 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
|  Posted 7/25/2011 12:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are
My personal "Book of the Year." Greg endorses this book as well. I think we'll need to discuss this one. It is very helpful in getting past homo/hetro binary that we find ourselves in.
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 8/1/2011 10:11:52 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/25/2011 8:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Paris basically says that "hetrosexuality" and "homosexuality" are Western social constructs--generalizations (and medical terms) about our sexuality that are beginning to unravel in the cultural speak because they are a "one size fits all" terms that don't accurately describe reality. Sexuality is much more complex and fluid according to her. Instead of being binary (hetro/homo) sexuality should be thought of more as existing on a continuum. Most other cultures (past and present) have never thought of, say, homosexuality in the presentable way in which we have defined it today ie., two people of the same sex attracted to each other who are of equal age and possibly status, ie., economic, background, etc. Sexuality exists from possible strict opposite sex attraction, feelings, thoughts, to same sex atraction, feelings, thougjts behavior, etc. As well as existing in different ways ie., gender, same sex for economic purposes, etc. According to Paris, we (non) Christians have co-opted these categories and in turn have cemented and used these categories to judged ourselves (hetrosexuality) against others. "Heterosexuals" stand in a privileged position against "the other" homosexual. One of the main problems with this from a Christian point of view, is that, as you say Tommy, we don't find our identity in our sexuality. We are not "what we desire." Our identity is found in Christ. God made sexuality. God didn't make sexual identity.
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 8/1/2011 10:02:55 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/26/2011 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | In the book Paris has a graph that moves from complete “heterosexual” to complete “homosexual.” I put those in quotes because to even start off using those terms one already has preconceived notions of what those means. And of course those are categories that don’t quite fit. For example, if I ask you what makes someone a homosexual how would you define that? In her graph I noticed that no one was completely heterosexual or homosexual in the way that we use to identify others today. What is normal homosexual or heterosexual behavior? Do people who have thoughts but don’t IDENTIFY THEMSELVES as homosexual mean they are homosexuals? If someone committed same sex acts but only for money (as they did quite often in ancient times such as Greek and Roman times) does THIS make them homosexuals as we understand it today? One cannot start by looking at our modern day categories and say this is normal or abnormal, well or sick respectable or deviant human sexuality. I mean have you NEVER had same sex thoughts, feelings, or attractions. What makes you heterosexual? In the book, Paris says:
“For any given person in any given season of life, various elements of sexuality or clusters of elements may be placid, others active, and others troubled or even tormented. Viewed from the sexual identity perspective, a Christian “heterosexual” may seem to have godly sexuality. When their sexuality is unpacked (like a bag of groceries that she illustrates with previously), however, there may be important areas for healing or growth. The blanket statement that “heterosexuality is good” may even hinder this person from facing sexual struggles. On the flip side, in conservative settings a Christian “homosexual” may be written off as sinful or defective, though this person may have maturity and health in their sexuality that could benefit others.”
For Paris, sexuality is much more complex and involves more than simply looking (and ultimately) judging someone simply on the basis of what they desire. She is never saying that same sex attraction or even homosexuality as we understand it today is never immoral, simply that the terms homosexuality and heterosexuality offer “short-cuts” for “evaluating sexuality that doesn’t devote proper attention to all the dimensions of human sexuality. So “sexual holiness” is more than, “I’m attracted to the opposite sex (however that actually works). It will be about “making sober judgments about sexuality, how sexuality is expressed overall in the different dimensions that make up sexuality.
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 8/1/2011 10:12:20 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/26/2011 3:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Paris: Viewed from the sexual identity perspective, a Christian “heterosexual” may seem to have godly sexuality. When their sexuality is unpacked, however, there may be important areas for healing or growth.
Tom: What heterosexual would disagree with this?
Paris: On the flip side, in conservative settings a Christian “homosexual” may be written off as sinful or defective, though this person may have maturity and health in their sexuality that could benefit others.”
Tom: I wouldn't disagree, though I'd like to ask her whether she'd include beastiality in her continuum. Would she say that a person who has sex with a cow has ANY maturity and health in their sexuality that could benefit others?
But anyhow...my point is that sexual relations between humans (assuming animals are out) is bound to have SOME minimal aesthetic value lurking for the simple reason that what DRIVES humans to relate (sexually and in all other ways) is a legitimate desire grounded in the image of God in us. Even if homosexual sex isn't ideal or permissible, the desire to belong physically to another IS. So yes, heterosexual sex can be less than what God desires it to be. And sure, a homosexual can be healthier sexually than SOME heterosexuals (like, perhaps, heterosexual rape, heterosexual necrofilia, heterosexual origies, or heterosexual pornography, etc.). A homosexual could be healthier than a heterosexual in respect to these and other sexual abuses. But that begs the question--Is homosexuality permissible? Can it fulfill what God intended sexual relations to fulfill?
If you follow Greg's thesis precisely, he believes that ALL experience per se is constituted by a minimal and irreducible aesthetic satisfaction. But experiences intended by God to be maximally aesthetic can be privated in degrees, leaving us with a practice which is lamentable in as much as it's privated and commendable in as much as aims at and achieves aesthetic value. The question is whether there is anything in homosexuality per se that is lamentable. There isn't anything lamentable (i.e., privative) in heterosexuality per se. Paris seems to think both homosexuality and heterosexuality (and anything falling along the continuum), are all equally permissible and valid ways of fulfilling God's intentions for sexual relations. She's OK with homosexuality (after all her postmodern word games are done).
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 7/26/2011 3:06:40 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/26/2011 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmmmm...few things. One. I'm thinking that your beastiality example and Greg's thesis of aesthetic satisfaction could be combined. In other words, even if you assume animals in the picture of relating sexually, it is still less than ideal, permissible etc, just as other forms would be but still legitimate desire. So, I don't know if you could rule that out.
Second, Paris is not saying that she doesn't have problems with certain thoughts, behaviors, etc. She is not saying that she doesn't think that say, same sex attraction in carrying that out with someone of the same sex is not immoral. But what she does say is that,
"Instead of a few sexual behaviors being selected for elevated judgment ALL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN SEXUALITY BECOME A PART OF THE MIX SHAPING WHAT IT MEANS FOR EACH PERSON TO BE HOLY IN THEIR SEXUALITY. SEXUAL HOLINESS (to recieve and give love to God and fellow human beings in and through our sexuality) ENCOMPASSES THE SEXUAL IDENTITY FRAMEWORK, THEREBY DIMINISHING IT'S IMPORTANCE IN LIGHT OF A MORE IMPORTANT BIBLICAL VALUE. "
Lastly, you seem to pick the extremes (a sorta binary view of things?) with your beastiality example. What if we were to move this more towards the middle of the continuum, I think you would have a harder time making labels as to what constitutes hetero/homosexual IDENTITY.
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 8/1/2011 10:12:40 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/26/2011 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: I'm thinking that your beastiality example and Greg's thesis of aesthetic satisfaction could be combined. In other words, even if you assume animals in the picture of relating sexually, it is still less than ideal, permissible etc, just as other forms would be but still legitimate desire. So, I don't know if you could rule that out.
Tom: Thanks for the comments Bro. I agree that Greg’s view of aesthetic value applies to beastiality. According to Greg, aesthetic value is a necessary feature of ‘experience’ per se (even Satan’s, though Dwayne and I couldn’t get Greg to admit this). But minimal aesthetic value doesn’t make some act permissible. And though an aspect of all desire (as an experience) at a fundamental level is some minimal aesthetic value, this value doesn’t necessarily legitimate an experience. We can still unequivocally condemn beastiality as a corruption of human sexuality. And so could we view homosexuality…IF it indeed reflects a certain privation of a legitimate drive.
Brandon: Second, Paris is not saying that she doesn't have problems with certain thoughts, behaviors, etc. She is not saying that she doesn't think that say, same sex attraction in carrying that out with someone of the same sex is not immoral. But what she does say is that: "Instead of a few sexual behaviors being selected for elevated judgment ALL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN SEXUALITY BECOME A PART OF THE MIX SHAPING WHAT IT MEANS FOR EACH PERSON TO BE HOLY IN THEIR SEXUALITY. SEXUAL HOLINESS (to recieve and give love to God and fellow human beings in and through our sexuality) ENCOMPASSES THE SEXUAL IDENTITY FRAMEWORK, THEREBY DIMINISHING ITS IMPORTANCE IN LIGHT OF A MORE IMPORTANT BIBLICAL VALUE."
Tom: I’m not sure I understand what she’s saying at all. But I agree we shouldn’t focus on select sexual behaviors (say, homosexual acts) and ignore the abuse and privation of formally legitimate forms of sexual expression (i.e., heterosexual). And I agree that sexual wholeness as God intends is governed by overarching biblical values.
Brandon: Lastly, you seem to pick the extremes (a sorta binary view of things?) with your beastiality example. What if we were to move this more towards the middle of the continuum, I think you would have a harder time making labels as to what constitutes hetero/homosexual IDENTITY.
Tom: I probably would have a hard time saying what constitutes homosexual identity. But my question isn’t about sexual identity per se. My question is about the morality of homosexual relations.
Can the fact that our truest identity in Christ is neither male nor female serve as grounds for viewing all sexual orientations along Paris’ continuum as morally permissible? I don’t see that it can. But if Paris agrees, then how does she argue it by stretching permissibility out along a continuum? Or maybe she doesn’t do that. Sorry I haven’t read the book. Sounds interesting!
Thanks B!
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/27/2011 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/27/2011 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | | I'll respond too yesterday's post tonight (after work 2:00am or tmw). I think the question of the morality of same sex acts is too narrow of a question.
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 8/1/2011 10:12:52 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/28/2011 10:59 PM (GMT -6) | | I would think that Paris might think the morality of the act is of secondary importance. I say this based on what she says about labeling and legalism but more importantly based on the continuum itself. For example, lets say, someone has a same sex relationship. Lets say in this relationship one dresses more like "the guy"and the other is the "female." Lets say that they DON'T have sexual relations. Would YOU consider THIS homosexuality? She points out the Ugandans, who have same sex intimacy particularly in adolescence between friends. However, the Ugandans consider this as both temporary "and innocuous part of childhood sexual exploration." OK. WE might think these acts are immoral, but Paris is really addressing the question of identity. Given our present day understanding of homosexuality, as a sub species of people we call, "homosexual" is this how we should understand, label and identify the Ugandan youth she speaks of? She provides many other examples, but labeling and identifying someone with a broad brush, a "one size fits all" is very problematic in large part because same sex atraction, behavior, thoughts, feelings and self-identification are only ONE PART of our sexuality.
To make this last sentence even more poignant, think about this in terms of elevating one part of our sexuality above all others. Why is it that when someone who is in a heterosexual relationship but they desire someone else, say, for example, a wife strongly desiring sexually another man or even other areas of a person's sexuality in how they relate ie., they crap on others. The Church doesn't really elevate that to some level of judgement like same sex attraction, or behavior, etc. That seems rather narrow way of looking at people as whole persons.
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 8/1/2011 10:13:01 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/31/2011 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: Why is it that when someone who is in a heterosexual relationship but they desire someone else, say, for example, a wife strongly desiring sexually another man or even other areas of a person's sexuality in how they relate ie., they crap on others. The Church doesn't really elevate that to some level of judgement like same sex attraction, or behavior, etc. That seems rather narrow way of looking at people as whole persons.
Jeff: It's actually a real benevolent-teleology killer to say that lesbian women who have mammary glands and maternal instinct aren't even intended by God to BE heterosexual and, therefore, naturally reproductive.
Plus, I think there is now good evidential grounds for believing that Paul's description of a descension INTO promiscuity and THEN homosexuality is accurate for many. There is plenty of testimony that corroborates the reality of that route for some.
Moreover, no one has found a "gay" gene or genes. To my knowledge, there is only one deterministic explanation left for gay men and none for women. I would agree that not all same-sex attraction is easily explicable in terms of the "descension" route. But to the extent that it seems plausible for some cases, the judgment we're talking about is not overly narrow in that sense. It really does have greater implications than heterosexual sin for at least both of these reasons.
And I would agree that many of the judgers don't appreciate the complexities involved, like cases where people are born with genitals of both genders, etc. We should be neither overly emotional in our judging nor ignorant of all the relevant facts for the specific cases. But we should resist firmly and humbly the arguments to the other extreme that have irrational implications for benevolent teleology.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/31/2011 5:59:44 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/31/2011 10:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: It's actually a real benevolent-teleology killer to say that lesbian women who have mammary glands and maternal instinct aren't even intended by God to BE heterosexual and, therefore, naturally reproductive.
Tom: Boom. Smasharoo. Kaput. Home rome. Kaboom. Kerplunk.
Next?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 8/1/2011 10:28:14 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/1/2011 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/1/2011 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: However, sexuality is mutch more "fluid" than you are willing to agree with here.
Jeff: I think we all know how fluid it is. And that's why I see the concern. But both sides do have legitimate points. IOW, one can be wrong teleologically about the purpose of sex by being promiscuous and still be right about thinking it has something to do with natural reproduction. But to say it doesn't even have to do with natural reproduction is to be, well, "out there." It's a matter of degree. We don't complain about acknowledging degrees for homicide, and for good reason. Same applies here, however over-emotional the issue tends to be treated.
I'm not at all opposed to reigning in the over-emotional and knee-jerk approaches to it, though. There are probably plenty of people who don't even know that some people are born "abnormal" in ways that really complicate the matter. Indeed, it's the tendency of the other extreme to prove too much that people are rightly concerned about.
We constantly hear stuff like "but I was born that way." What if it turns out that the exact same argument applies to pedophiles? Would we sanction pedophilia for that reason? Of course not. And yet when I've brought that possibility to the attention of those who use such over-simplified arguments, they just get angry. IOW, the over-emotionalism is all over the board. So when people see politicians and judges taking up the over-simplified arguments in a legal environment where hate-crime laws are already getting one-sided, there is a reason to be concerned.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/1/2011 10:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | I absolutely agree for the very reason you mean.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/3/2011 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | I haven't finished reading the book yet. But I do want to say a couple of personal things. For the longest time I've had some reservations about Greg's tree of knowledge of good and evil and getting our life by judging others thingy idea. But I can honestly see it making sense now after reading what Paris says about sexuality and sexual identity. As a result, it has been a question in my mind of how what part could gay Christians have in the church. But now, again, I can honestly see gay Christians participating fully in the life of the church.
Secondly, on a more personal private note Paris says that our sexual feelings can change due to changing circumstances and situations.
"In different ways for different people, sexual feelings flex over time and across situations."
I can say that this has been true of my life. I think sometimes of what Starkman said about his life being a series of broken relationships and how my life parallels that. As a result, and where I'm at presently, I identify as a heterosexual. My thoughts are opposite sex oriented. My feelings are opposite sex oriented--but only to a certain point. Right now, I can respect the opposite sex as my fellow human, but if you want to go deeper than that? Romantically perhaps? Uh-uh. I almost detest it. I feel like MLK who said something like, "When you've been banged on the head enough times with a club you begin to question your strategy." And when I've been "banged on the head" relationally with the opposite sex enough times, not only do I question my strategy (a good thing) but I don't feel much like getting to close to someone anymore. I'm wore out. Over the last couple of years I've said to myself, "You know Brandon? You've had more crap with the opposite sex in the last ten-twenty years than most people have in two life times. You can't do this anymore. You're not getting any younger. You're at the mid-life stage. Too much energy is spent on this. I want the next half of my life to be peaceful. I have enough stress with job, bills, etc. Dating shouldn't and doesn't have to be like this." And so, you'll have to excuse me, if I don't feel too much like opening up anymore.
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
| | Back to Top | | |
| 28 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:44 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|