I challenged a blogger the other day on his consistent use of the most juvenile, sophomoric insults to express his belief that homosexuality is a sin. On this particular occasion he had referred to a gay marriage as “the union of two men unto eternal donut-punching”. When I asked why he always expressed himself this way, he replied:
I say “donut punching” because the terms, “vigorous anal sex” (my web filter will probably block me from my own blog now) and “rectal semen deposits,” are too graphic. Take sex out of homosexuality and you have two guys who are just Best Friends Forever.
So, being gay is just about sex? I wonder, then, what he would think of the recent news that the Very Reverend Jeffrey John, the Anglican Dean of St Albans, has entered into a celibate civil partnership with another man. If homosexuality boils down to donut-punching, there’s nothing to object to here, is there?
Jeffrey John is an interesting case. In 2004 he was appointed as Bishop of Reading, only to be forced to stand down by conservatives in the Church of England, who objected to a gay man being made a bishop. He remains openly and unashamedly gay, but, according to the Bishop of St Albans,
Jeffrey John has confirmed to me that the nature of his relationship remains in accord with the declarations he made in 2004 upon his appointment as Dean of St Albans, and therefore complies with the discipline of the Church of England as set out in the Bishops’ Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships 2005.
In acceding to the sexual mores of the Church of England, I suppose Jeffrey John is an ex-gay – of sorts. Somehow I don’t think the other ex-gays will approve, however. But those who still have a problem with Jeffrey’s celibate civil partnership will at least have to admit that there is more to being gay than donut-punching.
There’s also bearded-clam licking đ
I think that there is a difference between “ex-gay” and “celibate gay”. Generally, the “ex-gay” crowd is overtly hostile to gays and lesbians and seek to not only promote false ideas about conversion of sexual orientation but to actively work against the interests and the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
A “celibate gay” such as Rev. John is not rejecting his sexual orientation, but appears instead to conciously avoid sexual intercouse with his partner. I find the concept of a “celibate civil union” to be absurd, but if it works for John and his partner then more power to them. It doesn’t appear that John has spoken out against gays and lesbians; rather he has chosen to live his life in accordance with the CoE’s byzantine stance on how gay or lesbian clergy should live.
Now, in regards to the crass term “donut punching” I must confess that I don’t get the metaphor, but it is just another in a long list of derogatory names for what is for most of us an act of love. Why is it that the anti-gay crowd is so obsessed with the details of gay sex? Do they really think that the details of hetero sex is any less disgusting? I mean, come on… sex is messy and organic for everyone, gay or straight. I could sit here and come up with all sorts of crude and graphic descriptions of straight sex but I have better things to do than worry about what other people are doing in the privacy of their own relationships.
Those who bandy about terms like “donut punching” are really just juvenile and crass. It reveals their ignorance of the reality of the lives of gays and lesbians, and in all honesty says a lot more about themselves than about us. Just grow up, ya’ll!!
And you take sex out of straight couples and you have…
Best Friends Forever.
Hopefully. That would be a good thing, no?
If we were to lose both out willies in an accident we’d happily settle for just BFF. All else is a bonus /smirk. And who’s ever knocked back a bonus?
Me thinks this blogger is having an existential crisis. On the one hand he thinks we are best friends. On the other hand he thinks we do to each other what he thinks one would never do to their worst enemy.
I take it he’s still in college or something, yes? Or a minister?
—
PS — has he checked out the straight porn section at his local shop lately? Having inflicted that on ourselves a few months ago… don’t ask — all I can say there was an outstanding % of DVDs featuring a great deal of “Homer Simpson, mmm, doughnuts” action. And very plastic very enor-a-huge-mungous breasts.
Oh, is THAT what straight men find attractive these days??? Frankly, you can keep it!
Take sex out of homosexuality and you have two guys who are just Best Friends Forever.
This is just another example of how little these people know, or care to know about us.
Spot on, Grant. He is still in college. And training to be a minister, so far as I know!
Training to be a minister? *sigh* That is exactly what we need: yet another ignorant bigot promoting hatred against gays in the guise of Christianity.
Well, good luck to him. I can only hope he sees the light.
When a hetero person marries, part of their oath of obtaining a marriage license has NOTHING to do with sex or children or anything of the kind.
I remember watching a program about a man with horrendous morbid obesity and he and his wife, they revealed, had never had sex.
They’d been married for ten years.
When hetero people marry, no one is compelled to reveal their sexual intentions or parental intentions.
Disparate physical conditions are respected and the public is respectful of how the couple loves one another.
But the couple NEVER questioned on something so private and intimate that should only be between THEM.
Only gay people are speculated on as to their intentions.
And it’s made a requisite for qualifying to marry.
THIS is patently unequal treatment and invasion of privacy.
The way the language and typical speculation can devolve into something crude and impolite just shows how invasive straight people really are, while all the while protesting what’s involuntarily ‘in their face.’
Ex-gay leaders and supporters are often conflicted — they focus on stigmatizing gay sex at times, and on deriding gay-affirming beliefs and values systems at others, but not always both. So, Nancy Heche says Christian salvation is necessary yet insists her prayers have been answered because her non-Christian daughter is no longer having gay sex.
In Jeffrey Johns’ case, Christians seem to be nominally open to a gay person who eschews sex while embracing a relationship which is arguably marital in every other way. (And, it’s not clear to me whether Johns also embraces beliefs that require all gays to be celibate in order to assure their salvation.)
At the other end of the spectrum, Christians will embrace ex-gays who believe that gay sex is evil but are intermittently sexually active and describing those episodes as moral or addictive failures. (Although, those folks tend to be marginalized, ineligible the simplest of church leadership roles, to an even greater extent than consistently celibate or married ex-gays already are.)
Joseph Nicolosi says that a gay couple who drops the sex and becomes best friends will no longer be gay, but I can’t imagine him citing an everything-but-the-sex gay partnership as a success story.
The inconsistencies extend to the rest of spectrum of human intimacy, as well. Can a good Christian ex-gay guy snuggle with an ex-gay buddy? Share a household? Greet openly gay friends with the sort of hug and kiss which is foreign to most straight men? These issues vary from culture to culture and family to family, of course, but also from one Christian, or one ex-gay leader, to the next.
Jeffrey John is most definitely pro-gay in all its aspects.
So far as I know, the only reason he is celibate is as a concession to the rules for Church of England priests.
This story brings up a question that has bugged me for some time. I’m certain it has been addressed here before, but I’m afraid I missed the threads on it. Just what are the biblical, theological, moral, or ethical grounds that ex-gays or anti-gays would use to condemn a relationship like that of Jeffrey John? So often the anti-gay folks get so caught up in the raw sexual details of sexual orientation, and it really seems to be that which the Stephen Bennetts, the James Dobsons, and Paul Camerons rail on about. If my partner of 8 years and I simply quit having sex, but continued to love each other deeply, live together, cook, clean and care for each other, share each other’s joys, tough times, friends, pets, utility bills, and bank accounts, work together in our church, and maybe sneak a date, a hug, a kiss, and a cuddle occasionally, could I sign up for the Dr. James C. Dobson seal of approval?
Would it be better if we had a woman move in with us? Perhaps a housekeeper? Would we have to have two housekeepers, or would one do? Would we actually have to have sex with the housekeeper/s, or would it be sufficient to simply legally marry her/them and ensure that we can exact her/their biblical wifely submission on important issues?
Kidding aside, I’m sure that various ex- and anti-gay spokespersons vary on what constitutes appropriate same-sex relationships, and what steps over the line, but they really seem to paint themselves into a corner when they define homosexuality as “just sex.” Does anyone know where various folks draw the line, and why?
Thanks for your comment, Steve — Sorry to duplicate content, but yours wasn’t up yet when I started my post.
“So far as I know, the only reason he is celibate is as a concession to the rules for Church of England priests.”
For he and his partner (also a priest) to choose not to consumate their relationship out of a concession to the structural authority and rules of a denomination – even though he may not believe these rules are an accurate interpretation of Scripture – is an amazing act of humility and love. These persons have put their ability to serve and minister to others ahead of their own personal needs.
It is sickening that some within the Anglican Communion who have made little or no personal sacrifice would criticize these men. The arrogance and pride of these anti-gay activists are shameful.
Marcus, I believe most conservatives and ex-gays, when pressed, would acknowledge that sexuality is about more than sex, and that a romantic relationship between men without sex would be just as wrong. Of course, they’re on very slippery ground when it comes to making a biblical case for that, especially as sex and procreation are about the only things ancient marriage has in common with modern romantic notions of marriage.
Tony Campolo is an interesting case for an evangelical. He actually supports celibate covenants between gay men, ie they can live like a married couple in every respect except sex. He’s come under heavy fire from other evangelicals for that view, of course.
Marcus at August 3, 2006 02:27 PM
It is the acceptance of a gay identity that they find contrary to a penitent heart. That’s why an ex-gay that “slips” regularly is a brother in christ but a gay man that chooses not to have sex is a hedonistic vile angry militant homosexual that will burn forever in hell praise God.
(as a side note, I was amused at James Hartline descibing those who opposed his “outreach” in Chicago as being “Angry lesbians … singing Amazing Grace”. I laugh ever time I think of someone trying to sing Amazing Grace angrily.)
Dave: Thanks — that’s why I was curious. I’ve had my parents and numerous others explain to me many times that there are no homosexual people — only homosexual behaviors. If we agree to leave out the kissing and cuddling from the list in my message above (and neither of us ever *gasp!* wears a dress), I’m not sure what grounds they’ve got to complain about the situation (the folks have never really been able to answer that, either). Can any ex-gay or anti-gay lurkers help me out here?
Timothy — I appreciate the response — it’s different from what I’ve heard before. Do you know what they base that on?
Marcus –
Another consideration, particular with Jeffrey John, is that the anti-gay folks in or out of the Church do not believe gay men when they claim to be celibate and do not repudiate those who are not. The anti-gay people in the Church of England are especially virulent, and in like manner are their cousins in the Episcopal Church.
Bob+
Interesting point, Bob. I do suspect, however, that they even if they believed they were celibate, they would still see them as inferior and sinful. I wonder why…
Oh yes, Timothy, Angry Lesbe-an Choirs. Where would The Community(R) be without them. Especially the Really-Angry Lesbian Choirs — turn the volume up to 11.
And I bet tribal drums were involved. Oh, those lesbian drums…
(BTW — “Amazing Grace” was no doubt reworded to be about some hot chick rather than about a character trait.)
Ooops, and sorry Grace. This wasn’t a post about you!
–
and do we win a prize Dave? No — that guess was too easy. The double whammy — still a silly little boy, and not yet a minister. Urgh, what’s happend to my eyes, I’m blind… no it’s OK, they just rolled all the way back for a moment.
For those of you interested this is the link through to Louis Crew — Episcopal, and a “double disbility” as anyone who has followed the crude and ugly comments about him over the years would know has been spat at him.
(That is — not only gay, but gay miscegenation!)
Oh, sorry Louis — but I’m glad I missed THAT fashion period!
Groovy.
“Ooops, and sorry Grace. This wasn’t a post about you!”
But I think grace is amazing anyway.
Well, OK, agreed đ
You may print that off and frame it for your kids to read.
Marcus at August 3, 2006 02:57 PM
To those who were not raised in evangelical Christianity, this can be a bit difficult to explain. But here goes:
For evangelical or âborn-againâ Christians, oneâs standing with God is not based on what you do. It is based upon a conversion, a single instance of acceptance of Jesus Christ as savior. Sin is transgression against God and thus is punishable. However the act of acceptance (or repentance) serves to transfer all sin to Jesus who, though sinless, paid the ultimate sacrifice (death and separation from God the Father) for all sin.
This can be thought of as a billionaire who promises to pay the credit card debt of anyone who asks him to. All you have to do is ask.
The idea is that by accepting the payment for sin you are no longer in debt. And continued sin (just like additional credit card charges) are also covered. Of course, if you like this billionaire and donât want to abuse his generosity, you avoid running up more debt. So too, Christians believe that you transition away from sinful behavior to avoid causing grief to Jesus. A single sin (or many sins) are not the point â the point is the relationship with Jesus and the sadness for causing him grief.
Ex-gays tend to view their conversion to Christ as the reason they are âex-gayâ. They do not think it is just the specific homosexual sex acts that are displeasing to God, but the attitude of the heart. In other words, a child that does what it is told â but makes it clear that he is only doing it because he has to â doesnât please a parent. So too the sex act is not the big problem as much as accepting a gay identity. The celibate gay person may be technically not committing sin, but they donât have a penitent heart. They are shutting off Godâs ability to work his plan in their life.
Thus, ex-gays reject the identity of being homosexual and are seeking to transition away from behaviors that they believe displease God. Remember, upon conversion they are no longer âgayâ (an identity that is contrary to Godâs plan) regardless of what behaviors may occur.
Because their sins (past and future) are forgiven, a fall from grace (or proper living) does not mean they are no longer âsavedâ. As long as they are sorrowful that they sinned and have a repentant heart, they continue to be Christians (and thus still ex-gay). However, an evidence of a penitent heart is the striving (or struggling) to overcome behaviors and even thoughts or attractions. Continuing to have sinful thoughts or behaviors would indicate that Christ was not being put first and if you didn’t resist temptation at all it might even call into question whether you were genuinely saved (or had backslid into sin).
I hope that explains a bit why an ex-gay that âslipsâ is OK but a gay person (who is therefore deemed to not be trying to please God) is an enemy of Christ regardless of what they do. And thus, Johns is viewed as apostate because while he does not engage in specific sins, his relationship and gay identity are evidence that he puts his own pride and sinful desires before obediance to God.
(and remember folks, Iâm telling you the ex-gay doctrine, not what I personally believe)
But the interesting thing (no pun intended), Timothy, is that in pointing to a solitary passage in Leviticus, they emphasise only one type of homosexual act as being the problem, namely anal sex. There are plenty of other ways to express sexuality within the context of a male gay relationship. If they contend there are no homosexuals, only sexual acts, if a couple abstains from anal sex only, what is their justification for opposing gay couples? I mean really? For kissing? Biblical reference, please; oh, none. For loving another man? Biblical reference please; oh, none. I mean, really what is the Biblical basis of their opposition if that one act is put out of the equation?
See, it’s really not about anything other than their personal ick factor dressed up in Biblical robes.
The focus on graphical depictions of the sex act is to de-humanize gay men so… they can excuse their not treating gay men like their brother humans. Which is the greater sin?
I don’t get it. But I don’t have to if it works for them. And I kinda wish others would feel the same. The problem with having a laid-back, live-and-let-live personality is that so many other people DON’T!
Boys, boys, boys!!! (yes, i see you there, boo and regan…just humor me here. đ
First of all, Grantdale, if you’re indeed referring to me (and I’m pretty sure you are đ thanks so much!!! There is nothing MORE safe and cuddly and affirming to a married straight woman than being called “hot” by a gay man. I mean, it’s just good all the way around! And, you actually know what you’re talking about since all gay men have such a wicked sense of all things beautiful and alluring. hee! hee!
ok…the donut hole punch thing is just stupid. It’s ignorant frat house “humor” and we should all ignore it and move on to more worthwhile thoughts. Please.
As far as the whole deal of being “in” or “out” salvation-wise and how the whole ex-gay thing comes into play with that regarding motivations etc…blah blah blah. We are not going to figure all of that out here. In my opinion, much of it has to do with labeling and the fact that we think we have to label everyone based on some trait or another. And then, as humans, we equate all those different labels with sin or not…and on and on it goes. Male and Female have nothing to do with Hetero and Homo…do they??? Maybe they do, maybe they don’t.. and…there ya go…more and more debate ensues.
Why can’t we all just get along?????
*like that’s gonna happen*
In the final analysis, isn’t it just so great that God gets to decide all of this? I mean, really.
I wish I had something deeper, more spiritual, or more intellectually profound to offer here. I’m all just still “a twitter” over Grantdale calling me “hot”. đ
love in Christ, (really)
grace
Timothy said:
(and remember folks, Iâm telling you the ex-gay doctrine, not what I personally believe)
Well, except for the part about being gay is a sin and perhaps a slightly weaker view of Grace (from God, not the blogger) than I would go with, I thought you did a great job of simplifying a complicated concept đ
Hey Grace, What am I? Chopped Lesbian? lol!
My guess is that ‘christians’ of the Exodus stripe would find Rev. John’s relationship sinful because it involved “improper” intimacy? One can only IMAGINE the tortured logic/theology these people would use to find yet another reason for condemning something they don’t understand.
The one thing I find interesting about celibate same-sex relationships is that it probably more accurately describes the marriages of many heterosexuals than is (publicly) admitted.
Sharon ,
I think you , Jayelle, and I were all posting at once…giving further credence to my status as an “honorary lesbian” with Christine from “Rising Up Whole”. that’s a sort of a private joke but i can still refer to it cause it’s funny and it applies…unlike my previous comment which was recally just an ecxcuse to recmind everyone that Grantdale callecdc me hot. I spilled icecdc teca in my keyboardc…ugh…it’s totally screcwecdc! ack!
grace
Timothy — I sure appreciate you taking the time to lay that out. You have some great insight into the ex-gay mind. However, I’m not sure I understand yet. I’m still with Sharon on this to some extent. Let’s say a couple is abstaining from sex to please God because they truly believe that it is wrong to have sex with one another. Would that not qualify as a “penitent heart?” Let’s say that they don’t perseverate on sexual temptations or thoughts that they have, because they believe that’s wrong too. At least in my parents’ church, the thoughts themselves are not considered sinful — just the perseveration. In a situation like that, what would be the basis for condemnation by the ex- and anti-gays? As Sharon says, I’m having a hard time finding anything biblical.
Thanks again for your time. I’m not trying to be difficult — this really puzzles me.