Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3508Re: My schizophrenia

Expand Messages
  • nyguy_1225
    Mar 2, 2005
      <<Scripture leaves no room for long-term, committed same-sex
      relationships, not just because they had no experience of such, but
      sex was meant for PROCREATION nothing else. This is the biblical
      mandate -- be fruitful and multiply, grow the nation. Could God
      have plans for other of his children? Might there be another role
      for us to play besides breeding?>>

      Nice post, Scott! While I agree that the Ancient people of Bible
      had no experience of homosexuality as we know it and therefore no
      experience of long-term, committed same-sex relationships either,
      the Bible clearly depicts a great deal more for human relationship
      and sexuality besides "breeding."

      In fact, way back at the very beginning, God, we are told, was
      strangely sympathetic to the loneliness of Adam, observing that
      within the universe he had so conspicuously pronounced "good" there
      was, nevertheless, a significant omission. "It was not good for the
      man to be alone" (Genesis 2:18). In the following verses we are
      given another account of the purpose of sexuality: not procreation
      this time but companionship. And this was declared in paradise,
      before the fall and in unbroken relationship with God!

      It is significant too that as one reads through the book of Song of
      Solomon, one stumbles upon passages of scripture that are more
      sexually steamy than much of the X-rated material that comes wrapped
      in plain brown paper -- all of this with no reference to marriage or
      procreation. Song of Solomon celebrates Solomon's favorite harem
      girl's "rounded vulva, like a bowl always full to the brim with
      sweet liquid." She, in turn, sings of "my lover thrusting his shaft
      into the hole and my guts seething for him."

      Even the apostle Paul who advocated singleness as "the better way"
      knew most people are not given the "gift" of celibacy and cautioned
      that if one does not have this gift, one should marry for "it is
      better to marry than to burn with passion." Paul clearly concedes
      that some people will not be able to govern their passion without
      access to an intimate partner, a spouse. Noteworthy too is that
      Paul does not arrogate to himself the job of wading through the
      community determining who has self-control and who does not. Nor
      does he license anyone else to make that determination for others.
      Each individual, according to Paul, has to decide that for himself.

      Does that apply only to heterosexuals? Much of the Christian
      objection to what is sometimes called the homosexual "lifestyle"
      rests on our sensible objection to promiscuity. But if marriage
      were something from which heterosexuals were restricted, what do you
      imagine their "lifestyle" would look like?

      We can readily extrapolate 4 values that Paul thought constitute
      marriage. They were fidelity, mutuality, truthfulness and
      permanence. But nowhere in this discourse of Paul's -- or in any of
      his letters, for that matter -- do we find child production as a
      rationale for marriage. And for those who are married, it is
      noteworthy too that Paul also stressed the importance of not
      depriving one's partner of needed physical intimacy [sexual love

      "Since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own
      wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his
      marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The
      wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In
      the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but
      also to his wife. Do not deprive each other [of sexual fulfillment]
      except by mutual consent and for a time ... then come together
      again ..." [1 Corinthians 7:2-5]

      Child production as a rationale for marriage may be a Roman Catholic
      misleading fabrication, but it is certainly NOT a biblical mandate!


      --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, Scott Russell
      <syzygy121@y...> wrote:
      > Hi Korry,
      > Here's my scatter-shot response (at first blush):
      > Yeah, I studied Joe Nicolosi too. I met him several times and he
      does seem to be a compassionate and convincing speaker.
      > But in the end it is an issue of biblical worldview.
      > Reparative therapists and Fundies CANNOT conceive that homosexuals
      could be anything else but heterosexuals who are misbehaving.
      Scripture leaves no room for long-term, committed same-sex
      relationships, not just because they had no experience of such, but
      sex was meant for PROCREATION nothing else. This is the biblical
      mandate -- be fruitful and multiply, grow the nation.
      > Could God have plans for other of his children? Might there be
      another role for us to play besides breeding?
      > As much as individuals might want to "become" heterosexual, all I
      have ever witnessed were individuals that Exodus helped "behave"
      hetersexually. No change in orientation, only change in behavior.
      Is this healthy? Dobson and others would say so -- it makes them
      more comfortable. I honestly don't recall any "successes" in Exodus
      that said their orientation changed. My theory is that those who
      have the best behavioral change are those who are truly bi-sexual
      the first place. But conservatives don't believe in bi-sexuals
      either. I have never and will never have feelings for women -- I'm
      just trying to be honest. If that makes me an abomination, I will
      put my self in the hands of a loving and merciful God. God save me
      from the clutches of his loyal "followers."
      > In the Episcopal Church we are fighting to protect our first
      openly gay bishop -- it is an issue of honesty. Gene Robinson tried
      reparative therapy -- it didn't work. Rather than live as a priest
      and now bishop in the closet, he is being honest and open with his
      life and his story. He's being called every name in the book, but
      in the end he is simply a man of integrity.
      > I'm glad to see you are reading Yeats and Renoir not just Paul or
      Joe Nicolosi.
      > Keep it up!
      > Scott+
      > korrykorrykoan <korrykorrykoan@y...> wrote:
      > "Things fall apart/The center cannot hold...The best lack all
      > conviction/And the worst are full of passionate intensity."
      > W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming
      > The Yeats poem kind of sums up how I feel at the moment with
      > to both sides of the debate. That, and Jean Renoir´s "It is a time
      > when everyone is lying" from La Regle de la Ju
      > I go back and forth with regards to the sexual identity thing. I
      > read just about everything there is to read regarding reparative
      > therapy that I could find, especially NARTH.
      > I find myself agreeing with most of what Josesph Nicolosi writes.
      > a gay man I find myself agreeing with just about everything he has
      > write regarding the pathological roots of same-sex attraction in
      > I should know, I was the classic "kitchen window boy" in my
      > childhood, estranged from my crazy, temperamental, alcoholic
      > as well as my hostile and abusive older brothers. By contrast, I
      > always finding comfort, consolation and compassion in the company
      > my mother, grandmother, or any of my many aunts.
      > I was overweight as a kid from a combination of too much junk food
      > and hardly any physical activity. I was the boy who was a complete
      > screw-up in gymn and was the butt of ridicule and abuse from the
      > other kids. Of course I was artistic, precocious, and sensitive.
      > profoundly haunted by that feeling of "gender emptiness" and a
      > sense of shame over being such a sissy.
      > But the curious thing is that until adolescence hit, I had hetero-
      > erotic feelings. I´d pop an instant boner whenever I looked at my
      > brother´s stolen copies of Playboy; big tits, curvaceous ass, the
      > whole bit. I also had some latent erotic feelings looking at naked
      > guys, especially guy´s butts, but it wasn´t until I turned twelve
      > that I experienced a major sea change in my feelings. Women no
      > turned me on, but the other boys and the other guys did -- BIG
      > Still, adolescence (which for me was in the late 70´s) was
      hellish. I
      > got beat up a lot for being a wimp and a nerd, my father died
      > alcoholism, and my brothers just got meaner and more abusive.
      > I grew up close to NYC, and got into the cruising scene pretty
      > having sex in tea rooms and alleys, and in the private homes of
      > (and old) men. All the time I loathed myself for a myriad of
      > Gay life is sleazy and dysfunctional, though it may not
      > correct to broach this. But I have seen quite a bit of gay life
      > New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver,
      > Denver...and many other places. I have attended Radical Faerie
      > gatherings, and boy oh boy the things I have seen (and sometimes
      > done).
      > Why I agree with Nicolosi is because I see the trauma over and
      > again. I see guys estranged from their own masculinity, guys who
      > overmothered and underfathered, who somehow think that another´s
      > guy´s cum is a sort of elixer that will provide them the missing
      > element in their hearts. The body types I notice in the gay male
      > community tend to be 1)out-of-shape or 2)when guys do start
      > up, they become ultra-narcissitic about their bodies.
      > There is the surprisingly high level of mental illness prevalent
      > the gay male community, at least I have found. More so than in the
      > company of straight men, I find too many hysterical drama queens
      > overreact emotionally to all sorts of circumstances, and too many
      > overeducated gay men with inflated egos about their academic and
      > artistic gifts. There is the high amount of drinking, doping, and
      > smoking that goes on as well.
      > Then there is the sex addiction, which all too often is more
      > than any fear of death or disease. Which is why you read about gay
      > male safe-sex educators who work in public clinics admitting that
      > they engage in unsafe sex in bathhouses and circuit parties.
      > But I feel equally pessimistic about "reparative therapy" for gay
      > men. Women are a different story altogehter, and I have known way
      > man ex-lesbians who transition all the time without the need of
      > therapy or religion. They just do.
      > By contrast, my own experience with Exodus was not encouraging,
      > when even Alan Medinger, one of the main proponents of Christian
      > gay therapy states that Exodus´s definition of heterosexuality
      > NOT include either erotic feelings or fantasies about the opposite
      > sex, you have to wonder: go figure.
      > Indeed, I find the right-wing Christian ex-gay trip the flip side
      > the same coin of dysfunction as the gay male lifestyle.
      > When you notice that the hottest category for porn these days
      > is "young straight guys" then you know that what we are craving in
      > our sexual feelings is both our mascunility ("straight") and
      > innocence ("young").
      > But even if we learn how to play touch football, find surrogate
      > fathers and brothers, and pray to Jesus...I have seen scant
      > that that makes you straight. It´s pathetic when I correspond
      > with "ex-gay" guys who claim that they have been on "the healing
      > path" for 15 years and are just, ALMOST (perhaps?) have "feelings"
      > for women. How pathetic.
      > So what´s the solution? I will write more in my next post after I
      > flamed for this one.
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic