The stumbling block for many is gay love, that it is somehow "unnatural."

[IndianaGreen]

Our kind of loving

Mark Vernon

Being gay is about your love life. Gay men and women aren't people who perform certain acts; they are people who love in certain ways. The L-word is never mentioned by those who condemn homosexuality. I suspect that they don't talk about homosexuality as a form of loving because if they did, their arguments would fall away. For what is life without love? No life. And that is, in effect, the no-life they are asking gay men and women to lead. To declare love as a whole section of humanity experiences it as simply deviant (or worse) is about as fundamental an attack on a human being as there can be.

The paradox is that you'd think that Christian leaders, above all others, would realise that. After all, it is they who declare that God is love: "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." (1 John 4:16.) They may excuse their opinions by saying they are challenging the sin not the sinner, or the practice not the orientation, or by some other such sophistical formula. But the truth is that writing off all gay love makes about as much sense as writing off all heterosexual love.

<snip>

It's not entirely clear what the pope actually said this time: some of the reporting of his comments seems rather overblown. That's the Christmas silly season for you. However, it's pretty clear he thinks homosexuality nothing less than a calamitous disaster for the human race. It is as if homosexuality were as infectious as the common cold. Soon everyone will be sneezing. What kind of fantasies about homosexuality does that imply?

It's also pretty clear that he thinks homosexuality unnatural. He paints a monochrome picture of the relationships between man and woman. Man looks like this; woman looks like that. Together they should look like the Joseph, Mary and Jesus on a million sentimental Christmas cards – putting to one side the fact that they weren't married and he was illegitimate. But if the pope won't take a lead from the Bible, in which I don't think there is a single example of a stable nuclear family, he might actually turn to nature and read about our evolutionary cousins, the bonobos. The primatologist Frans de Waal describes their loving in moving tones in his book Our Inner Ape.

"The French kiss is the bonobo's most recognizable, humanlike erotic act. Whenever I show an undergraduate class a film of my bonobos, the students get very quiet. They will watch all sorts of sexual intercourse, but invariably the deepest impression is made by a video clip of two juvenile males tongue-kissing."

If only De Waal could show that clip in the Vatican. I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/23/pope-benedict-xvi-gayrights

[JuniperLea]

1. When you think about it...

That Joseph was a really nice guy. He stood by Mary knowing full well the child she carried was not his own, and what must surely have been seen as a nutty reason for the pregnancy... God did it. Just try that excuse now!

There's a lot of live and let live that can be done that doesn't require believing that something is right or wrong. There are some who will never accept, but they may be convinced that it's none of their concern.

[unblock]

4. one thing i've always wondered about that pregnancy story....

sorry if i'm offending, i'm not christian and am simply curious about this story. did mary become pregnant without having sex at all? or did god inhabit the body of some human (say, joseph) in order to father jesus? or did she have sex with some non-human entity to which there was no physical component?

certainly gods inhabiting the body of humans for this purpose is a common story in the roman and greek and other mythologies.

is any of this spelled out in the new testament or is it all a matter of interpretation (which might have changed over the centuries)?

[alwysdrunk]

5. An angel did it.

Not through sex though.

[JuniperLea]

6. It's been a very long time since I read the story...

But as I recall, an angel appeared and told her she was preggers. I've always found the stories that pop up within several mythologies, presumably written at different times, quite fascinating. I believe it is probably a reactive brain thing, like the "near death experience" stories that are most likely a reaction to lack of oxygen, or blood to the retina, or increased brain activity as the body tries to save the most important part of itself.

[dflprincess]

14. Let me add my own sacrilege

The angel actually asked Mary if she was willing - and she did reply something about being the "handmaiden of the Lord". I now see this as one of the biggest sexual harassment cases in history. I mean, really, how could she have said no to God? (I'm going to hell for sure for this one)

[IndianaGreen]

7. A rip-off of the Alexander the Great's story

Alexander's mother Olympias was impregnated by Zeus.

[WinkyDink]

17. I daresay Al's story was a rip-off.

[baldguy]

11. Mary, Theotokos was an eternal virgin.

Before she was pregnant with Jesus, after she gave birth to him, and after she conceived & gave birth to his brothers and sisters with Joseph.

If you try and think it through so that it's logical and makes sense, then your head'll explode.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

29. I Used to Believe That...

when I was still Orthodox. Then I woke up and saw that it was simply a rip off of older legends where the Goddess gives birth to the God.

[WinkyDink]

16. I didn't Google, as I know the answer, but I suspect this is really easy to find out.

[FedUp_Queer]

31. Here is the belief...

Mary conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, yes, Mary became pregnant without having sex at all. Beyond this, in the Catholic tradition (of which I am a part), Mary is believed to be perpetually virgin, she had no other children. However, the English versions of the Bible refer to James as "the brother of Jesus." While this may seem to contradict the Catholic belief, it does not because the term for half-brother and cousin in Greek is the same, which reflects the middle eastern clan structure of families at the time. The Catholic notion, therefore, of Mary's perpetual virginity is based upon a centuries-on reflection Jesus' birth and Mary's motherhood (I won't get into this being the result of a belief that sex was generally "dirty" which lead to the Church's conclusion regarding her perpetual virginity...I only say this to articulate the "Catholic line" as I understand it).

[ddeclue]

2. Two points....

1) I think this is an over simplification of the hetero community.

It would seem a reasonable assumption that many homosexuals find heterosexual acts "unnatural" in turn while apparently most bi-sexuals would find neither groups acts as "unnatural". I would also ask whether lesbians would have problems with gays "acts" or vice versa as well.

The point is that every person has a right to decide what works for them personally provided everyone involved is a consenting adult and not to be judged for not wanting what doesn't work for them provided they in turn don't judge others for THEIR choices.

2) You have to be careful about saying "God is Love" - there are several kinds of "love" and they translate differently. Sexual "love" is different than friendship or service to others / humanity but all can be called "love". I would tend to think that the reference is to being of service to others or humanity in general rather than sexual love either between a man and woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Doug D.

[boppers]

20. Ask your gay friends? No, really. Ask them.

No homosexual man I've ever met has described straight sex as "unnatural", nor have any of the lesbians I've talked to found MSM "unnatural".

It's not a reasonable assumption to think that just because one chunk of society has been fed a line (that is, a lie), about "natural" sex, that the lie permeates throughout the culture.

"Natural" you see, is often a dodge like "intelligent design" is. It's simply a way for one segment of society to declare that "god wants it this way". It's totally natural for a female to have sex with her children, or hundreds of males, or males to engage in sexual partnerships, or multiple-sex species to have sex with other members of their multiple-sex species, or any number of other combinations that are to be found in Nature (with a capital N).

Perhaps a better word/phrase is not "unnatural", but "sexually stimulating".

[TheWraith]

22. Ask a gay man if having sex with a woman would feel "natural" to him.

Chances are he'd say no, and I think that's what ddeclue meant.

[Lyric]

25. Gay-haters use "unnatural" in a different way than gay people do.

A gay man might say, "Hetero sex would be unnatural for me. It would be weird. I would not/could not enjoy it."

That is a benign statement about the Self that passes no judgment upon anyone else for feeling differently. It is about Self Truth.

A gay-hater, however, would say, "Homo sex acts are unnatural. They are against God's natural law. Male parts are meant for female parts ONLY, and vice-versa."

This is NOT a statement of Self, but is rather a judgemental statement about the hater's perception of Universal Truth.

Because the two sides use the word much differently, it is both unfair and illogical to compare them as if they were equivalent uses of the word "unnatural." If I say that drinking beer makes me sick, and therefore I don't like beer, I am not passing judgement or trying to declare a universal reality for everyone to abide by. But if I say that drinking beer IS sick, and NOBODY should drink it, then I am making a universal statement about beer-drinking that applies to more people than just me.

See the difference?

[ddeclue]

30. Did you not read my own writing on this

I don't subscribe to your notion of a difference in how gay haters view it and anyone else other than they wish to impose their personal viewpoint on others.

[unblock]

3. actually, i think calling it "unnatural" is just another way to be mean and nasty

the fact of the matter is that 100% faithful exclusive til-death-do-you-part monogamy is not completely natural regardless of the genders involved. are we to believe that affairs and divorce and sequential marriages are natural, yet falling in love and/or having sex with a member of one particular half of the population is not?


it seems pretty clear that homosexuality IS natural, but regardless, what the hell does it matter if it's natural or not? murder is natural, as is stealing, and a whole host of rotten things. we're supposed to be better than to be mere slaves to what's natural, and live by something higher than that anyway.

calling it "unnatural" is just yet another false slander that people can latch on to and wear as a fig leaf so they can deny that it's really just their naked bigotry at work.

[Terran]

32. The fact is, it IS natural because it occurs 'in nature'

Human behavior is part of nature, so therefore same-sex attraction is just as natural as opposite sex attraction. And of course the fact that lots of animals besides humans engage in same-sex behavior merely extends the basis of this view.

Actually, to get semantic about it, same-sex attraction is natural but not "normal", since the "norm" is opposite-sex attraction. This is perfectly reasonable, given that opposite-sex attraction is what perpetuates nearly all species; it's just not universal.

But of course none of this logical factual stuff will convince a right-wing fundie of anything.

[treestar]

8. To them it is unnatural if it does not result in procreation

That's the bottom line for these nutjobs.

[ddeclue]

9. That is painting all heterosexuals with a very broad brush don't think?

Clearly MOST heterosexuals in this country practice birth control or our birth rate would be MUCH MUCH higher... I don't think your point holds any water whatsoever.

[eridani]

18. They don't mind old straight people doing the deed n/t

[Hanse]

10. I'm not buying it.

The vast majority of heterosexuals practice anal sex, oral sex, celibacy, and other "unnatural" sex acts.

The claims of displeasure of "unnatural sex" is just a red herring homophobes come up with to excuse themselves. It's like when white supremacists say "I don't hate black people, I just love my white heritage." It's bullshit.

[Teaser]

12. Good point, but one small thing

"What is life without love"

I dunno, it's just fine for some people. Love is one way to occupy one's time, but a life of significance is possible without it, imo.

[InvisibleTouch]

13. Same-sex pairings are found in the rest of the animal kingdom also...

...among social species, where it's very natural. When there may not be an opposite-sex mate available for every individual, or competition limits reproductive access, it makes imminent sense that there should be a natural mechanism to form pair-bonds with one's own gender. It's great for group cohesion, for one thing - so, evolutionarily speaking, it's a positive trait.

[27inCali]

15. I think it is just something very new to a lot of people

especially older people who have probably met tons of gay people who were just closeted. fucking ironic isn't it?

the whole closet gay phenomenon I think has a lot to do with people having a hard time getting "there" as my friends like to put it. It's just new and scary.

I really believe that it's more about Fear than Hate, which comforts me because Fear is a lot easier to conquer than hate.

[alwysdrunk]

26. I think it's 100% about fear

I the fear is at least partly natural too. I think the main fear people have is that their kids will be gay. I think the natural instinct of all animals to get their genes into the next generation leads to fear that their offspring may be gay therefore won't mate and won't procreate leads to a fear of homosexuality.

Look at the Yes on Prop 8 people. They said they based the campaign on education, scaring people into believing that gays would turn their children into homosexuals through "pro-gay agenda" education in public schools.

[TrogL]

19. There's lots of gay sexuality in nature

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/orient.html

[TheWraith]

21. Bonobos do all sorts of things--they exhibit more or less the full range of humanlike sex behaviors.

Including homosexuality, bisexuality, and even non-instinctive sexual behaviors like oral sex.

[Fearless]

23. Yeah? I'll give them a stumbing block.

How about this one...

[tkmorris]

24. Hmmm

Edited, misunderstood post

[rasputin1952]

27. "Unnatural"...made me think of ...

Ronnie and Nancy or bush and Pickles getting it on...I'm off to bleach my brain now...

[Heidi]

28. Love kick.

:thumbsup:

:kick:

[Yes We Did]

33. Of course it's never mentioned.

That throws a wrench in their imperfect machine. It's easy to condemn an act, but not so easy to do so to an emotion.

Not to mention the biblical ramifications. Love is all through the bible, including a passage that says that NO love is a bad love.

Warren, and people like him, can't believe it has anything to do with love, or they have to stop being bigots.

[NorthernSpy]

34. The Catholic answer is that same sex love is real...

... but that if you truly did love the other person, then you would not do anything with him/her that would endanger that person's salvation and your own. This, by the way, is pretty much the same answer that the church gives to the priests who feel tempted to abandon their pledge of celibacy, and to heterosexuals who might wish to have sex outside of marriage.

When they say that something is unnatural, they mean that it is a result of the Fall: ie, the "unnatural" thing is a consequence of man's original rebellion, which caused all of nature to deviate from God's original design.


At least, that's how I understand their position. I'm an atheist, so you might have to ask a priest to explain their thinking more fully.