Author Topic: Welcome to Chicago  (Read 16867 times)

Maryland Brian

  • Guest
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #105 on: August 06, 2007, 11:36:55 AM »
It is actually, Nambla - the North American Man Boy Love Association. 
Pr. Ben Ball+

Ben,

Thanks.  Yes - quick fingers before heading off to a meeting sometimes put M and N in the wrong place!   Even so, I have a sense The Lutheran writer quoted Metro DC's request for a reason: to be completely exact with the wording of the resolution.  It is either very poorly written or, as already mentioned, stunning in the breadth of implication.  Goes back to my earlier question concerning why LC/NA includes bisexuals in their calls for changing V&E policy.  What does a committed relationship mean for a bisexual?  And, if it is about a relationship between two people, one of whom is bisexual, then doesn't that infer that sexuality is a choice?  Or maybe that's not what LC/NA means at all.

BTW, you will find the same language on the front page of LYO's site - the "any sexual orientation" verbiage.  And they only want access to this church's youth...

Do assembly delegates really get what's at stake here?  They'll likely hear stories of oppressed sexual minorities and assume this is about recognizing relationships between individuals who are one part of committed couples.  Parsing the fine print, that's not what I'm reading.  I read Corinth.

MD Brian

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43151
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #106 on: August 06, 2007, 11:55:12 AM »

Does this mean we should not tamper with the sexual orientation of pedophiles?  How about Bigamists or the Nambla crowd?
Those have not ever been defined as "sexual orientations" in our discussions. Sexual orientations are limited to adult-to-adult sexual attraction and desires. There are three sexual orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. These are defined by one's sexual fantasies, dreams, desires towards an adult. Such desires may result in behaviors, but not necessarily. The ELCA does believe and expects that if not married, clergy will abstain from sexual behaviors whether they are self-defined as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Behaviors and desires are seen as separate things -- and both are likely to be sinful. Scriptures does define lust as sin.

Quote
Images of OT prophets and judgment keep popping up before my eyes ...
Ah, but, who is being prophetic? Did not the prophets rail against the majority opinion and beliefs and actions in church and society? What would you say is the majority opinion in the ELCA about homosexuals and clergy? I also note that the only "successful" OT prophet was Jonah -- and that book is different from the other prophetic books in other ways, too. Generally, whoever seeks to be prophetic should recognize that the odds of bringing about repentance and change is nearly zilch -- at least from the models we have in scriptures.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43151
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #107 on: August 06, 2007, 12:02:30 PM »
What does a committed relationship mean for a bisexual?  And, if it is about a relationship between two people, one of whom is bisexual, then doesn't that infer that sexuality is a choice?
"Committed relationship" for bisexuals means the same thing for any sexual orientation. As a heterosexual, I am sexually attracted to (and even sexually desire) many different women since puberty. I have married one. I am in a committed relationship with one woman. My sexual behaviors have always been and remain limited to this one person. (Our 36 anniversary is tomorrow.)

The same is expected of bisexuals -- just that their attraction and desires are for people of both sexes. "Committed relationship," means entering into a mutual-loving, life-long relationship with one other person, and limiting sexual behaviors to that one person. Desires for other people are likely to remain -- lust is nearly impossible to get rid of -- but we do not have to act on it.

"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Maryland Brian

  • Guest
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #108 on: August 06, 2007, 12:02:42 PM »

Does this mean we should not tamper with the sexual orientation of pedophiles?  How about Bigamists or the Nambla crowd?
Those have not ever been defined as "sexual orientations" in our discussions.

  ... and your point?  Metro DC could have defined what they meant.  They did not.  Why?

MD Brian

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43151
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #109 on: August 06, 2007, 12:05:47 PM »
  ... and your point?  Metro DC could have defined what they meant.  They did not.  Why?
Except for a few people, like yourself, most of the U.S. and in 16 years of discussing this online, there is a common understanding of sexual orientation -- there are three of them. Homosexuality is not considered a disorder in the DSM-IV; pedophilia still is a disorder.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

scott3

  • Guest
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #110 on: August 06, 2007, 12:32:27 PM »
...pedophilia still is a disorder.

Give it time.

Deb_H.

  • Guest
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #111 on: August 06, 2007, 12:34:41 PM »
Except for a few people, like yourself, most of the U.S. and in 16 years of discussing this online, there is a common understanding of sexual orientation -- there are three of them. Homosexuality is not considered a disorder in the DSM-IV; pedophilia still is a disorder.

What you're missing here, Brian, is that until the mid-70's there was only ONE sexual orientation -- everything else was considered a disorder along the lines of DSM-IV.  A close vote at the APA gave us three orientations today, but there is continuing discussion in the APA and elsewhere about the precise meaning of orientation.  As it was true of the homosexuals prior to the mid-70's, it is true of the folks of NAMBLA today, that they are lobbying for a change in society's perception toward them as people.  The APA is seriously considering how to define 'orientation.'  Perhaps 30 years from now (or next year) the APA will decide to be more inclusive in their definitions.  There are places where positive views of pedophilia are being shared today.  I could direct you to some references if you wish, but it may be dangerous for all of us to have it in our computers, that we 'visit such sites,' or read such material. 
I know that it's hard to believe, but 50 years ago it would have been hard to believe that positive views of homosexual practice would ever be possible. 
Are you open to change? 

Lou

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43151
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #112 on: August 06, 2007, 12:44:18 PM »
I know that it's hard to believe, but 50 years ago it would have been hard to believe that positive views of homosexual practice would ever be possible.
And 50 years ago it would have been hard to believe that women would be ordained in the Lutheran church -- and who would have thought back then that a woman (or a black man) would be one of the front-runners for the President of the United States?

I'm not sure that 50 years ago anyone, except a very small minority, believed that same-sex relationships would last 50 years -- or even 50 days. I wonder if almost 20 years ago, when D&G were written, if "practicing homosexual" meant "promiscuous behaviors" in the minds of those who wrote it?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

scott3

  • Guest
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #113 on: August 06, 2007, 12:52:52 PM »
I'm not sure that 50 years ago anyone, except a very small minority, believed that same-sex relationships would last 50 years -- or even 50 days. I wonder if almost 20 years ago, when D&G were written, if "practicing homosexual" meant "promiscuous behaviors" in the minds of those who wrote it?

Nice redirect.  So you're open to having pedophilia seen as a legitimate sexual orientation?

Maryland Brian

  • Guest
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #114 on: August 06, 2007, 01:24:48 PM »
I'm not sure that 50 years ago anyone, except a very small minority, believed that same-sex relationships would last 50 years -- or even 50 days. I wonder if almost 20 years ago, when D&G were written, if "practicing homosexual" meant "promiscuous behaviors" in the minds of those who wrote it?

  Back to the defining of terms.  It was the executive director of LC/NA who talked about not quiting until they prevailed.  Now we have another ambiguous resolution from one of our synods.  I would think the concern would be obvious.  What is mean by "to prevail" and what are the outer boundaries of that effort?  For those who come at this with an assumption that LC/NA is already outside the boundaries of what God has intended for the family, how am I supposed to know what they mean when writing, "any sexual orientation?"

Given how well organized and how words are parsed with exacting detail by the advocates, I am merely suggesting that I do not believe the ambiguous language is an accident.  I believe (and interpret) that more is meant, but that "more" has not been defined by those seeking the changes.  Metro DC's, memorial makes clear to me that some are already thinking way past V&E changes and are seeking to make language about "new life" and "a transformed heart" obsolete when it comes to "any sexual orientation."  In other words, it seems they wish to block people in the ELCA from interpreting any sexual behavior as sinful. NOTE:  I did not write the ambiguous memorial.  I simply find it difficult to believe that so many bright and educated people in our nation's Capitol would write such a poorly worded document because they were being sloppy.

 And given my previous experience with the gentle and loving ways of advocates, *IF* such an extreme position were to ever become policy in the ELCA (which btw, I highly doubt at this time),  I take it as a given the thought police would use it to silence their opponents.

MD Brian

Bergs

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1328
  • Battle for truth, justice & the American way
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #115 on: August 06, 2007, 01:56:56 PM »

  Here's something I just caught in the fine print from The Lutheran:

Metropolitan Washington, D.C., requested a rite for blessing same-gender unions and that the 2007 assembly reject "any therapy that seeks to change one's sexual orientation."

Pg. 36, The Lutheran, August 2007

Simply stunning.  I think I know what they mean ... or do I?  Does this mean we should not tamper with the sexual orientation of pedophiles?  How about Bigamists or the Manbla crowd?

To those who think the ELCA can be reformed toward an orthodox orientation ... it would seem some places are a lot further down the road than mere changes in V&E.  What difference will V&E mean, or this national assembly for that matter, when an entire synod rejects "therapy that seeks to change one's sexual orientation."  Images of OT prophets and judgment keep popping up before my eyes ...

MD Brian

If I understand this resolution correctly they are asking the ELCA to interfere in what should be a decision between an individual and their medical provider.   Given the fact that the Metro Washington Synod is quite a liberal group they would likely yell foul if the government got in the way of a decision to abort a fetus that was made between a woman and her medical provider.  Perhaps I am wrong but is my analogy correct?

Grace & Peace
Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN
But let me tell Thee that now, today, people are more persuaded than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet. But that has been our doing.
The Grand Inquisitor

Pr. Jerry

  • Guest
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #116 on: August 06, 2007, 02:05:23 PM »
What does a committed relationship mean for a bisexual?  And, if it is about a relationship between two people, one of whom is bisexual, then doesn't that infer that sexuality is a choice?
"Committed relationship" for bisexuals means the same thing for any sexual orientation. As a heterosexual, I am sexually attracted to (and even sexually desire) many different women since puberty. I have married one. I am in a committed relationship with one woman. My sexual behaviors have always been and remain limited to this one person. (Our 36 anniversary is tomorrow.)

The same is expected of bisexuals -- just that their attraction and desires are for people of both sexes. "Committed relationship," means entering into a mutual-loving, life-long relationship with one other person, and limiting sexual behaviors to that one person. Desires for other people are likely to remain -- lust is nearly impossible to get rid of -- but we do not have to act on it.

So say you.  I would be careful in assuming that others share the same definition of "committed relationship" that you put forth.  One of the problems in our current debate is that "committed relationship" is, as of yet, undefined (or more problematically individually defined).

A far more common definition of "committed relationship" could just as likely be "the person I am with until I am not with them any longer."  This is just as big an issue with heterosexuals who are "monogamous," but skip from partner to partner with no enduring sense of relationship.  Hence the discussion (in some circles) of changing marital vows from "Until death parts us..." to "...as long as love shall last..."   Both are "committed relationships," but are not equivalent committments.

So in speaking about "committed relationships," are we speaking of a life-long committment, or a committment that expires whenever it becomes inconvienent?  

So whatever we do regarding homosexual or bisexual relationships will have a profound impact on heterosexual relationships as well.  And vice-versa.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43151
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #117 on: August 06, 2007, 02:45:07 PM »
Nice redirect.  So you're open to having pedophilia seen as a legitimate sexual orientation?
No. Never have been. Never will be. Actually, bringing in pedophilia is a redirect. No one in the ELCA has been arguing for it.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43151
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #118 on: August 06, 2007, 02:50:55 PM »
So say you.  I would be careful in assuming that others share the same definition of "committed relationship" that you put forth.  One of the problems in our current debate is that "committed relationship" is, as of yet, undefined (or more problematically individually defined).
In the 16 or so years of discussing this online, we have come to a standard understanding of "committed relationship" for same-sex couples. It involves exactly the same expectations we have of married couples: monogamous, mutually loving, intended to be life-long.

Quote
So in speaking about "committed relationships," are we speaking of a life-long committment, or a committment that expires whenever it becomes inconvienent?

As with marriages, there are some who divorce whenever they run into irreconcilable differences. That's not the intention of the commitment, but it happens.

Quote
So whatever we do regarding homosexual or bisexual relationships will have a profound impact on heterosexual relationships as well.  And vice-versa.
Yup, and the expectations the ELCA revisionists have be presenting involve the same type of commitment we expect in a marriage relationship. Some of us have stated that the commitment, where possible, needs to be public and recognized by the state, e.g., California has a "registered domestic partner" law for same-sex couples (and for heterosexual couples if one is over 65-years-old). Where available, I would see such registration as a necessary part of making a relationship a committed one.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2007, 02:52:59 PM by Brian Stoffregen »
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3490
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome to Chicago
« Reply #119 on: August 06, 2007, 03:09:02 PM »
So say you.  I would be careful in assuming that others share the same definition of "committed relationship" that you put forth.  One of the problems in our current debate is that "committed relationship" is, as of yet, undefined (or more problematically individually defined).
In the 16 or so years of discussing this online, we have come to a standard understanding of "committed relationship" for same-sex couples. It involves exactly the same expectations we have of married couples: monogamous, mutually loving, intended to be life-long.
Sigh.  :-\ We have?  (And I do not mean myself exclusively or temporally.)  It seems below you rightly point out the difficulty in how anyone can recognize that such a relational state exists.  Yet you are advocating (in the abstract) for something which may be indistinguishable from non-monogamy.

...Yup, and the expectations the ELCA revisionists have be presenting involve the same type of commitment we expect in a marriage relationship. Some of us have stated that the commitment, where possible, needs to be public and recognized by the state, e.g., California has a "registered domestic partner" law for same-sex couples (and for heterosexual couples if one is over 65-years-old). Where available, I would see such registration as a necessary part of making a relationship a committed one.
Since when is the church required to recognize every civil arrangement?  Rome certainly has no trouble with not recognizing a divorce/re-marriage without an annulment (not that I'm advocating that style of discipline, per se).  We apparently also disagree as to the foundation for the church blessing marriages to begin with -- a biblical basis for it.  Despite the best efforts of some on the sexuality task force to come up with one for same-sex, committed relationships, one hasn't been identified.

Taking this a step further, to highlight the absurdity.  The biblical admonition for marriage is that is to be lifelong commitment, with divorce being an undesirable last resort.  Would civil domestic partnerships (be they homo or hetero) have the same high threshold for dissolution from a church perspective, even if the law made dissolution easy?    Do hetero partners become one flesh?  It seems, if the state for equal protection issues makes partnerships available to all without regard to sexual orientation, it almost forces the church to discriminate or else we effectively debase marriage.  We would be saying to the young hetero couple:  sure, live together as legal partners if it's allowed by law, it's okay even though you're not married.  Big-time loop hole.  It almost seems that the church would have to have develop a list of "approved" civil partnerships that met a certain standard of commitment, or attach additional restrictions on top.  Messy.

Brings me back to my original question:  what is the basis for what the church can bless?

Sterling Spatz
« Last Edit: August 06, 2007, 03:33:07 PM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter