John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2003-08-12 06:08 pm
jackofallgeeks) wrote2003-08-12 06:08 pm
You know what bothers me...?
Disclaimer: I am not one who cares very much for self-censorship. I believe very strongly that no opinion is worth having unless one is willing to stand up and openly express that opinion, and I feel further than an inability to defend one's position shows a lack of understand of what one professes to hold. This having been said, the following discussion touches on a charged issue, and it's one of the many topics in which, I fear, my opinion is not very popular at all. Thus being the case, and as it is never my intent to offend anyone, I have cut most of it, save the opening paragraph and this disclaimer. If you so choose, feel free to pass by. At the same time, I won't force a decision on you -- I am leaving it open, and I not only accept but petition of you commentary.
Enough of this, let us begin.
Rachel brought up a good point just this afternoon, questioning why I would be 'saddened' by what's going on in the Episcopal Church. Now, my post had said that I feared for the church falling in on itself, and I do -- the dilemmas of faith that I'm sure it would cause are not a thing I would wish on anyone. But, when asked why I would be saddened, regardless, I admit that my first thoughts were, "I don't know."
It does rather seem like a discrepancy at first. My whole reasoning thus far against homosexuality has been it's tendency toward sex necessarily outside of marriage, a very reasonable and defensible position to take. I like to imagine that all my positions are reasonable and defensible. And so, my second thoughts were, "Well, it's really their blessing of same-sex marriages, and the subsequent affront to the sanctity of marriage, which upsets me."
And this is true, that is a big part of the offense I've taken. But I fear something's missing from this, and even at that, it's incomplete. This is only the more visible part of what bothers me. I must admit that there is something, on a low level, that is just... not-right about an Openly Gay Bishop.
It's that two-word phrase there that keeps catching me, 'openly gay.' I can't yet tell why, but every time I go over it, it tugs at my mind like a thorn to a knit sweater. Now, you se, the Catholic Church (and, necessarily, myself) has nothing against homosexuals personally. I have some very good friends who are gay, and as I've said before, I can personally relate to a girl who finds another girl attractive rather than one who finds men attractive -- I like the girl, too. The trouble isn't in the desires or tendancies or what have you -- God gave those to us all. The trouble is succumbing to those tendencies; the trouble is in the fulfilling of those desires; the trouble is in the act.
And that's where the phrase grabs me. Openly Gay. Now, I may be wrong, but that says to me that he has embraced his homosexuality. That he doesn't see it as a flaw, to be fought, but an attribute. and this is where he offends me, and this is where I become very unpopular, because it is a flaw, and it is to be fought against, just as I would and do fight as well as I can against the flaws I possess. much as I recognize, support, and respect him as a person, satisfying these desires are wrong; it's a sexual aberration, as sexuality was made to be between a man and a woman, for the unity of the couple and the procreation of new life. And this is what basically underlies my assertion that same-sex marriages assault the sanctity of marriage as such.
That being stated as such, of course, there is then only a small step to why an Openly Gay Bishop saddens me. And that is because, as Bishop, he is and should be a teacher and leader in faith and morals and ethics, and the idea that a man who has embraced his personal flaws rather than work against them would be put into that station... It bothers me on a very low level.
For those who have been offended by this, you have my email; I will allow each of you three free punches, or two kicks in the shin. But this is my position, and I stand by it until I am proved otherwise.
Enough of this, let us begin.
Rachel brought up a good point just this afternoon, questioning why I would be 'saddened' by what's going on in the Episcopal Church. Now, my post had said that I feared for the church falling in on itself, and I do -- the dilemmas of faith that I'm sure it would cause are not a thing I would wish on anyone. But, when asked why I would be saddened, regardless, I admit that my first thoughts were, "I don't know."
It does rather seem like a discrepancy at first. My whole reasoning thus far against homosexuality has been it's tendency toward sex necessarily outside of marriage, a very reasonable and defensible position to take. I like to imagine that all my positions are reasonable and defensible. And so, my second thoughts were, "Well, it's really their blessing of same-sex marriages, and the subsequent affront to the sanctity of marriage, which upsets me."
And this is true, that is a big part of the offense I've taken. But I fear something's missing from this, and even at that, it's incomplete. This is only the more visible part of what bothers me. I must admit that there is something, on a low level, that is just... not-right about an Openly Gay Bishop.
It's that two-word phrase there that keeps catching me, 'openly gay.' I can't yet tell why, but every time I go over it, it tugs at my mind like a thorn to a knit sweater. Now, you se, the Catholic Church (and, necessarily, myself) has nothing against homosexuals personally. I have some very good friends who are gay, and as I've said before, I can personally relate to a girl who finds another girl attractive rather than one who finds men attractive -- I like the girl, too. The trouble isn't in the desires or tendancies or what have you -- God gave those to us all. The trouble is succumbing to those tendencies; the trouble is in the fulfilling of those desires; the trouble is in the act.
And that's where the phrase grabs me. Openly Gay. Now, I may be wrong, but that says to me that he has embraced his homosexuality. That he doesn't see it as a flaw, to be fought, but an attribute. and this is where he offends me, and this is where I become very unpopular, because it is a flaw, and it is to be fought against, just as I would and do fight as well as I can against the flaws I possess. much as I recognize, support, and respect him as a person, satisfying these desires are wrong; it's a sexual aberration, as sexuality was made to be between a man and a woman, for the unity of the couple and the procreation of new life. And this is what basically underlies my assertion that same-sex marriages assault the sanctity of marriage as such.
That being stated as such, of course, there is then only a small step to why an Openly Gay Bishop saddens me. And that is because, as Bishop, he is and should be a teacher and leader in faith and morals and ethics, and the idea that a man who has embraced his personal flaws rather than work against them would be put into that station... It bothers me on a very low level.
For those who have been offended by this, you have my email; I will allow each of you three free punches, or two kicks in the shin. But this is my position, and I stand by it until I am proved otherwise.