A few quick comment on my way out for the day ...
... thanks to all offering advice on how to "block" the comments from our anonymous friend who seems hell-bent on making sure everybody reads Mr. Lee's article about gay porn and unhealthy lifestyles. I really don't have time or energy to learn any new technical thing at this point and I don't have "elves" at my disposal like some bloggers and I just don't have the energy or the will to keep deleting the article everytime it shows up masquerading as a comment so I guess we'll just live with it.
... for the record, I'm not in favor of porn -- gay or straight -- or of lifestyles that promote promiscuity ... Hugh Hefner comes to mind.
... yes, I have both heard and preached sermons on sexual morality ... and am proud to have been instrumental in the framing of Resolution C051 passed at General Convention 2003 naming our standards for holy relationships as follows: "fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God."
That's the orange we've got on the table. You can keep throwing apples around all you want, but that isn't going to reframe the debate.
And now, off to Capitol Hill. Blessings, all!
Borrowing from Milton: Anonymous, (at least the Anon who keeps posting the Ronald G. Lee article)
As an evangelical, I can say that I find your posting and reposting of this article to be annoying and not at all helpful. It is like saying the same thing over and over again; you have been tuned out.
... and now you are just making a nuisance of yourself. Find something better to do.
Sorry about too many postings of the Lee article, but some people still don't get the point. For instance, Rev. Susan thought it was about pornography, but Lee only used that reference to the bookstore as a metaphor. He was saying that there is a huge effort of whitewashing going on, whereby many gays are urgently seeking respectability for their behavior by creating facades that conceal the dominant reality, which he then portrays brilliantly.
mckenna, I'd really love to know exactly what portions of my relationship and family you consider to be a "facade" of "respectability," and exactly what the "dominant reality" in my life would be that you believe I would need to "whitewash." What is it about my "behavior" that you believe I am hiding behind this "whitewashed facade?"
I have nothing to hide. I have been a monogamous person throughout my life. I have been in a committed relationship with the same loving, Godly, devoted woman for the past 15.5 years. We have a home together and are raising our children as part of the Church, having baptized them at the age of four months and having committed ourselves to their spiritual, as well as physical, well-being.
We work, we sleep, we play, we take care of our home, we pray, we worship... I daresay we do pretty much the same things as most every other family in this country. We are who we are. We have not had to change anything inherent in ourselves in order to live a Godly, loving, peaceable, family-oriented life. It is who we are and what we have desired throughout our lives and, by the grace of God, brought to fruition in our relationship and our home.
What part of that, exactly, is a whitewashed facade of respectibility?
Post a Comment