> But even granted that one's revulsion at homosexual activity IS "inborn."
> That revulsion is certainly something to fight against, "inborn" or not,
> for it leads to an attitude of contempt towards a group of persons.
... but, it could equally well be argued that "inborn" homosexuality should
be something to fight against, because a straightforward reading of the
Bible indicates it is sin, and the only way of allowing it requires
> "I once downloaded a copy of the notorious poem "The love that dares to
> speak its name", which was a gay "cause celebre", as the magazine that
> printed it got prosecuted under the blasphemy laws. On reading the poem
> (which was of considerable literary merit), I gained the impression
> directly from the text that the homosexual act was excruciatingly painful
> - one of the "moral messages" of the poem was that the sacrifices gay men
> make for each other was akin to the pain of crucifixion. Since this
> description came from a gay author, it cannot have been an ignorant
> attitude that was "taught" by
> Interesting. Do you conclude that on the basis of a single poem? I have
> never seen it; maybe I'll look for it. There are a number of possible
> "homosexual acts," of course, just as there are a number of heterosexual
> acts, so I don't see much in one poem to guide my thinking. I could be
Health warning. The poem is _extremely_ blasphemous. The speaker is the
Roman centurion, who is (in the poem) a homosexual, who fantasises (in
explicit detail) about making love to Christ after being taken down from the
Cross. He implies also that Christ had been an active homosexual as well.
Clearly the fact that it was published by the mainstream Gay publication
"Gay News", implies that they at least approved of the sentiments (or didn't
object violently to them). I believe Mrs. Mary Whitehouse was one of the
leading activists in getting the blasphemy charge carried out. Although I
was appreciative of the literary merit of the poem (James Kirkup is a fine
poet), I would have to say that I would have been on the side of Mary
Whitehouse on this one! I don't really think it did the gay cause much
good - only serving to get a lot of Mary Whitehouses worked up, and a lot of
the gay community the opportunity to indulge in "righteous anger". As a
"celebration" of homosexuality, it was bound to get non-homosexuals' backs
The conclusion that the "homosexual act", implying "sodomy" is extremely
painful (for the passive party), is not one I have just drawn from the poem,
though it was a big point of the poem; I have seen it said elsewhere - this
idea of making a "sacrifice" for the benefit of your partner.
Yes, I am aware that there are many other possible homosexual acts. The guy
I tried to witness to indicated as much, and also indicated that he had
never allowed anyone to go the full distance, partly because of the fear of
disease. However, this may partly be the reason he was rejected by the gay
community as well.
> "In the case of a woman who has had a family, this would appear to be not
> the case - a deliberate choice was made (albeit perhaps under
> circumstances of disillusionment), to exchange heterosexual for
> homosexual activities, and therefore would appear to come under the
> category of Rom 1:26."
> Or maybe she just "grew up?"
I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you implying that for such a
woman, a Lesbian relationship is more mature than a relationship with a man?
In most of the cases I'm familiar with, it arises more out of
disillusionment with the male sex after a bad experience with one particular
man (and let's face it, there are lots of rotten men around!) But I
wouldn't say that general disillusionment with the male sex from a specific
instance is an example of "growing up".
The two cases I am most familiar with have
> no apparent record of any activities such as led the unfortunates in
> Romans 1 to come under Paul's condemnation. In both cases, all the
> parties involved are Christians; one is even now in seminary.
I'm sure you're right that they did not directly indulge in the godlessness
that is indicated in the earlier part of the Romans passage. But their
state could be argued to be a logical consequence of the society we live in,
which is indeed Godless - and attitudes of society rub off on us.
This thread was spawned off with a general comment of mine on the
godlessness of society, and the way Christians compromise - the other
example, which wasn't picked up on was the number of Christians who think
it's OK to have sex before marriage. I'd be interested to hear your views
on this one.
I feel there has been a gradual eroding of values and standards - we do
things because the rest of society tells us it's OK. A trivial example;
since Sunday trading was introduced in Britain, a number of Christians I
know do go (guiltily) to shops on Sunday. Is this right, or not? The fact
is that it's convenient. And though I don't as a rule go to shops on
Sunday, I go to restaurants or pubs on a Sunday. Am I hypocritical to do
this? I don't know - but it certainly is easy to slip into the habits of
the rest of society, without considering what is the true Christian
perspective on this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 17 2001 - 19:14:53 EDT