placed upon us by humans who want to control how everyone else behaves, according to their own personal standards - that they don't necessarily uphold for themselvess), but it's only my opinion and definitely nothing that my God informed me should be followed by others.

So, sure, have some sex and enjoy the heck out of it, hopefully you'll be responsible and use some common sense. But gosh, why would we be created with such strong sexual urges and desires if we were expected to possibly endure a lifetime without enjoying fulfillment. That makes no sense to me.

[Alecto]

For starters, I'm agnostic personally, so to me, there is no such thing as "sin". There's immoral behavior, and while I don't have specific beliefs on any deity, I do think that the universe tends to balance out immoral behavior. That said, I don't think that pre-marital sex (hetero or otherwise) is immoral simply by virtue of it's pre-marital nature. If there's deception involved, dubious or lack of consent etc., obviously that's a different story, but I don't think that marriage, or monogamy play into sexual morality UNLESS you're with a partner for whom those things DO matter (that's where the deception etc. is involved).

[Daniel]

So, if GLBT folks were allowed to marry, would you consider it a sin to engage in pre-marital sex?


If?

IF?

Oh ye of little faith! How about when? :lol: :lol: :lol: ;)

When we start getting married (and divorced :lol: ) like opposite-sex couples in these United States, having sex before marriage won't be a sin any more than it is now for the vast majority of straight folks.

Besides, I'm of the opinion that lovemaking is a skill, not a destination or a measure of status, which is how the whole no-sex-before-marriage thing strikes me. How this has anything whatsoever to do with one's own sexual happiness or the ability to make another person happy sexually is beyond me. Oh....but we're not supposed to think about that, are we? Just lie there and think of England my dear!

And let's get real here, shall we?

How is it possible to bring another person sexual and spiritual bliss when one isn't even allowed - or so it seems- to pleasure one's self? That's the party line, is it not?

Don't touch yourself! It's sinful! That's the message. It's dirty down there until you get married. Stop that right now you pervert!

No wonder people are so unhappy. Pill popping. Overeating. Diet crashing. Sex obsessed.

But teach people that their body is a temple and a thing of wonder- and a thing to be nurtured and enjoyed with another person in an ethical way? Well. That's another matter entirely.

The no-sex-before-marriage stance does create one thing. And that's drama.

[Pablo Rafael]

So, if GLBT folks were allowed to marry, would you consider it a sin to engage in pre-marital sex?

Discuss.

:inspector:


David, my young man,

What are we going to do with you? You are starting to sound like a Catholic. We Catholics have to make sure that we get everything classified as sin or not. Couldn't inadvertantly miss one, you know. (We then proceed to ignore those findings altogether, but that is a different subject entirely.)

Since you asked, I will give one of my usual confusing, illogical replies. I believe that sin lies more in motives than in actions. There are many instances in the Bible where regulations were kept but in empty, ritualistic ways or for selfish reasons. I believe that God is not happy with that kind of obedience. There are also many instances where the letter of a law might be broken, but God commends the person for the intentions of her/his heart.

I feel that, though the ideal is for sex to be within marriage, (and I consider two committed same-sex partners as a marriage before God,) God considers the person's motives and attitudes more than actions. I believe that loving sexual intimacy outside of marriage is not necessarily a grevious sin, nor are all sexual relations within marriage wholesome and God-pleasing. I believe that it is the selfless love shown to one's partner that is the key.

Also it is not my place to judge the motives of others. If God would condemn us for our sins, I know that I for sure would be lost. No one lives up to the perfect ideal. That makes the love that God has shown us through the life, death and resurrection of His Son so amazing. He loves us, every one, without limit.

Tu Amigo, Pablo


P.S. Is that an confusing enough reply. I was going to use the word "convaluted" but wasn't sure how to spell it. (People have no mercy on teachers who mispel words.)

[scott snedeker]

Pagans connect to God with sex. Well, not just any sex, Good sex with sharing of spiritual energy.
It is his design for us not a sin! Life is supposed to be fun!
It is a part of being a good pagan by Honoring our primal natural Heart of innocence !:D
And I try to do my best to be good!!:lol:

Guess we're just lucky that way!:cool:

[dsdrane]

David, my young man,

What are we going to do with you? You are starting to sound like a Catholic.

Oh, Pablo...you're the best. :love:

Firstly, you gotta check out my profile, Kids. I just turned 40. :aparty: :weee:

Secondly, I'm with y'all on the whole not-sinfullness thing, but I just know there must be some forum-mates out there who do think this way, and I was hoping to hear from a few.

Speaking of our more conservative brethren/[sisthren??...:D], have you guys checked out GCN? They seem to have loads of 'em. And then there's the old "Side B" thing...talk about Gay Virginity! :eek:

Loving you all! :love: :cookie:

[u-dog]

As a Christian living under grace rather than law I try not to think much in terms of "Sin" but rather in terms of what actions best convey and embody the gratitude that I feel toward God for all that God has done for me.

As a son of the Reformed tradition I recognize that the thing which characterizes God's relationship to humanity throughout history is the concept of "Covenant" God makes and keeps covenant with humanity over and over in spite of human inability to keep faith with God. The ultimate manifestation of that Covenant making nature of God is the New Covenant sealed in Christ's blood.

Therefore, as I choose the actions that I believe are most pleasing to God in order to express my gratitude for the goodness of God, I try to choose relationships which are "Covenantal" in nature. Marriage is such a "covenantal relationship". This is one of the reasons why my wife and I didn't run right out and hire a divorce attorney as soon as I came out to her as gay. We beleive that to honor God we must honor our covenant together. That doesn't mean that we won't decide to end our marriage, but simply that we will not do so lightly or quickly without exploring the possibilities for staying together as well as the costs of doing so.

SO... I believe that for glbt people, marriage before God (regardless of the law) is the choice that best honors and "thanks" God. The fact that society tries to prevent GLBT people from exercising this choice is not only unconstitutional and un-American ... it dishonors God (and is therefore blasphemous).

A loving sexual relationship outside of "marriage" honors God less well.

a sexual relationship that objectifies the other and uses them, pleases God not at all

An act of sexual brutality or rape is "Sin" in its deepest sense.

Dave

[BruceChris]

Let's keep in mind, that for the vast majority of human history, even if we only go back as far as Biblical times, the vast majority of "marriages" pretty much came into being as a common law process. Anybody who wanted to would just move in together. In other words, marriage was the same thing as shacking up. Only those with property or power had formal marriage ceremonies, and that was for the purpose of preserving and consolidating the power or property.

I read somewhere that within one "primitive" group, a marriage was only allowed after the woman became pregnant. (Sociologists repeatedly tell us that ALL societies are primitive.)

In another, living somewhere in the Amazon basin, as I recall, the tribal understanding was that the available area would only support a limited population. So the rule was that after a woman had birthed a child, for the next four years, her husband was only allowed to come to the marriage bed and make love via sodomy.

When missionaries came along and pointed out that God had told them that this was a no-no, predictably within a short time, a population boom and bust occurred.

So when someone uses words like male, female, homo or heterosexual, marriage or many other words, understand these things. These words are not exact, meanings vary, not everyone agrees on what they mean, and most of all, It Hasn't Always Been This Way

And Freedom of Religion? Somebodies religion prohibits seme sex marriage, while mine considers it a sacrament. We ought to have freedom of religion, but not under this Supreme Court. (And I can hear some Mormons, panting in the background)

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Britt.]

"A loving sexual relationship outside of "marriage" honors God less well.

a sexual relationship that objectifies the other and uses them, pleases God not at all

An act of sexual brutality or rape is "Sin" in its deepest sense."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[jerespoon]

Okay...I'll throw in another perspective.

I tend to agree with Pablo about sin: that it has more to do with motive than actions.

One only needs to understand cultures from around the world to know that American Christians define sin differently than their brothers and sisters in other parts of the world.

A few examples of this are in Papua New Guinea it is acceptable for women in some language groups to go topless to church. But it is considered a 'sin' for those women to wear pants or sit in a church service next to their husbands. (Yes...topless women wearing skirts are fine in the eyes of "God" as long as they sit on their side of the church.)

Drinking is another issue. In most churches in America it is viewed as sin to drink alcohol. However, in many European countries drinking wine or beer at a church gathering is standard practice and to refuse a drink would be considered 'sin' or at least just plain rude.

I read a book by Ron Mehl called "The Tender Commandments." In this book he suggests that God has given us commandments to keep us from harm....that the consequences of breaking God's laws are what hurt us. God gave us 'rules' to make sure that we had God' best in life. But breaking these rules doesn't mean that God doesn't love us.

When I read this book I really resonated with this perspective.

I believe VERY STRONGLY that God sent Jesus to save mankind as God knew that we would not be able to keep his laws. Through Jesus we are loved unconditionally by God. On the cross, Jesus paid the price for all of mankind's 'sins' and if we would believe that Jesus is our Savior, we get all the blessings of God. We live in a fallen world so we are going to have to deal with all the shit here on earth. But what does God require of us? But to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

Add to that verse in which Jesus' reply to the Sadducees, when asked what the greatest commandment is: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind, and then love your neighbor as yourself.

These two verses guide me.

Plus, my own experience with Jesus.

As a teenager (I am 49 years old) I was sexually active and at 15 had a baby, which I gave up for adoption. Because of the way my legalistic Christian parents handled that whole situation, I determined that I would do things different with my children.

So when my 20 year old daughter took me out to dinner to tell me that she and her boyfriend were sexually active, I rejoiced in the fact that she had already gone to the doctor, and she was on birthcontrol pills. But most importantly that she told me something very intimate about herself.

My decision to do things different with my kids worked and while I wanted God's best for my children, I believe that my daughter has not 'sinned' to be damned by God. She doesn't feel damned and in fact feels accepted by God because my husband and I have accepted her.

We all want to be accepted. People who judge and condemn others because they don't believe the same way are not acting justly or loving or merciful...nor are they loving others as they love themselves. But then they probably respond that way because they really don't love themselves.

What is sin? I believe that sin is whatever keeps us from having a relationship with God. Because of Jesus, God loves us unconditionally.

[Pablo Rafael]

Firstly, you gotta check out my profile, Kids. I just turned 40. :aparty: :weee:



David,

No way you can be 40 years old, and I have conclusive evidence to prove it.

1. On March 3 you posted you were 39 11/12 years old. According to my calculations today is not 1/12 away from that date it is only 26/365. Anyone that close to the big 40 would have had that horrific date down more precisely.

2. Also those of us 40+ grew up in schools where we would get slapped across the knuckles with a yardstick if we had made such an gross error in estimation. Plus also a spanking and sitting in the corner in a dunce cap. The old phrase from dad, "You get a spanking at school, you get one at home." would have instilled further terror. All this would make such mathematical errors impoossible.

3. Those of us 40+ would have grown up using King James English for all religious matters and thou would'st revert unto that manner of speech whensoever a matter of the scriptures was't brought therefore into the forefront of converation.

4. Plus look at the picture in your profile. I say 25 at most. And it's not just an old picture. (All my old pictures of that age were in black and white on tintypes.)

5. Also those of us over 40 write long rambling posts, repeat things, forget names. David, does any of that happen to you?

6. Also those of us over 40 forget that we have said things and write long rambling posts forgetting names. Doug, does that ever happen to you?

I rest my case! Rock solid, conclusive evidence, young man!

Tu Amigo, Pablo

P.S. Seriously, happy birthday, my friend, (whatever your age.) :D

[dsdrane]

marry me.

:love:

[tdogg]

David

HAPPY BIRTHDAY - AND WELCOME TO THE FAB 40 CLUB!!! :D YOU'LL BE A MEMBER FOR 10 MORE YEARS!! :weee: WELL...MINUS 1 DAY OF COURSE! ;)

It's great being 40. :applause: :magic: :rofl:

Enjoy your day. :aparty: :rainbow:

Tdogg

[dsdrane]

Thanks, t!!!

:love:

[runningFREAK]

I was wondering what everyones thoughts were about this.. I know in the christian faith obstaining from premarital sex is a big thing, I agree with it too. BUt you find in the homosexual community that there is just about no one that believes that. I think partially is becasue there is no option to marry but and there isnt a strong faith base in the community. So i was wondering what evryones thoughts both personaly and biblically where on that.

[keltic63]

moderator note: I merged RunningFreak's thread with this one, since they are essentially the same topic.

[Zerbie]

marry me.

:love:

:lol:

Dude! David, I went and looked at your profile and whoa! What a cutie!! And I woulda put ya under 30. (It's the yoga, it's gotta be the yoga. I'm over 30, and was recently mistaken for 16. Gotta be the yoga.:p )

Pablo, I don't know your relationship status, but if I were you, I'd be packing for a move to South Florida post haste!

:lol:

[Daniel]

Well RunningFreak, I am married. Legally. Canada '05. To the guy I've known for 15 years. Would I have 'waited' until I met him? In a word?

NO.

Why not?

I didn't meet him until I was 34 (you do the math) and came out when I was 27. Does any one here really think I should have saved myself between the ages of 27 and 34?

Can I see a show of hands please?

Yep. That's what I thought. Only one or two are up. It is an unreasonable expectation. And this brings up a pet peeve of mine. Staight people seem to have something of a 'thing' with the sex lives of gay persons- fear- envy- fascination- repulsion. And it frequently seems as though straight christians are wont (a nice word that) to place a burden on gay persons- one which they do not place on themselves. You know- the whole "you can be gay but you can't act on it' nonsense.

I won't tackle the biblical issues, not my forte and I don't want to offend you. But it seems to me that living a healthy life, emotionally, physically and psychologically, also means not ignoring one's need for physcial intimacy. Blocking that desire doesn't necessarily make one holy or more sane. Quite to the contrary in fact. Better to exercise one's sexual life in an ethical manner. A manner which brings no harm to one's self or another person.

One might answer your question with this question.

Do most straight couples think about 'saving' themselves until they are married?

No. They do not.

Though conservative Christians profess to toe the party line regarding sex before marriage, even a small non-scientific survey reveals that actual practice is another matter. ;)

[Zerbie]

Oh, you mean this thread was about a serious topic? Oops. Sorry.:p

Daniel, I'll up the stakes. I know people who didn't meet the right partner until their 40s, 50s, even 60s.

I would not want to deprive someone of sexual expression for decades and decades (though I thought of making some snide remark about a barbed-wire chastity belt, then thought better of it.) This sort of waiting decision is deeply personal, but sex IS a primal need, not only a physical one, also an emotional/psychological need. Most people will seek ways to meet that need, so to join the growing chorus of remarks here, of course the proper "use" of sexuality is one that is loving, caring, respectful, and mutual. No abuses of any kind are ever acceptable. Period.

[andrewlittle]

:lol:

Dude! David, I went and looked at your profile and whoa! What a cutie!! And I woulda put ya under 30. (It's the yoga, it's gotta be the yoga. I'm over 30, and was recently mistaken for 16. Gotta be the yoga.:p )
:lol:

Okay Dave I checked out your picture. Now, I'm not gay, but if you don't want Pablo check me ... Oh sorry.

Anyway, you know it's not nice to lie about your age. Why would you want to be 40 before you were done with puberty.

I look the way I do, at the ripe young age of 52, because I've been rode hard, put away wet, and drank fermented fruits of the vine way too much in my life. You, sir, must lead the life of a saint.

[Daniel]

Okay Dave I checked out your picture. Now, I'm not gay, but if you don't want Pablo check me ... Oh sorry.


Is there a line forming here? Can I get in it? ;)

[andrewlittle]

Is there a line forming here? Can I get in it? ;)

Well, Daniel, would there be some kind of impediment to you getting it ...

Okay! That's over the top. If I had any shame whatsoever, I would delete this post and save myself the embarrassment.

Daniel, just for me, could you rephrase the question.

[Daniel]

Aren't impediments something one goes to a podiatrist for?

Let's see .....we either put shoes on or take them off. Right?

4 inch heels can be a killer. But what a line they create!

Shameless. That's Oxi for ya.

~

Happy Birthday handsome David.

[andrewlittle]

I would like to apologize for anyone taking offense at what I wrote. I am sorry you did that.

As for the opinions expressed in the above posts, they were just things I happened to hear somewhere and repeated. They are certainly not my opinions, and would like to distance myself from the insensitive dolt that wrote them in the first place - which I would if I knew who he or she was - but, since I don't - and just happened to post them inadvertantly - I am not responsible for the lewdness of the suggestive remarks - and I certainly don't back them up.

Let me repeat, "Now, I'm not gay, but if you don't want Pablo check me ... Oh sorry." and "Well, Daniel, would there be some kind of impediment to you getting it ..."

While I don't think like this myself, I certainly defend the constitutional rights of any pervert that does. I just wanted to make myself perfectly clear - reasonably clear - oh, damn, immune to being held responsible.

In case you missed it - "Now, I'm not gay, but if you don't want Pablo check me ... Oh sorry." and "Well, Daniel, would there be some kind of impediment to you getting it ..."

But please remember that these are not my thoughts, or perhaps not thoughts at all.

[Pablo Rafael]

marry me.

:love:


David,

You know I would reallty love to, but it's coming up on Holy Week. I've got a classroom of rowdy kids to handle, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Vigil, and Easter Sunday services to play for, a Seder Meal to plan. Plus I've really got to do some house cleaning.
I'm swamped!

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[tpdncr4christ]

I was wondering what everyones thoughts were about this.. I know in the christian faith obstaining from premarital sex is a big thing, I agree with it too. BUt you find in the homosexual community that there is just about no one that believes that. I think partially is becasue there is no option to marry but and there isnt a strong faith base in the community. So i was wondering what evryones thoughts both personaly and biblically where on that.

Umm... I actually want to get married very soon... like early 20's kinda soon. And I would love to wait for marriage. BUT... I'm not gonna wait for something that might not come for another 20 years...

If I love him, and he loves me, and we can say before everyone, family and friends, and God, that we love each other; I would consider that marriage. And then we would have a really fun night! ;)

I would like to apologize for anyone taking offense at what I wrote. I am sorry you did that.

Uncle Andy!!! That made me smile. It reminded me of another situation in my head. Someone says, "I take offense to that," and the other person says, "Well, you don't have too."

[dsdrane]

...but seriously, folks:

YOU GUYS ARE THE BEST!!!

As for you, Pablo:

David,

You know I would reallty love to, but it's coming up on Holy Week. I've got a classroom of rowdy kids to handle, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Vigil, and Easter Sunday services to play for, a Seder Meal to plan. Plus I've really got to do some house cleaning.
I'm swamped!

Tu Amigo, Pablo


I'll wait.

:love: :cookie:

[jedismama]

I was one of those straight (I thought I was Straight, I'm really Bi) people that did wait until marriage. It wasn't for lack of offers or opportunity, I just thought "Sex is Sacred" and therefor reserved for marriage. I'm glad I waited. My husband didn't seem to mind either. (Though, he'd been married before.) Sex is awesome and in the right context, it's one of the most beautiful ways to express love and understand G-d's love too.

Now that I'm Bisexual and single...I'd like to wait til the next marriage-type relationship. I don't know how this will work out. I do know that I want to take things slow in my next relationship.

Just my two cents...

Julie Anne

[Pablo Rafael]

I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were about this.. I know in the Christian faith obstaining from premarital sex is a big thing, I agree with it too. But you find in the homosexual community that there is just about no one that believes that. I think partially is because there is no option to marry and there isn't a strong faith base in the community. So I was wondering what everyone's thoughts both personally and Biblically were on that.

It does seem that there isn't a strong faith base in the gay community. I think one of the greatest falsehoods, and dare I say crimes, is that our society has convinced LGBT individuals that they cannot be members of a strong faith community. I have heard so many people talk about having to choose to be Christian or gay. (Not to discount other religions; just talking about what I know best.) So many gay individuals (like my brother) have left the church because of discrimination and rejection by the Christian community.

I have never had a question about being a Christian. I rejoice in belonging to the family of believers. I am convinced also that being gay is what God wants with me. I see a mission of gay Christians to convince the church that God loves His gay children. It is also to convince the gay community that there is a place for all of us in the Christian church. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[dsdrane]

...but, yes, Jedismama, this is a serious thread.

Let me introduce everyone around, shall I: Irony, Jedismama; Jedismama, Irony.

:|

Allow me to explain: I don't know Pablo from a hole in the wall. He knows me to a similar extent. It is widely known that we're playing a bit (I more than he...or he more than I...or something like that). I think he's a swell guy (based on his profile and posts), but the serious matter at hand (hell! I started it!) has, at least to my mind and I'm quite sure to others, never left the table.

To wit: sight unseen, I would so go on a date with the obviously good-natured, fresh-air-loving, rock-scaling, über-butch y hunky educator-of-our-youth [Pablo...take a bow, Darling]...and, letting my over-active mind run amuck, have mad, passionate pre-[not really legal-]marital sex with him. [Pablo, if you're reading this, I'm blushing wildly; I never type this way...normally...just so you know.]

Where was I? Oh, yes...[resuming full rant posture....]

And I know you're not just referencing us...but it serves my point for the moment, so work with me.

You may have meant that title to be as playful as we have been, but methinks I caught an edge...and I'm not completely sure I like it.

Bottom line: if you have something to add, do so, but please refrain from arch references to people having some welcome fun with each other and leave the dull-as-dishwater "if this is still serious?" stuff OUT.

Thanks much.

[Pablo...call me.]

[jedismama]

Sorry if I spoiled anyone's fun. I'm new to the forum and really wanted to respond to the original post, but I didn't know if it was ok to re-direct the conversation.

Please forgive me.

[Pablo Rafael]

He's always this way when when he's been drinking...sigh!



Allow me to explain: I don't know Pablo from a hole in the wall.


How can you say that! After all we've been through together.
I'm hurt.

And I guess I will have to tell you. choke, sob. My parents say we have to stop seeing each other. They were all smiles and joy about the romance until I brought up the ugly truth about things. They are old-fashioned and conservative; they just can't handle it. They won't let me go out with an Episcopalian! Don't cry please, I just couldn't handle it at the moment.

I would so go on a date with the obviously good-natured, fresh-air-loving, rock-scaling, über-butch y hunky educator-of-our-youth [Pablo...take a bow, Darling]

Uhh... this might not be the best time to bring this up, but David, do you know how I can get in touch with this guy you're describing?

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[u-dog]

I posted this thought a couple of days ago and everyone ignored it so I'm bumping it up again to see if perhaps a higher class of clientele might have arrived to take it more seriously. Seriously, how do you respond to a hierarchy of ethical principals and values as opposed to a hard and fast "rule" ("God is best pleased by sexual relationships that are loving, respectful and covenantal and the relationships that best embody those ideals are the ones that best please God" as opposed to, "Sex outside of a marriage like relationship is always a sin and a person should always wait until marriage")



As a Christian living under grace rather than law I try not to think much in terms of "Sin" but rather in terms of what actions best convey and embody the gratitude that I feel toward God for all that God has done for me.

As a son of the Reformed tradition I recognize that the thing which characterizes God's relationship to humanity throughout history is the concept of "Covenant" God makes and keeps covenant with humanity over and over in spite of human inability to keep faith with God. The ultimate manifestation of that Covenant making nature of God is the New Covenant sealed in Christ's blood.

Therefore, as I choose the actions that I believe are most pleasing to God in order to express my gratitude for the goodness of God, I try to choose relationships which are "Covenantal" in nature. Marriage is such a "covenantal relationship". This is one of the reasons why my wife and I didn't run right out and hire a divorce attorney as soon as I came out to her as gay. We beleive that to honor God we must honor our covenant together. That doesn't mean that we won't decide to end our marriage, but simply that we will not do so lightly or quickly without exploring the possibilities for staying together as well as the costs of doing so.

SO... I believe that for glbt people, marriage before God (regardless of the law) is the choice that best honors and "thanks" God. The fact that society tries to prevent GLBT people from exercising this choice is not only unconstitutional and un-American ... it dishonors God (and is therefore blasphemous).

A loving sexual relationship outside of "marriage" honors God less well.

a sexual relationship that objectifies the other and uses them, pleases God not at all

An act of sexual brutality or rape is "Sin" in its deepest sense.

Dave


So for instance, Austin might (WOULD!!) decide to pass up the chance to slip a date-rape drug into a classmate's pepsi and take advantage of him. he might ( WOULD!!) pass up the chance for anonymous sex in the men's room at the park. he might (would!) take a raincheck on a stranger's offer of a meaningless "hook-up" after a frat party at college. But he might consent to a consensual, caring and respectful sexual relationship with someone that he has been dating for awhile but to whom he has not made a lifelong commitment. He might do this knowing that it is not God's HIGHEST purpose for his sexuality or his life , but also knowing that the mutual, ethical, loving, and responsible nature of the relationship is pleasing to God. Later, this or another relationship might lead him to the best expression of sexuality which is in committed and loving relationship (Covenant)

Dave

[Zerbie]

Pablo!:eek:

You *still* aren't on your way to Florida?!?!?!!!! :disagree: If I were you, I would so not pass that one up. Gee whiz!!

Hey Jedi Mom: Please don't feel bad. Yes, it's okay to re-direct conversations, happens all the time. (So do misunderstandings, though not as often.)

[u-dog]

I just posted a SERIOUS post ON the topic. :mad: and it CONTINUES to be ignored in favor of SILLY FRIVOLITY. Am I invisible or something??




(;) love you Z)

[Zerbie]

Love you too Dave.

I didn't respond to your post (or really to this thread until it got flirtatious!) b/c I don't feel I have relevant input. I have never gotten the "sin" thing - it's a meaningless word to me, and one I didn't start hearing until adulthood when I started reading/hearing the things that other folks (many of our political opponents for instance) believe.

I've always found the failure to recognize the sacred intimate partnerships that gay couples establish to be quite a blasphemy against the God who gave them their ability to love and honor each other in the first place. When my husband and I married, we went through a few steps. City hall, paid a few bucks, signed something, and 10 minutes later had an official certificate saying that the State validates our relationship. Shortly after, we had a ceremony with family and friends present, and the minister who officiated signed our State certificate. ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE DIFFERENT IN THE EYES OF GOD BECAUSE SOME DUDE SAID SOMETHING?! No. We were married in the eyes of God when our spirits commited to one another, which was the wonderful day when my husband asked me. The "marriage" that came later was only an outer ritual. (One with many attendant responsibilities and privileges, make no mistake.)

[andrewlittle]

I just posted a SERIOUS post ON the topic. :mad: and it CONTINUES to be ignored in favor of SILLY FRIVOLITY. Am I invisible or something??

Did someone hear something? Perhaps it's just my imagination. Perhaps it's that still, quiet voice that's calling me to say, "Nice post, but I'm not sure what I can add. You seem to have said it quite well." Then again, perhaps it's just another one of those people who live inside my head.

[tdogg]

The first 'date' with my sweetie, started off as an office event where two people who hardly knew each other decided to go together and it ended up being very similar to an official date. It was the moment when, as we were slow dancing to a song neither of us can even remember, our souls touched - so strongly, so comfortably and so suddenly. The evening ended with us sitting in each others arms, talking, watching a little TV and then calling it a night. We resisted the urge to bring the U-Haul to our second date (a little lesbian humor...), and resisted it successfuly for some time, according to what our heads and to an extend our hearts were telling us.

Now we are together and have been nearly inseparable for over 2 years, since that first dance together. It's as strong as ever, actually it tends to get stronger as time and experience go on. We aren't married (we would have to go to Massachusetts or Canada for that), we aren't even registered as domestic partners (available to us here in CA) at this time. But our love is no less connected or validated because we don't have any papers telling us we love each other and are commited. No official documents in the file - but our souls are forever enmeshed since that first date, first dance, when our souls touched and connected in a way that no piece of paper could ever explain.

We can't say it's going to last forever, till death do us part, although it certainly feels that way. People change, they grow, they progress and the relationship doesn't always survive it. It certainly feels as though we are soul mates and meant to be together always. But, there is no guarantee and no piece of legal or religious documentation is going to ensure that either - ergo, the enormous rate of divorce in this country. To call what we have a sin is contrary to not only the definition of God as love, but to love itself. It feels right - in my mind, my heart and certainly my soul.

My thoughts driving our pets home from a routine vet appointment today - watching the red-winged blackbirds display to find a mate, the sheep in the fields, the cows and horses, it came to me - we as humans are supposedly so much more progressed and evolved than our animal friends. But we are so much more uptight about sex and intimacy than animals could ever be. Why is that? IMO, to a certain extent it's the restrictions and behavior judgments that come from zealous religious teachings, to where most people are afraid of their sexuality and of expressing their sexuality (not saying this as in sexual orientation - just as in having sexual feelings and a drive to express those feelings).

What 2 people (or even 1, or yes even 3...) do together to express their sexuality doesn't seem to be wrong. It's when they do it and bring other people into the picture that don't choose to engage - for instance, a person in a committed relationship having an outside sexual encounter brings their partner into the picture unwillingly, causes hurt and pain and fear - that's the part that is wrong. Engaging in behavior irresponsibly, subject another person unknowingly to STD, emotional hurt, physical pain and unwanted acts is wrong, not so much the actual act. It's the effects of the act that are wrong to me. Not sure if this makes sense, but wanted to definitely respond to U-dogs post (us 'dogs' gotta stay together, it's dog-eat-dog world out there!!).

[goldenbug]

Sex is one of the most basic drives in the complexity called a human being. Controlling sexual activity for the good of society has been an elusive goal since way before Christianity or the modern era.

Traditionally sin has been any activity that separates a person from God. The problem becomes, who gets to decide what separates a person from God? Progressive thought distinguishes between activities that are hurtful to self or others and those that don't harm self or others. Traditional thought relies on a pre-existing code of behavior.

Intimate relationships between human beings are among the noblest of human activities when two people are united body and soul and achieve a spiritual, beyond-physcial union. The term soulmates comes to mind, although that kind of relationship need not include sexual activity.

Sexual relations that don't live up to that noble standard seem less acceptable. Two people copulating who aren't hurting each other or anyone else (like a third person who is a partner/spouse) but who aren't in love may be sinning in some sense, but to me it's not as grievous as taking someone's life or exploiting people who can't defend themselves.

Somehow, in 20th century and now 21st century America, sex has become the worst sin in the book, whether that book is the Bible or the law books. To me that is a warped view of human relationships. Marriage itself, while noble in concept, can be far less so in reality. People who abuse their spouses, physically or emotionally, are engaging in far worse behavior than unmarried people who have sex which at least satisfies some need.

So, to answer your question, I think the nature of the sexual relationship -- not the specific acts but the motivation -- is more important than whether a person is married. (Disclaimer: I'm not talking about children here, but consenting adults.) As BC said, a BJ is far less culpable than war and subjugation of a captive people. BTW, I'm not advocating for sexual impropriety in high places, just trying to put them in context.

I think these are the kinds of standards we should hold all people to, gay or straight.

Here, Here, Ben! I agree with what you write. Dsdrane, many of us here whether homosexual or heterosexual have come to the conclusion that the Word of God does not establish homosexuality as a sin. I have been a Christian for 28 years now and for almost all of that time, I believed homosexuality was a choice and that the Word of God was explicit that it was a sin. I opposed having gay school teachers in our schools, I signed the petition to not allow gays and lesbians to marry in Canada. Thankfully "our side" lost that and gays and lesbians can legally marry now in Canada.

I write this to say that perhaps much of what we believe about pre-marital sex and post-marital sex might too be flawed. The analogies I have given on this board are Old Testament analogies. However, think of Boaz and Ruth. I think that story is relatively clear that her mother in law, a devout Jew, told her to go in to Boaz and "uncover his feet". "Uncover the feet" was a Jewish euphemism for "Expose the genitals". Even the Moffatt Translations says, "Uncover his waist and lie down there." She did this and when Boaz awoke I don't think he was wondering, "I wonder what this lady wants?" LOL :) When he enquires about this, she then says, "spread your covering over me". Which meant "Have sex with me." It is like our saying, "Will you sleep with me?" That phrase sleep usually does not imply "Let's go to be and snooze." No, it is an offer for intercourse. It seems to me that this is just one instance in the Bible of what we would call "pre-marital sex".

What about the Song of Solomon? I have heard of many Preachers who preach through a Bible Book. I have yet to hear one on this grafic piece of sexual literature in the Bible. When I have heard sermons refering to it, it is always in context that this is a symbolic book of Christ's love for the Church. In this book as the "lovers" describe each other, it is my opinion that they are both nude. There are Hebraic references to a man's penis and a woman's vulva right there for all to read!

I could go on with Biblical illustrations such as this. It is my opinion that much of what we learn about sex we have learned through culture and through religious tradition. I want none of that! I want to know what God's Word says about it. As I travel around the country and the world, I meet many people and I now frequent bars to meet people. I have come to the conclusion that non-christians are generally more sexually "atuned" than are Christians. I can almost always talk with non-Christians more openly and honestly about sexual issues than non-believers. Why is that? God certainly inspired a pretty graphic sexual book in the Song of Solomon! God doesn't seem to mind talking about it as He created us with these desires.

So, I encourage you, search the Scriptures to see what they say. Perhaps some of what I believe and have expressed here is in error. I am so thankful that God's grace is bigger than we know! :)

[Pablo Rafael]

I just posted a SERIOUS post ON the topic. :mad: and it CONTINUES to be ignored in favor of SILLY FRIVOLITY. Am I invisible or something??


Oh, Hi Dave, Did you just get here?

You ought to join in on this discussion. This topic seems just right for you. In fact I'm surprised you haven't posted anything yet. :D

Actually I did read your original post. I think I had posted something stupid close by. I hate to say something serious right close to my idiotic posts.

I think you have made a good statement. I think that marriage is a sacrament that was intituted by God. I believe that the ideal intent of the sacrament is for two people to be committed to each other in a lifelong monogamous relationship.

However, I hate to be quite as bold as you. (To use a different example: I think that divorce is not part of God's plan, but at the same time I think divorce can be the only reasonable option in many situations.) I hate to say what relationships are more pleasing to God. We all fall short in our relationships. We all have to deal with living lives that are less than ideal. God's grace covers all.

I admire people who are in lifelong relationships and have committed themselves to share sexual intimacy only with that person. I don't want it to sound like I am saying that marriage really doesn't matter; it does, but I really hesitate to sound judgemental against anyone for whom life has directed down a different path.

In other words I am rather torn by this issue. I haven't really settled it in my mind. When in conflict, I always take the more liberal route. It is better to err on the side of being too accepting rather than too judgemental in my opinion.

I think LGBT individuals have a much harder time being in a monogamous, life-long relationships due to religious, societal and governmental forces working against us. It will be a great day when all marriages, gay and straight, will be celebrated and honored.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[u-dog]

I think that that was my point Pablo. we are INCAPABLE of pleasing God, of making perfect decisions that are free from sin. The grace of Christ means that we can give up on Trying for perfection and stop worrying about how we will be judged according to our deeds.

We can simply make the best decisions possible given the realities of our circumstances, striving to move IN THE DIRECTION of pleasing God whenever possible. I choose against rape because it moves me away from God's pleasure. I chose the most responsible, mutual, covenantal relationships I can in order to move IN THE DIRECTION of pleasing God.

[dsdrane]

Firstly (and once again...perchance once and for all?):

Dsdrane, many of us here whether homosexual or heterosexual have come to the conclusion that the Word of God does not establish homosexuality as a sin.
So, I encourage you, search the Scriptures to see what they say. Perhaps some of what I believe and have expressed here is in error. I am so thankful that God's grace is bigger than we know! :)

G-Bug...I AGREE!!! (Have I not been clear on this?)

Since October 2005, when my second of two long-term relationships ended, I have been single longer than any time before I was 23. I was a gay virgin until I was 22. (There was no heterosexual virginity to lose in my case, as I am a Kinsey 6+.) My first relationship was with Will and lasted 12 years. It was completely monogamous with a painful exception on both of our parts while I was away in graduate school. Will and I were domestically-partnered, couple #67 or something on that first day of the new NYC law back in 1993 (did I get that right, Daniel...I know we were in line together!) Not being religious at the time, for all intents and purposes, I felt "married". After 12 years, I finally broke it off (for many reasons I won't bore you with here). About 6 months later, Paul and I started dating. We were together (also monogamously) just over 3 years, when he pulled the plug (thus constituting a new and final link in the chain of events that lured me to greener and sunnier pastures in South Florida).

Slightly before Will, in between Will and Paul, and since Paul, there have been other guys, but I'm pretty sure I can still count the members of this extremely exclusive club on two hands. [Note to self: we should make a list while we can still remember.]

I tell you all this to give you an idea of where I'm coming from and to illustrate both a lack of prudishness and slutishness.

At no point, from the moment I came out to myself to my last hay romp with my sort of, proto-, long-distance, German boy?friend, have I ever had the slightest thought that my sexual activities -- in and outside of relationships -- were sinful in the slightest degree (with the one exception of the grad. school infidelity). I and the others I've been with are nice people, of age, with sound minds and bodies (though some more than others...but I digress), who did what we did in private, the details of which I'm quite certain did not make Baby Jesus cry.

This is something I know intuitively; corroborative statements from other people or books are not necessary.

And as for you, Pablo...

Uhh... this might not be the best time to bring this up, but David, do you know how I can get in touch with this guy you're describing?

:|

(Cad.)

[Daniel]

Since October 2005, when my second of two long-term relationships ended, I have been single longer than any time before I was 23. I was a gay virgin until I was 22. (There was no heterosexual virginity to lose in my case, as I am a Kinsey 6+.) My first relationship was with Will and lasted 12 years. It was completely monogamous with a painful exception on both of our parts while I was away in graduate school. Will and I were domestically-partnered, couple #67 or something on that first day of the new NYC law back in 1993 (did I get that right, Daniel...I know we were in line together!) Not being religious at the time, for all intents and purposes, I felt "married".


David- I missed this post, that is, until Squirt's thread and your link back HERE adjusted my attention accordingly.

You are right. We were in line together (though for some reason I think it was 1994?) Jonathan and I were there on the first day and were number 52 in line - just ahead of you. What I remember about that day was the press, who couldn't keep themselves from taking pictures of the two leather queens on the steps of City Hall, all dolled up from head to toe in their finery. I kept wondering: "What about the rest of us?!" But who made the front page of the NYTimes? Not the gay men who were first in line or the leathermen, but a lesbian couple who wore black and pearls. I though that was a hoot! So very East Side New York.

[dsdrane]

Ah, yes, and the photo-op with David Dinkins and Ruth Messinger.

...and with domestic partnership comes the dissolution of domestic partnership. This, I finally got around to accomplishing (ironically several months before my following domestic arrangement hit the skids) by plunking down something like $45, signing an affidavit and having a copy sent to my ex-, "notifying" him.

Silver lining: easier than divorce.

Hilariously, to me, the counter is the same at Borough Hall for shacking and busting up.

What'll it be, Folks? Too funny.

[Daniel]

Ah, yes, and the photo-op with David Dinkins and Ruth Messinger.

NYC really is a small town: I see Ruth Messinger all the time. She lives at the end of my block. :lol:

[dsdrane]

That it is.

My ex and I were friends with her press secretary when she was Borough President.

OK, everyone, we'll stop now. :rolleyes:

I'm glad that you resurrected this thread, Daniel, because I just read something over at GCN about this "Side B" thing I think I've mentioned before. Perhaps we should shift focus a bit from the concept of Gay Virginity to Gay Celebacy. For those who don't know, "Side B" is what our celebate brothers and sisters over at GCN call themselves (why, I have no idea).

What do y'all think about this notion of deciding to be celibate: self-loathing or a commitment to purely platonic love?

Personally, it's a non-starter for me (my current "celebacy" is neither declared and nor desired!), but I already know how I feel...how 'bout y'all?

:cookie:

[keltic63]

That it is.

My ex and I were friends with her press secretary when she was Borough President.

OK, everyone, we'll stop now. :rolleyes:

I'm glad that you resurrected this thread, Daniel, because I just read something over at GCN about this "Side B" thing I think I've mentioned before. Perhaps we should shift focus a bit from the concept of Gay Virginity to Gay Celebacy. For those who don't know, "Side B" is what our celebate brothers and sisters over at GCN call themselves (why, I have no idea).

What do y'all think about this notion of deciding to be celibate: self-loathing or a commitment to purely platonic love?

Personally, it's a non-starter for me (my current "celebacy" is neither declared and nor desired!), but I already know how I feel...how 'bout y'all?

:cookie:

It's a simple conclusion for me: Side B believes that their orientation is not a sin, but homosexual acts are, and so it is necessary that they remain celebate. It just doesn't add up for me, and here's why: theologically I find it to be unsound. Jesus declared that if you think about sex (lusting after someone) then you've already commited the act in your head. In that teaching, Jesus says that your thought life is just as important as your actions. For someone to "know" that they are gay or lesbian, is to have thoughts that would include same-sex attraction, even lust. Having that thought, according to Jesus, is the same as commiting the action.
I also have trouble believing God would create a group of people then add unreasonable requirements to their lives, like celibacy that would deny them the full expression of being human.

[Daniel]

What do y'all think about this notion of deciding to be celibate: self-loathing or a commitment to purely platonic love?

Personally, it's a non-starter for me (my current "celebacy" is neither declared and nor desired!), but I already know how I feel...how 'bout y'all?

Neither self-loathing or platonic love. I see the promotion of celibacy on the part of those on the B side as an attempt by the ego to keep things like one's issues with intimacy and sexuality managable. It's a coping mechanism. The danger as I see it is this: it's way too easy for the ego to set itself up as God and make itself 'special' and somehow apart from everyone else. This is what happens in the psyche of the gay person anyway- we already feel separate. Should we then make that separateness somehow special? I say hell no. That's not compassion for one's self or anyone else. This goes against- as I see it- the heart of the teachings of both Jesus and the Buddha.

Likewise, it is the rare individual who goes off to a monastery or an ashram and devotes his/her life to spiritual endeavors. To demand that of all gay people is both ludicrous and just plain stupid.

[Bearnabas]

So, now that I've read all of the thread on my side started by Squirt07 and all of this thread, I'm understanding these things:

1. That the Bible seems to have places where it not only condones, but also treats as normal, sex before marriage--aka Boaz and Ruth and Song of Solomon.

2. That a loving relationship moves in the DIRECTION of God's Love and not away from it.

3. That celibacy is not demanded until you find "the one" --partly because it is so hard to find the "one" and that GLBT don't exactly have carte blanche to marry legally, thereby losing a support foundation that most other straight christians have in society at large.

4. That celibacy is driving me completely bonkers, and yet, I don't want to sleep with someone I don't know. If I make informed decisions with loving, caring people, I may not be to blame "sin-wise" for sex, but I will be held responsible for hearts and bodies as consequences as would anyone else.

So, next time I meet someone and I date them for a bit, I'm going to have sex and end my 38 year celibacy.... because I don't know if I can never have a sexual expression with another human being for my entire life...or till 45. Or heck, till 40.....

I'm tired. I want to be loved. I want to love someone. Even if they aren't the perfect person in the world and we don't sign a document saying to loveand cherish...I have this body and I really want to express myself with it in a relationship that is loving.

This doesn't mean I'm leaving this email and jumping on the first hot guy I find... but it does give me a bit more license to not hold it all in or not feel guilt when I want to do it so badly....

Is this where all this is heading?

[dsdrane]

By George, I think he's got it!

That definitely merits a cookie: :cookie:

Bearnabas, if your handsome dog is any indication and I knew where you were, I swear I'd pop over and end your drought, tout de suite! :agree:

[Ooooo, I'm really gonna get it now...wait 'til Uncle Andy sees this! :rolleyes: ]

But, I guess that's not really practical and Pablo would never forgive me, so you're just going to have to find a nice man of the homosexual persuasion and get on the bus for Funkytown.

[Years from now when you talk about this...and you will...be kind.]

:love: :tup:

[andrewlittle]

For what it is worth, I think God wants us to love. Period. If we corral some part of our love because we thinks its dirty, sinful, [fill in the blank with another judgment call], then how can we experience love as fully as possible.

I would like to say that having sex is always wrapped in love and committment - I would like to say that, but I'm not a idiot. As long as having sex is consensual, mutual, respectful and loving on some basis, how can it be negative. Much more damaging is the tendency to wrap sex in shameful concepts that create perversions of love - domination (and I'm not talking about concensual dom/sub), abuse, coersion, etc.

Live into love. I like u-dog's concept of moving towards God, as opposed to away, and what better way than through loving.

Now, David, let's have a chat. Lie down on the couch.

What's that? No! Face up is fine.
By George, I think he's got it!

That definitely merits a cookie: :cookie:

Bearnabas, if your handsome dog is any indication and I knew where you were, I swear I'd pop over and end your drought, tout de suite! :agree:

[Ooooo, I'm really gonna get it now...wait 'til Uncle Andy sees this! :rolleyes: ]

But, I guess that's not really practical and Pablo would never forgive me, so you're just going to have to find a nice man of the homosexual persuasion and get on the bus for Funkytown.

[Years from now when you talk about this...and you will...be kind.]

:love: :tup:

A classic cry for help if I ever heard one. You did everything but put a neon sign pointing at your plea for attention.

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Such a gorgeous young man, and you seem to be so - hmmm, desperate.

First Pablo. Now Bearnabas. Really, David, what's happening?

There are guys all over panting for your bu... Anyway, you could have any gay man you wanted simply by batting those eyes at them - hell, maybe even some straight ones. Who knows? But you seem intent on going for the ones you can't have for some reason. Are you so completely devoid of failure and rejection in your life that you have to find it wherever you can get it?

If you need that kind of rejection there are simpler, much more unfulfilling ways than trying to carry on long-distance rejections. Act like me. Talk with the voices that live in your head while in public. Go without showers for weeks on end. Go without brushing your teeth until the scrapings could provide important medical research resources. Develop your own inimitable style - wearing stripes and checks together is my sartorial statement. If all else fails, passing gas while holding your finger out is a sure winner.

I am sure, within a short period of time, you too could find the rejection and lack of fulfillment you are craving right in your own neck of the woods. Please - have you some pride - stop seeking rejection in all the distant places.

[Zerbie]

(David, you totally crack me up!! Wowsa. :p )

Bearnabas: (Take this with a grain of salt, as it's my observation and opinion, and not a "Christian" one at that, but here goes:)

Sex is a primal need. All animals experience that driving need. Only humans set "official" (actually, artificial) parameters for it's expression. That isn't to say that a lot of the social guidelines we follow aren't good - a lot of them are VERY good, or society would be chaos. But sexual expression, dear Bearnabas, is to be moderated, not snuffed out.

God knows that you have sexual needs. He created you with them. He knew you would have them. Consider this: how well are you able to devote your life to the good works God would have you do, if a large portion of your attention and energy is consumed with burning suffering feelings of unfulfilled desire? That puts too much of your attention on sex, why? Because the natural physical, emotional need is unsatisfied. Satisfy the need in a safe healthy balanced way, and you will also free up your mental attention for further growth, and for making a strong contribution to the world.

The question is what you DO with your sexuality. Are you out at the bars picking up cute strangers and doin' it in the back room, every night? Or are you sharing that most intimate part of your inmost self with a loving partner in a mutually trusting, personally growth-inspiring relationship? It is just as imbalanced to deny yourself sexual pleasure and fulfillment for a lifetime as it would be imbalanced to pick up 5 strangers a night in dark corners for quickies.

Allow yourself the human experience. Yet be wise and balanced in your choice of expression. Always, always be respectful of your body and others, of your heart and others, and always be safe.

One final thought for the record: masturbation is a healthy and safe way to experience release. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Allow yourself that, at least.

[keltic63]

One final thought for the record: masturbation is a healthy and safe way to experience release. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Allow yourself that, at least.



You're preaching to the choir, Sister! :o

[Bearnabas]

I wish we were all in the same town, or same state, so I could give you all a big consensual, yet platonic, hug.

Zerbie, I know of that thing you call...masturbation...it is God's saving grace. "Without it, how lost I would be...." to mangle a hymn.

I want to edit my last comments--or addend them. I don't think I can just run off and have sex...my first time has to be for love. I just don't think I can throw away all my inhibitions built up like calcium deposits...(what an image!) in one triple whammy. Maybe I'm weird this way, but if I'm gonna go all the way, love is going to make it a more pleasurable and less guilt-ridden experience. I don't even know if I could do some things without really, really liking that person a lot to be that intimate--I mean sex involves a lot of vulnerability and topical creams.

So, no fears of me running off to pick someone up... (oh, wait, there's my beeper...says, man in back alley needs me.... brb)... but I will look around and really open myself up for the possibilities of complete dating... that relationship that might lead to sex at one point. I still think I'm a bit old-fashioned, but you gotta love someone a lot to be naked with them, I think.... I gotta ease myself into sex-- (which sounds like a visual metaphor, but it's not...).

At least, you guys have allowed me a different way of seeing sex. Rather than fear that I might "slip" before I find "the one"--- both of those in quotes for a purpose, I think---I think I'm going to treat people lovingly on the way to discovering a good partner, and that must include some touch, dammit.

By the way, I'm four years old as a gay man--very very very LATE blooomer in figuring things out. Anyone else think that there was a gay demon out there trying to make you "turn gay" and that this battle between innocent man and gay demon was a holy battle you had to win to save your penis for the right woman? Okay, well, maybe just me, but that's the way I thought of homosexuality--an outside force, not an inner drive--something affecting me, trying to hurt me, not something that may be inherently me, God-created part of me. So for 34 years, I battled that demon pretty well, not even realizing I could be gay--because obviously I was just a targeted, tortured straight man. LOL. Anyway, i appreciate your maps of the roads ahead as you've traveled them.

Keep the road signs a'coming...I'm moving....:D

[Daniel]

I want to edit my last comments--or addend them. I don't think I can just run off and have sex...my first time has to be for love. I just don't think I can throw away all my inhibitions built up like calcium deposits...(what an image!) in one triple whammy. Maybe I'm weird this way, but if I'm gonna go all the way, love is going to make it a more pleasurable and less guilt-ridden experience. I don't even know if I could do some things without really, really liking that person a lot to be that intimate--I mean sex involves a lot of vulnerability and topical creams.


I don't think that's weird at all.

I hear you loud and clear. Through all my relationships- and I've had three long-term ones- love was first and foremost on my mind (well...maybe not all the time...but most of the time. :weee: ) Sex with love is pretty wonderful. There is nothing better. That said, I think your goal is a good one as long as it doesn't become a grand expectation- ie a demand- which in and of itself stops you in your tracks. Get my drift?

This reminds me of an observation by a friend.

"Gay men meet each other, have sex, and then decide if they like each other. Lesbians meet one another, have sex, and move in with each other."

Of course, this is a gross generalization. But it does have grain of truth.

Your aim, of course, has a good deal more in it that a simple desire to get laid. However, I wouldn't blame you (and wonder why you should blame yourself) if you did feel that way. The truth is that even gay and married folks have the hunger to make love which can border on 'I gotta have it now!' The fun part is turning that mania into play. Or even offering one's lust for that cute boy you saw on the street (yeah...it does happen to the best of us) to each other.

And there is another matter too. Lovemaking is a skill. It takes practice. Our culture has a tendency to look down on casual relationships, but having had a few (but's who's counting? :eek: ) of those myself, I believe that such experiences can have their own time and place in one's ....for lack of a better word....development. They can be a tremendous teacher. And God knows (:lol: :laughing: ) the sex itself can be incredible. Yes. It's true. It can be incredible. But one must use common sense in such matters.

No....you don't have to go run out and nail the first guy you see. Just don't drive with the brakes on all the time. ;)

~

You know about safe sex, right? Know how to use a condom and be comfortable with it? This stuff is important. The more at ease one is with the practical aspect- the better: simply having a knowledgable partner who can introduce one to all this stuff can change one's life. It can be liberating.

[dsdrane]

Daniel...

I'm shocked. Shocked!

(You tell that hubby he'd better be nice to you. :love:)

[Andy...don't start with me....]

[Bearnabas]

Thanks for your comments. No, I haven't practiced much with a condom yet... I'll have to get used to it. I just never had an opportunity yet.

As for "sex as teacher"--that might be a cool way to look at it too.

Appreciate all your comments---and I think I'm ready.... (looks around at empty room)... for a good relationship....(looks around again....)

I'll have to leave the room.

;)

[Daniel]

Thanks for your comments. No, I haven't practiced much with a condom yet... I'll have to get used to it. I just never had an opportunity yet.

Go get some and practice my friend! Great sex doesn't just 'happen'. After all, the brain is the largest sex organ! :lol: No....not over that head.....the other one!

As someone who works in the arts and helps people get ready for a career, here is something to keep in mind:

One must be ready for opportunites when they present themselves.

The singer has to have some roles under his/her belt so that when one is asked "Can you sing such and such" he/she smiles and say "Yes...I know that!"

Forgive my silliness, but I think life is like that too.

Every good boy scout is prepared!

~

David!

You're shocked? Girlfriend.....darling....this affair you've having out in the open....under everyone's noses.....now that's shocking! Oh...but I'm stealing Andy's lines.

Shame on me!

[Zerbie]

I wish we were all in the same town, or same state, so I could give you all a big consensual, yet platonic, hug.

:D :love:

Zerbie, I know of that thing you call...masturbation...it is God's saving grace. "Without it, how lost I would be...." to mangle a hymn.

:lol: Whew! For a moment there, I thought you had gone 38 years. . . .



I want to edit my last comments--or addend them. I don't think I can just run off and have sex...my first time has to be for love. I just don't think I can throw away all my inhibitions built up like calcium deposits...(what an image!) in one triple whammy. Maybe I'm weird this way, but if I'm gonna go all the way, love is going to make it a more pleasurable and less guilt-ridden experience. I don't even know if I could do some things without really, really liking that person a lot to be that intimate--I mean sex involves a lot of vulnerability and topical creams.

So true! :lol: Having inhibitions about sex is actually far more common in American society than NOT having them. Consider yourself in the majority on that point. While I'm among the more uninhibited personality types, I share your pickiness about just who gets that close to me. It took me a bit of a while to find my handsome husband, though not as long as I thought it might.

What's great is having a loving, uninhibited partner with whom you share deep, abiding trust. Always communicate. I think partners should feel comfortable to talk about sex, what kind of touch they like, don't like, etc. It's wonderful when all those characteristics of trust, love, and communication line up between two who love each other. I wish that for you, someday soon.


By the way, I'm four years old as a gay man--very very very LATE blooomer in figuring things out. Anyone else think that there was a gay demon out there trying to make you "turn gay" and that this battle between innocent man and gay demon was a holy battle you had to win to save your penis for the right woman? Okay, well, maybe just me, but that's the way I thought of homosexuality--an outside force, not an inner drive--something affecting me, trying to hurt me, not something that may be inherently me, God-created part of me. So for 34 years, I battled that demon pretty well,

No, not that unusual. I know people who came out after age 30 and after age 40. And yes, they enter their "real" adolescence THEN. What matters is having the growing experiences and being who we were created to be, not exactly WHEN we do. I think many gay people believed that *homosexuals* were the "other" people, and then when feelings of attraction for their own sex hit, they thought the feelings did not belong - like, how could these feelings hit a "normal" person like me? Our entire society is told that gay is something one decides to be, but that human nature is really always heterosexual. Folks are still trying to squelch any teaching of the actual fact of the matter; is it any wonder that many gay folks don't understand right off the bat that what they're taught is a lie?

[BrianB]

I was wondering what everyones thoughts were about this.. I know in the christian faith obstaining from premarital sex is a big thing, I agree with it too. BUt you find in the homosexual community that there is just about no one that believes that. I think partially is becasue there is no option to marry but and there isnt a strong faith base in the community. So i was wondering what evryones thoughts both personaly and biblically where on that.
I noticed that we're both from Ohio. Since same-sex marriages have been banned in Ohio; I think the best you can do is a long-term, commited, sexual relationship between consenting adults. Maybe one day the gay marriage ban amendment will be repealed in Ohio's constitution. One can only hope!:pray: