Wheaton's Response

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by Dash

But...we're not deceived...those who oppose us would not be appeased if we were in celibate, loving gay relationships. We'd still be plainly gay, and it is what we are that offends.

Here it is in latin for us Catholic traditionalists: EGO sum proinde EGO ledo. Isn't the internet wonderful. I was just kidding about being a traditionalist but I am catholic.

[tdogg]

Wow Patrick - cool cheerleaders!!!

Can anyone explain what a 'marriage' consists of according to the Bible? I mean, how would one define the actual act of getting marriage? I couldn't possibly be more 'married' to my partner, it's what I feel in my heart irregardless of existence or lack of paperwork or another human's blessing. Isnt' the love in my heart and the blessings bestowed upon us by God enough to justify us being married? So, in that case, wouldn't God expect us to have sex?

Unless sexual acts are strictly for procreation...But are they? Have you ever seen animals engage in sex (homo or hetero) outside of the 'breeding pen'? I've seen castrated horses jump and mount mares and other male horses and engage in sex (yes the full on sex folks) with no hope of procreation. I've seen animals engage in homosexual sex (very many different species) again, no hope of procreation.

A good point is brought up - if 'married' humans are engaging in sexual acts without the intent or hope of procreation, is that not wrong (based on the theory that the Bible teaches sex is for procreation therefore justifying in some minds their belief that we should only engage in sex with a married person - to us of course - of the opposite sex)?

Who defines the act of marriage - does God actually provide for us a play by play set of instructions on how to get married, or does a human(s) once again give themselves the authority on determining how that happens and who is allowed the priviledge of taking part in their instructions?

[tdogg]

Amen Antony! It's the heart that matters!

[u-dog]

OK, I have, for obvious reasons, given this whole marriage thing a LOT of thought so here goes:

1. I want there to be NO misunderstanding about this: IMO, GLBT people who commit themselves to one another and their relationship to God ARE married in the fullest sense of the words regardless of what the state may say. regardless of what anyone may say.

2. While mutual love is ESSENTIAL, it is not the only thing in play in Marriage. IN marriage, two people COMMIT to each other that they will strive to create, sustain, and RE-create the relationship over and over again EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT FEELING mutual love. Believe me when I tell you that if "LOVE AS A FEELING" were the only thing holding me and my wife together we woulda both been outa here long since. When we marry we join our two selves togehter to create a THIRD entity which didn't exist before. Before there was ME and YOU. Now there is ME, YOU, and US. In this sense ALL marriages are PROCREATIVE even infertile Straight couples and GLBT couples.

3. Marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not JUST about the two people. Marriages exist in the context of wider family and larger community. My wife didn't just become my wife. She became the daughter of my parents and Sister of my Siblings and the Aunt of my Sibling's children. I help to care for my Mother-in-law with Alzheimers because when I married my wife she became MY mother. So ALL kinds of relationships are shattered and re-created when two people marry. My friends and her friends become OUR friends or they eventually become NO FRIENDS at all. That's why a ceremony is important. Because everyone who will be impacted by the marriage needs to buy into its creation and agree to the new ground rules. That's why Marriage MUST be recognized (eventually) by the state so that the state can recognize the new relationship as a separate entity and deal with it in all of the appropriate ways.

4. Love initiates and nurtures a marriage, but commitment, intention, community, family, friends, the law, and above all the LOVE OF GOD, sustain it.

[Dash]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Gay Marriage

...you and me...
bound together by
presidents scapegoating to victory,
senators amending constitutions,
judges abdicating on minority rights,
pastors indoctrinating holy rollers,
holy rollers voting in presidents, senators and judges,
bashers vying for the top of the FBI hate-crime list.

what could rings and vows add to
the depth of our love
on indignity's road?

Love it!

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by u-dog

OK, I have, for obvious reasons, given this whole marriage thing a LOT of thought so here goes:

1. I want there to be NO misunderstanding about this: IMO, GLBT people who commit themselves to one another and their relationship to God ARE married in the fullest sense of the words regardless of what the state may say. regardless of what anyone may say.

2. While mutual love is ESSENTIAL, it is not the only thing in play in Marriage. IN marriage, two people COMMIT to each other that they will strive to create, sustain, and RE-create the relationship over and over again EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT FEELING mutual love. Believe me when I tell you that if "LOVE AS A FEELING" were the only thing holding me and my wife together we woulda both been outa here long since. When we marry we join our two selves togehter to create a THIRD entity which didn't exist before. Before there was ME and YOU. Now there is ME, YOU, and US. In this sense ALL marriages are PROCREATIVE even infertile Straight couples and GLBT couples.

3. Marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not JUST about the two people. Marriages exist in the context of wider family and larger community. My wife didn't just become my wife. She became the daughter of my parents and Sister of my Siblings and the Aunt of my Sibling's children. I help to care for my Mother-in-law with Alzheimers because when I married my wife she became MY mother. So ALL kinds of relationships are shattered and re-created when two people marry. My friends and her friends become OUR friends or they eventually become NO FRIENDS at all. That's why a ceremony is important. Because everyone who will be impacted by the marriage needs to buy into its creation and agree to the new ground rules. That's why Marriage MUST be recognized (eventually) by the state so that the state can recognize the new relationship as a separate entity and deal with it in all of the appropriate ways.

4. Love initiates and nurtures a marriage, but commitment, intention, community, family, friends, the law, and above all the LOVE OF GOD, sustain it.

U-dog, Excellent!

Dash, whew you cut your hair...NICE!

[u-dog]

Even if I could find a church to marry me, many family members and friends would not come to the ceremony. They would consider the suggestion about "buying into its creation" as tantamount to heresy, the end of faith as they know it. For many LGBTQ persons a ceremony with the community impact you are talking about is simply impossible.

I am not debunking what you are saying because I think it has broad implications on how LGBTQ feel about themselves. I know many LGBTQ people who find it very difficult to even aspire to a committed relationship because they don't see how it will fit into their extended community of family and friends. They just don't want to deal with the pain of being the "elephant in the room" in their extended community. It is much easier for them to live their lives in compartments: my family, my gay friends and my sex partners. Keep each compartment separate so that I can feel safe in each one. Of course this is not a whole, integrated way to live...but it helps people to survive.
The Religious Right often accuse the LGBTQ community of being disease ridden and promiscuous. Stanton Jones has a whole chapters on Promiscuity among Homosexuals and AIDS. As your discussion has highlighted, it is the lack of integration of committed LGBTQ couples into the fabric of community and nation that is the real problem. It is old fashioned oppression..

This is exactly the reason why the struggle for marriage rights and recognition is SO IMPORTANT. Whether every GLBT person decides to marry is irrelevant, the acceptance of GLBT people and our rights will be BUILT on recognition of our relationships.

I've been a partisan in the ORDINATION WAR in my denomination for over 30 years and I have been saying for almost that long that equality in ordination WAS THE WRONG BATTLE for us to be fighting first. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGE. Once we succeed at that the Ordination thing will fall into place without a struggle.

Great Poem BTW!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Even if I could find a church to marry me, many family members and friends would not come to the ceremony. They would consider the suggestion about "buying into its creation" as tantamount to heresy, the end of faith as they know it. For many LGBTQ persons a ceremony with the community impact you are talking about is simply impossible.

I asked the gay rector of the Episcopal church I had been singing at for over 10 years if he would marry my partner and I and he refused flat out after twitching for about 10 seconds. That being a dead end, we decided after some deliberation to have the ceremony officiated by a close friend who is a Zen Buddhist Nun and a minister. Total change of direction (no Udog....that's not how I lost my faith..it's here somewhere). And I'm glad we did that. It was life changing..

Originally Posted by Anthony

I am not debunking what you are saying because I think it has broad implications on how LGBTQ feel about themselves. I know many LGBTQ people who find it very difficult to even aspire to a committed relationship because they don't see how it will fit into their extended community of family and friends. They just don't want to deal with the pain of being the "elephant in the room" in their extended community. It is much easier for them to live their lives in compartments: my family, my gay friends and my sex partners. Keep each compartment separate so that I can feel safe in each one. Of course this is not a whole, integrated way to live...but it helps people to survive.

...and a real wakeup call to my family, which they have never answered to this day. One member of my family sent me a letter saying she would love to come but didn't believe gay people should be allowed to marry. (One has to laugh or it can kill ya.) I sent back a card that had a mean-faced nun holding a ruler on the front and let her know that I did't want THAT at my wedding (not very nonviolent of me...I know). My parents sent a card (at least they had some manners) and I heard nothing from the rest of my family.. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Persona non grata.

And I have witnessed the same sort of 'reception' with other friends who have gotten hitched. The family is invariably conservative and christian. The invitation just rocks their boat. I think that is what many are afraid of. And I don't blame them. It was hard to deal with. Stung like you can't believe. At least those not attending a straight wedding send gifts if they don't show up.

Everyone present during the ceremony cried- and I mean cried. We did too. It meant something. It really did. It felt like we were at the center of an huge energetic event that rippled out endlessly. Afterwards, a friend told us that it made her realize that love was really what it was all about. If two people of the same sex could commit to each other without an ounce of legal recognition, it kinda showed her what is was like to not merely go through the motions. And I fear that a good many do.

Originally Posted by Anthony

Gay Marriage

...you and me...
bound together by
presidents scapegoating to victory,
senators amending constitutions,
judges abdicating on minority rights,
pastors indoctrinating holy rollers,
holy rollers voting in presidents, senators and judges,
bashers vying for the top of the FBI hate-crime list.

what could rings and vows add to
the depth of our love
on indignity's road?

Great piece!

It makes one cry to think what has been done in the name of God.

Originally Posted by u-dog

Love initiates and nurtures a marriage, but commitment, intention, community, family, friends, the law, and above all the LOVE OF GOD, sustain it.

So I guess we can manage everything but the law aspect, right? And I hope that day is not too far off. I want to quit worrying about what happens if such and such happens and are the papers in order and- dear...did you remember to bring the power of attorney doc? It gets old real fast sitting in second-class.

Originally Posted by Udog

I've been a partisan in the ORDINATION WAR in my denomination for over 30 years and I have been saying for almost that long that equality in ordination WAS THE WRONG BATTLE for us to be fighting first. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGE. Once we succeed at that the Ordination thing will fall into place without a struggle.

Now- this is brilliant. You are right, of course.

~

When are we getting back to Wheaton? I wanna know what the big guns here think.

[Zerbie]

Omigosh, Daniel, Tdogg, Antony, everyone! I'm sitting here in my happy little bubble reading these words from all of you and my heart is breaking. Antony and Tdogg, your families wouldn't come? Daniel, a family member sent a note saying *what?!* And your parents only sent a card? They weren't *there*?! No one else even *acknowledged* you??

('scuse me, please all look the other way while I stomp around and break things for a minute. . . That's all just so d*mn hurtful and - what's the word? - uncaring.Oh man, I'm pissed off. )

Just want you all to know how much I admire you for being who you are, as loving and insightful, gentle and patient, as you are.

I was going to start a thread to ask something about member's experience with homophobia, but I think maybe I don't have to, now.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Stung like you can't believe.

Wow, I can't even imagine how it must have felt. Sorry you had to go through that.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Wow, I can't even imagine how it must have felt. Sorry you had to go through that.

Me too.

Thanks for your good thoughts.

You know- one thing I forgot to mention that was totally unexpected.

We had (I'm using past tense unfortunately) friends- a gay couple actually- and one of the guys just freaked out and couldn't handle coming to the wedding. It brought up all kinds of stuff for him. They arrived- after strange phone calls- about 4 hours later. Odd. Odd. Odd. Showed me that marriage- like death- can really shake people up.

~

Back to Jones and his mishegosh!

Mr. Andrew! Where are you?

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Daniel

We had (I'm using past tense unfortunately) friends- a gay couple actually- and one of the guys just freaked out and couldn't handle coming to the wedding. It brought up all kinds of stuff for him. They arrived- after strange phone calls- about 4 hours later. Odd. Odd. Odd. Showed me that marriage- like death- can really shake people up.

The old cliche about weddings says "The bride looked stunning and the groom looked stunned." So what happens when there are two grooms? Are we both supposed to look stunned?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

The old cliche about weddings says "The bride looked stunning and the groom looked stunned." So what happens when there are two grooms? Are we both supposed to look stunned?

I'll have to scan a photo and let you decide.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I'll have to scan a photo and let you decide.

Haha! Please do ... I'd love to see it.

[andrewlittle]

I think you have done an excellent job of tearing into Jones' bias and unrelenting arrogance in referring to, and building arguments around his view as the truth.

The largest delusion I see at work is the concept that this truth is consistent with the bulk of work of classic Christianity. He either has not read classic Christian works, or believes that "classic" refers to the knee-jerk backlash of fundamentalism against modernism in the very late 1800's and beyond.

The proof-texts he offers do little to add credibility to his argument, unless you are firmly entrenched within the camp. His instruction to read Genesis 1-3 to understand "the human condition" is predictable and incredibly weak. The crux of it is the old argument that Adam and Eve are archetypal humans, and their relationship the one and only type ordained by God. It has been refuted ad nauseum, already.

Personally, I find his other scripture references equally predictable and his reasoning vacuous at best.

His version of "classic position of the Christian church on sexuality and sexual morality" is very telling - and imaginative in a non-creative way.

He (God presumably) made us so that one man and one woman could be blessed to form an exclusive and life-long marital union in which to experience the joy of sexual and personal union, and possibly the gift of children.

If he insists that one man and one woman is THE archetypal relationship based on his literal(?) reading, then he has to also agree that child-bearing is not a possible gift, but a order of God. I won't beat that to death, since it already has had some coverage.

We have also believed that all of humanity is fractured by the reality of sin, such that we experience many desires and inclinations that are not in accord with how God made us#1. In fact, we are even distorted in our thinking, such that we have difficulty recognizing the true, the pure, the good.#2 Because of this reality, we celebrate that God spoke to his people through prophets and apostles in words preserved faithfully in the Bible to diagnose our brokenness and to reveal to us how he desires us to live.

#1 - Including the belief that we can know what God thinks is good and righteous. Isn't that the effect of eating the damned fruit in the first place - to know better then God, or at least as much as God.
#2 Which is why he is telling us throughout what is true, pure and good - evidently he is the one who is not affected by the beliefs of classic Christianity in this instance.
#3 Broken humans speaking to broken humans. His belief that the words are directly from God do not mitigate the problem that broken humans could not preserve words literally. Faithfully, yes. But that would not mean literally.

Sexual purity is one way in which Christians are to show their love for their Lord—we are to conduct ourselves in accord with God’s “rules” as revealed in the entire Bible.#1 ... The Bible consistently affirms the blessedness of sexual union between a man and woman married to each other#2, and urges us to restrain ourselves from all sexual intimacies outside that blessed union#2.

#1 - But just the sexual rules, and then even just those that deal with same-sex prohibitions. Wouldn't the "entire" Bible indicate "all" the rules?
#2 Except for Abraham, King David, King Solomon and a score of other people who engaged in sexual unions with more than one partner, some of them spouses and some not, and some of them coerced, tricked or widowed others to engage in sexual activity that does not fit with Jones' "norm".

The Soulforce theology simply and directly says, “God accepts us as we are without qualification.”

Gross, deceitful, gratuitous oversimplification - that's better than saying, "lying sack of sh...", right? If he wanted to say “God accepts us as we are without qualification with regard to our sexual and gender identification”, then I might spare him the derision.

It is nice and tidy, though, that Soulforce theology - and that of its members, I presume - can be summed up in one creed about a specific aspect of people's being. Does he believe that his entire theology can be understood from one of the creeds wo which he subscribes? What need of a Bible then?

Other than that, there's not much more than what you have already said about the author and the introduction, except that I am wondering if there is profit in examining his arguments. I'm willing to do it anyway, although with everything going on I can't promise timely opinions (don't wait for me), but do we think there is something to gain from the study. So far I would have to say, "same shit, different day."

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by antonyh

It seems that whenever someone jumps in and just says, "The debate is over", then the adversary accuses us of not being willing to dialogue.

I'd sure like other's opinions about this...are we cooperating in our oppression by indulging these people?

Yes! that is what happened when I made that statement to P-Kay. I was not willing to participate in my own oppression, and that frustrated P-Kay.
So how do we engage these people in dialogue without cooperating in our own oppression?

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by keltic63

Yes! that is what happened when I made that statement to P-Kay. I was not willing to participate in my own oppression, and that frustrated P-Kay.
So how do we engage these people in dialogue without cooperating in our own oppression?

This is especially complicated since the mouthpieces of the dominant culture have successfully painted a picture of conservatism being under attack.

Anti-gay Christians organizations, protestant and Catholic combined, speak to aruably the largest single voting block in the country at the moment. This has been accomplished on the backs of GLBT persons, by convincing a vast number of people of the efficacy and dangers of the "gay agenda". This powerful and well-funded segment of the political landscape preys on peoples' fears and assumes the role of the oppressed and at-risk.

They have power, numbers, funding and more ears in the Federal and state governments than ever before, and yet they successfully assume the role of the down-trodden, oppressed, Christian idealists who are at risk of being legislated out of the divine birthright to serve Jesus. It is fiction - we all know it - but it is fiction that has reached believable proportions for a great many Americans.

And this "defensive" posture is being used to wage an aggressive, vitriolic assualt - an extrememly effective offensive in the political sphere.

Any statement - whether defense or offense - on the part of socially and religiously progressive organizations and individuals is described as further proof of the oppression of the Christian masses. It is artful in a very sad, sick and insidious way.

It has been orchestrated in such a way that, short of remaining absolutely silent, any response is an offensive against core American values. We have been set up to either remain silent, or be perceived as intolerant aggressors.

Remaining silent, however, is not an option. Neither is using the same kinds of deceptive, disengenuous, corrupt - hmmm, unChristian - practices of the "right". Leads us right back to the question, doesn't it - how do we respond without participating in our own oppression?

My vote is aggressively - non-violently, yes, but aggressive to same level as the "right". No matter the response, as long as it is not silent, it will be construed by the architects of this propaganda as oppressive and offensive. They have done a superb, if twisted, job of anticipating approaches and pre-forming defenses based on their strategy.

Strategy is key and, as long as the political actions of pro-GLBT organizations are fractured and isolated, it is also ineffective. I guess the benefit of laboring though analyzing the various documentations of the "rights" strategies is the formulation of our own strategy aimed at the weaknesses, lies and loopholes of their own.

Ultimately, however, it depends on seeing the political aspects of every form of activism. Caring for the church-damaged GLBT folk will be a continuous unending labor of love, unless political steps are also taken to challenge the political machinery of oppression. No GLBT organization should perceive itself outside of the political forum, no matter its primary concentration (be it HIV/AIDS, counseling, religious or whatever).

The political correction of the causes of oppression have to take a central importance for all organizations - otherwise, they will simply serve as band-aids on an ever-growing, festering sore. The healing will occur as a result of attacking the source of the infection, not simply treating the symptoms while pretending that political action is the venue of others.

This was largely a rambling stream of thought - did it make any sense at all?

[Zerbie]

DID it make sense, Andy? Did it????

About the clearest sense I've seen spoken (seen, *spoken???* okay, written ) in a long time.

You are correct, and thanks for stating what should be obvious. No matter how gently, lovingly, truthfully, respectfully gay people and their loved ones speak out to defend themselves, it will be labeled an attack. No matter how beautifully and caringly done. We'll do it anyway. We will do it gently, respectfully, patiently, but we will do it firmly and without backing down or ever conceding. Someone will always construe it an attack. We can't worry about that person (about their thoughts, I mean, we do still take care to use as much respect as possible regarding their *personhood*), but we can only concern ourselves with communicating to the vast, reasonable middle-road of mainstream America.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by antonyh

...are we cooperating in our oppression by indulging these people?

No, but I only say so because I've been asking the same question for the past year, while debating.

Originally Posted by keltic63

So how do we engage these people in dialogue without cooperating in our own oppression?

Post #30, out of 102:

Originally Posted by manutd2090

Yes but adultery has never been questioned as being a sin or not. Homosexuality has.

Take note folks. Rarely if ever is this admitted to so starkly. The argument of "sin" ends right then and there.

I don't believe kevin was trying to be "anti-gay," so in that case it was more important to engage first. The argument is over, yet the matter of convincing him of this still exists.

We need to know these arguments back and forth, up and down, and in and out like the back of our hands. Then will we be certain that the debate is over, AND be certain of when to engage (and continue to engage), and when to call troll - whether online or in person.

Three things to remember:

1) The adultery of remarriage
2) Genocide for Jesus
3) Theocrat = traitor

And I'm working on plan B for all three. (ie, an easy to remember comeback truth to counter any resistence to those..)

Leviticus 20:13 IS Genocide for Jesus, and that IS violent, but saying so is NOT violent any more than the truth of the Bible is violent. I think this is where our idea of non-violence goes awry.

Like I said earlier, we don't need to necessarily "sound" alarming while 'sounding the alarm.' But it's imperative that we sound it.

They brought this fight to us and we have every right to insist that they justify it. Point being, they don't have a moral toothpick to stand on.

More importantly, we need to be able to easily demonstrate that.

[andrewlittle]

I guess I'm in a mood, so I'll keep going.

Where, in the plethora of GLBT activist organizations, are the central ones that speak politically and represent a strong central force to be reckoned with?

Where is the progressive equivalent of Focus on the Family or the other "right" organizatons who are organized in their assault - oh, mmm, "defense" of rights? Where is the religious umbrella organization that represents the thoughts, beliefs and centralized communicative power of the progressive churches?

There is such an animal - "Welcoming Church Programs". But just try to find it in a Google search. When was the last time you heard a press release form them?

Almost every denomination has welcoming movements - More Light Presbyterians, Open and Affirming of the UCC, Reconciling Ministries of the UMC, to name but a few. But how far do they go in political activism?

They are more concerned about their little corner of Christendom, and the smaller battles that wage within. They are trying to put band-aids on their own little sores, and missing the enormous cancer that exists in the real world.

Why is it, with the existence of a large number of pro-GLBT churches, that we can't organize an umbrella mouthpiece to speak for all, and to actively fight the larger disease?

The same goes for the secular front.

And, then, where is the intersection of the secular and the religious in the public sphere? Is it the thought that politics is dirty, and should be avoided by respectable people? Or the selfish desire to remain "clean", leaving others to do the "dirty" work.

Well, by God, it ain't gonna happen. We all need to roll in the mud and take risks.