I'm Gay, but I'm Not Switching to a Church That Supports Gay Marriage

The Atlantic ^ | May 30, 2013 | Eve Tushnet

[Mrs. Don-o]

When I became Catholic in 1998, as a college sophomore, I didn't know any other gay Christians. I'd been raised in a kind of pointillist Reform Judaism...

This sheltered upbringing may help explain my sunny undergraduate confidence that even though I knew of literally nobody else who had ever tried to be both unashamedly gay and obediently Catholic, I was totally going to do it. No problem, guys, I got this.

[snip]

[M]any Christian churches are beginning to integrate gay marriage into their theology... With so many more options for gay Christians, why [not] just de-pope myself?

It's that I fell in love with the Catholic Church....I didn't switch from atheistic post-Judaism to "belief in God," but to Catholicism: the Incarnation and the Crucifixion...her insistence that seemingly irreconcilable needs could both be met in God's overwhelming love: justice and mercy, reason and mystery, a savior who is fully God and also fully human. I didn't expect to understand every element of the faith. It is a lot bigger than I am.

[snip]

At the time of my baptism...I figured, everybody has to sacrifice something. God doesn't promise that He'll only ask you for the sacrifices you agree with and understand.

[snip]

Right now, the Biblical witness seems pretty clear. Both opposite-sex and same-sex love are used, in the Bible, as images of God's love. The opposite-sex love is found in marriage—sexually exclusive marriage, an image which recurs not only in the Song of Songs but in the prophets and in the New Testament—and the same-sex love is friendship. Both of these forms of love are considered real and beautiful; neither is better than the other. But they're not interchangeable.

Moreover, Genesis names sexual difference as the only difference which was present in Eden...

(Much more at link)

[Marie]

I agree with you.

I love my husband very much. We express that verbally and physically.

I love my children very much. I don’t express it the same way. That would be wrong.

Sometimes I wonder if many gay people confuse one love with another.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well... bye!

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: Animalistic urges are not a sin ::

Are you more an evolutionist than a creationist?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Marie, thank you-— from my heart, THANK YOU -— for normal reading comprehension and a good heart.

[editor-surveyor]

Do you think anybody understood that post?

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

SPIFFFFLE...choke...spit-take.
Reference post 121.

[Marie]

My *BODY* tells me to seek out anything with a beard and a penis. I have animal urges because my body is animal. I have discovered that I’m never going to stop hunger, thrist, sexual desire, and cravings. My instincts will speak.

But I have a HUMAN soul and a human mind. I understand that my body wants me to screw, eat chocolate, and laze around all day. *I* overcome these urges with my Gd-given human soul and mind. Temptation is not the sin Acting on temptation is. I’m Jewish, but (as I understand it) even Christ was tempted. He resisted. He was holy.

Yes, she *feels* animalistic urges toward other woman. But she uses her human soul and mind to resist those urges because she knows that it is the will of Gd for her to do so. She’s chaste and celibate.

*That* is what we’re supposed to do when our bodies lead us astray. (That’s why the whole ‘follow your heart’ advice is so terribly wrong. Your heart is a selfish child and will lie to you every time. The Book will not.)

[piusv]

Oh boy...been there, done that!

[BlueDragon]

That's the last time I attempt to make a point on FR regarding human nature and my own experience. Someone's bound to come along and go Full Retard on you.

Without a web-cam to see them with, how would you be able to tell when the full kicked in?

I mean...I thought that involved an ice cream cone to the forehead...or so I have been told. somebody out there will get that joke

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Marie
A very interesting religious/theological position.
I’ll need to read that explanation again and apply it to the Zeitgeist.
Hmmmmmm.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “True, but how is this relevant? Who said that He does?” <<

.
The author did by equating both types of attraction as being Love. It is unfortunate that the English language has both meanings under ‘love,’ if it had different words for them, her fallacy would have been more apparent, as when Yeshua asked Peter “do you love me,” and Peter responded with a different word in his answer.
.

[piusv]

She starts the very next paragraph by saying, "Things look different now.

There are at least 3 of us who brought this point up. How are people missing it? I'm beginning to think people are seeing what they want to see.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Bless you 10,000 times, Marie! You are an honest person, and I'll tell you, that's like water in the desert.

And you are correct about Jesus being tempted but not sinning.

And on the subject of instincts: my understanding is that instinct functions in an animal as a command, but in humans as a suggestion. Sometimes a penetrating, persistent and persuasive suggestion, but still a suggestion. Being willing --- with God's help --- to resist a disordered instinct, is what makes us different from animals.

I appreciate your insights. I hope to see you again on other threads.

[OriginalChristian]

You got it exactly right.

[SoFloFreeper]

Yes, I agree. But friend is indeed an asexual term. :)

I think we’re on the same page.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Heh.

[TalBlack]

She declares herself ‘gay’. What is the definition here? To me gay is an act as well as the lusting for the act. It is an obsession with a particular kind of physical sex.

The quality or magnitude of a mans love fore his friends vs his wife is not dependent in any way on sexual attraction or the lack thereof. She is asserting here that there is some sort of “love” peculiar to those driven to perversity that she somehow indulges in while being chaste.By her own definition she seems to me to be reveling in a deviant condition. (What the hell is it exactly?)

She is one of those sexually obsessed people who mistakenly believe that an intense interest and or emotional attraction to another woman MUST be the result of the short circuit that produces in her a sexual response to feminine imagery rather than a God given gift that is experienced by most other woman who have no sexual interest, who in fact would be particularly repelled by the idea of sex in this context.

Most people know the feeling of “instant soulmates” even if they haven’t bothered to work out the parameters or navelgaze over it. WHAT exactly she is claiming to be indulging in escapes me.

[Marie]

I am an evolutionary creationist. I believe that Gd created the earth and used evolution as the tool of His creation. I also believe in Adam and Eve. I believe that this was the point where He infused His creation with a soul. According to the Torah, there were ‘others’ who the sons of Adam and Eve took as wives. Who were those others?

I think that those were the evolutionary byproduct that were not yet infused with the human soul. But the children of Cain and Seth were. It’s from them that we all spring.

Again, wasn’t your own Jesus Christ tempted by evil? During his 40 day fast? Yet, he *resisted* that temptation.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But she doesn't equate Eros (physical love) with Phileo (friendship love) or Agape (God-love, whose very nature is love itself). She distinguishes them.

Right now, the Biblical witness seems pretty clear. Both opposite-sex and same-sex love are used, in the Bible, as images of God's love. The opposite-sex love is found in marriage—sexually exclusive marriage, an image which recurs not only in the Song of Songs but in the prophets and in the New Testament—and the same-sex love is friendship. Both of these forms of love are considered real and beautiful; neither is better than the other. But they're not interchangeable.

[trisham]

It is excellent.