Have you told your kids what "straight' and "gay" mean in reference to people?

[Farrar]

I guess it kind of depends how you define the terms, but generally I think gay and straight have been used for sex attraction, not gender presentation.

 

I was looking for some information the other day and ended up on an old discussion thread on a gay chat forum.  Anyway, they were talking about a musician, one who's generally considered to be gay.  One of them commented that he's dated a transexual back in the 90's, and so he was at least bi-sexual.  

 

It was interesting to me that they seemed to take it very much for granted that being a gay man was about wanting to have sex with people who have a penis.  And not as far as I could see because they had some sort of hang-up about it, either.

 

In this case, I'm just being informational. There are some people who identify as gay or lesbian (not bi or pan) who are open to or in relationships with trans people who identify as their gender. And others who aren't.

[SKL]

I can't really speak for anyone choosing a religion, but there are no members of any religion who haven't committed, or at least been tempted to commit, actions that are considered sins in said religion.  Most of us practice religion knowing we fall short of the ideal in various ways.

 

The gay people I know best are pretty religious.  They are more adamant and judgmental about certain things than some might expect.  I assume they attend churches that are not anti-gay, but I'm not sure.  Even in my rather conservative church, they don't mention homosexuality very often.  No as often than they mention the ills of bringing up kids in single-parent households (that would be me).  So maybe some gay people would tolerate the occasional mention because they approve of the rest of the message.

Edited March 21, 2018 by SKL

[Laura Corin]

While that might seem to be what you'd assume, there are plenty of gay people in religious groups, of their own free will, that have fairly strict rules about marriage and sexual activity.  Being a high Anglican they are fairly thickly spread round, and much the same is true in Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

 

As an outsider, I would wonder whether visibility depends on the attitude of the others in the congregation: if they are supportive or not of someone who openly says that they are gay but have chosen not to have sex.

 

There's a well-known Anglican priest in the UK named Richard Coles who lives in a celibate relationship with his civil partner.  They don't feel the need to hide their sexuality from church members, but other congregations might have been more wary.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Laura Corin

[nixpix5]

On another topic - does anyone have any discomfort with the word "straight"? What does it really mean? Is it a back-door pejorative? How do we think young kids perceive it?

I was thinking about this a few days ago too. It is outdated terminology. It does imply that if one is not "straight" then they are opposite or straight...kinked, crooked, etc. It bugs me alot. I don't love hetero-normative either though. From a scientific standpoint a "norm" implies majority but since we derive the word "normal" from that it still has the ability to sound not great. I am probably over thinking it but I work hard to not offend the teens I work with. I am not sure I quite understand the word "binary" as used within this either. Does that have to be same brain/body cohesion to qualify?

[Farrar]

There are some Christian churches that are super gay friendly. There are some in my city that are particularly gay oriented, with LGBT outreach, choirs, ministers, etc. When someone says "church" I don't assume that it has to be exclusionary of LGBT members or encouraging them to maintain silence/celibacy. 

[bibiche]

My kids were adopted out of a not-so-loving situation, ...

How could you possibly know that?

[regentrude]

How could you possibly know that?

 

That tone sounds aggressive and insulting.

 

There are plenty of adoptive parents who know that their children had been removed from abusive home situations.

Edited March 21, 2018 by regentrude

[bibiche]

That tone sounds aggressive and insulting.

 

There are plenty of adoptive parents who know that their children had been removed from abusive home situations.

 

Of course. There are also loving parents whose children were stolen from them in other countries and essentially sold to Americans who were told that they were saving them. I know some of these parents. And there are doubtless parents who loved their children but gave them up in the hope that they would have a better life in an adoptive family. 

[LucyStoner]

I guess it kind of depends how you define the terms, but generally I think gay and straight have been used for sex attraction, not gender presentation.

 

I was looking for some information the other day and ended up on an old discussion thread on a gay chat forum. Anyway, they were talking about a musician, one who's generally considered to be gay. One of them commented that he's dated a transexual back in the 90's, and so he was at least bi-sexual.

 

It was interesting to me that they seemed to take it very much for granted that being a gay man was about wanting to have sex with people who have a penis. And not as far as I could see because they had some sort of hang-up about it, either.

I know a number of gay and lesbian couples where one of the partners is trans. A trans person may be gay or straight.

 

My transgender brother has only ever been in relationships with other males and all but one of these people were biologically men. He’s been married for years to a gay man. They were legally domestic partners until gay marriage became legal.

[Bluegoat]

As an outsider, I would wonder whether visibility depends on the attitude of the others in the congregation: if they are supportive or not of someone who openly says that they are gay but have chosen not to have sex.

 

There's a well-known Anglican priest in the UK named Richard Coles who lives in a celibate relationship with his civil partner.  They don't feel the need to hide their sexuality from church members, but other congregations might have been more wary.

 

 

I'd say that makes a difference.  

 

But lots of people do and have simply consider that to be private.  If you are celibate, there generally isn't a lot of call to discuss your sexual attraction with other people.  This follows the question of sexual preference as something that is really important to identity - it hasn't typically been seen as part of identity until pretty recently, so that isn't especially something people thought of as important to share with others, or necessarily even contemplate much themselves.

[SKL]

Of course. There are also loving parents whose children were stolen from them in other countries and essentially sold to Americans who were told that they were saving them. I know some of these parents. And there are doubtless parents who loved their children but gave them up in the hope that they would have a better life in an adoptive family. 

 

Apparently you are not a fan of international adoption.

 

To answer your question, I have the statements of each birth mom both before the adoption and some years later.  I also have court records that further support these statements. 

 

My kids know enough of their birth story to know they were not brought into a loving situation at all, many times over.  Their birth moms loved them, but that isn't what was being discussed upthread.  The context of my comment was someone saying kids should be told the story of conception in a way that emphasizes the love of both parents and security of the family unit etc.  All it would do for my kids (at a young age) would be to remind them how most of their bio family rejected them.  Point being that there is no one right way to introduce "how babies are made."

[LucyStoner]

There are some Christian churches that are super gay friendly. There are some in my city that are particularly gay oriented, with LGBT outreach, choirs, ministers, etc. When someone says "church" I don't assume that it has to be exclusionary of LGBT members or encouraging them to maintain silence/celibacy.

Yes. Anyone looking to find a church can often find what they are looking for by searching for “open and affirming†or just “affirming†congregations. We attended a large affirming church here for a number of years. There are dozens of similar churches in my area.

[Bluegoat]

I know a number of gay and lesbian couples where one of the partners is trans. A trans person may be gay or straight.

 

My transgender brother has only ever been in relationships with other males and all but one of these people were biologically men. He’s been married for years to a gay man. They were legally domestic partners until gay marriage became legal.

 

I am sure many people who are transexual are in relationships.  But I'm not sure beyond that what you are getting at.

 

THe conversation I was seeing seemed to consider that whatever the gender presentation, being gay meant two people with male physiology.  Sexual contact with woman with male cultural presentation, or a male person who had surgery to have female physiology, was not seen as male homosexuality.

 

That's not the last word obviously, but if people really believe sex and gender are both real and important, it's a bit confusing to use the same term to describe sexual attraction to one as opposed to the other.  Presumably if gender and sex are separate and independent, sexual attraction in relation to them would be as well.

[poppy]

Ha, I never thought of straight as the opposite of kinky.  We  could definitely use a new, positive, non clinical term.

 

There are some Christian churches that are super gay friendly. There are some in my city that are particularly gay oriented, with LGBT outreach, choirs, ministers, etc. When someone says "church" I don't assume that it has to be exclusionary of LGBT members or encouraging them to maintain silence/celibacy. 

Ha, my kids definitely associate church with same-sex partners raising kids. Probably 2/3 of the gay folks we know are from our church. 

[SKL]

And linking the latest comments to the OP, it gets even more confusing to consider how to explain "gay" to kids.

 

On a related note, I do not agree with the language "boy with girl" / "boy with boy" / "girl with girl" as it implies children having sex.

[LucyStoner]

I am sure many people who are transexual are in relationships. But I'm not sure beyond that what you are getting at.

 

THe conversation I was seeing seemed to consider that whatever the gender presentation, being gay meant two people with male physiology. Sexual contact with woman with male cultural presentation, or a male person who had surgery to have female physiology, was not seen as male homosexuality.

 

That's not the last word obviously, but if people really believe sex and gender are both real and important, it's a bit confusing to use the same term to describe sexual attraction to one as opposed to the other. Presumably if gender and sex are separate and independent, sexual attraction in relation to them would be as well.

All I am saying is that it flatly erroneous to define a relationship as heterosexual or homosexual based only on the biological sex of the partners. A gay man who marries a transman doesn’t become heterosexual in his orientation, does he?

 

Some things you and others have said on this thread seem to re-define gay and lesbian trans people as heterosexual or heterosexual trans people as homosexual and that’s just not the case. Extending this, I don’t think it’s up to anyone but the parties involved to define the relationship that exists between longtime spouses where one transitions but they opt to remain married.

Edited March 21, 2018 by LucyStoner

[Joker]

All I am saying is that it flatly erroneous to define a relationship as heterosexual or homosexual based only on the biological sex of the partners. A gay man who marries a transman doesn’t become heterosexual in his orientation, does he?

 

Some things you and others have said on this thread seem to re-define gay and lesbian trans people as heterosexual or heterosexual trans people as homosexual and that’s just not the case.

Yes, more than one person on this board has said my transgender son is a lesbian since he dates girls. No, he isn't.

[Farrar]

I am sure many people who are transexual are in relationships.  But I'm not sure beyond that what you are getting at.

 

THe conversation I was seeing seemed to consider that whatever the gender presentation, being gay meant two people with male physiology.  Sexual contact with woman with male cultural presentation, or a male person who had surgery to have female physiology, was not seen as male homosexuality.

 

That's not the last word obviously, but if people really believe sex and gender are both real and important, it's a bit confusing to use the same term to describe sexual attraction to one as opposed to the other.  Presumably if gender and sex are separate and independent, sexual attraction in relation to them would be as well.

 

I think the point is just that for many people "gay" does not mean attraction to people with the same genitals as you, but can also mean attraction to people with the same gender as you, regardless of genitals. For other people, the anatomical element is more important. I think we're just saying that the definition of gay being presented here is not the definition that many actual gay people embrace.

 

I don't think this is that complex.

[Scarlett]

I can't really speak for anyone choosing a religion, but there are no members of any religion who haven't committed, or at least been tempted to commit, actions that are considered sins in said religion.  Most of us practice religion knowing we fall short of the ideal in various ways.

 

 

 

 

Of course.  Everyone sins--makes mistakes---which is different  than deliberately choosing to live in a way that is against one's moral code.

[SKL]

Of course.  Everyone sins--makes mistakes---which is different  than deliberately choosing to live in a way that is against one's moral code.

 

Then there is the question of whether one "chooses" to be gay, as well as whether or not a gay person has to believe that his church is correct about what God thinks of gay people.

 

I am not a member of your church, so I don't know whether or not it is painful to be there for a gay person, or if there is simply a philosophical difference between what a gay person believes and what the church teaches.

 

I don't agree with what my church teaches on certain points.  However, I can still attend without being spiritually troubled.

 

I do keep my mouth shut about my personal disagreements with the church.

[Slartibartfast]

It depends on their age.

 

At a very young age they understand that people are in same sex relationships.

 

As they grow older and learn about the world around them they are introduced to different ideas, sometimes we bring it up but sometimes they ask us because of something they read or something they heard and we discuss it.

 

It's easier when they are younger to just say some people like boys and some like girls and it isn't a big deal but as they grow older people can be hard pressed to explain all the very distinct nuances to different types of relationships. I think sometimes it is best to just go with, "whatever, love is love."  :laugh:

[Slartibartfast]

 

Ha, my kids definitely associate church with same-sex partners raising kids. Probably 2/3 of the gay folks we know are from our church. 

 

Most of my gay friends are Christians. I don't  use the term, "THE church," because so many are so very different.

[Frances]

While that might seem to be what you'd assume, there are plenty of gay people in religious groups, of their own free will, that have fairly strict rules about marriage and sexual activity. Being a high Anglican they are fairly thickly spread round, and much the same is true in Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

But speaking as a former Catholic, many Catholics don’t believe and/or follow all of the church teachings around marriage and sex. And it’s my understanding from still practicing family members that gay couples (and their families) are very welcome in their parishes. While I understand this may not be true at all parishes, I doubt it would be the case at any church in Scarlett’s faith, at least based on her previous statements.

[Scarlett]

Then there is the question of whether one "chooses" to be gay, as well as whether or not a gay person has to believe that his church is correct about what God thinks of gay people.

 

I am not a member of your church, so I don't know whether or not it is painful to be there for a gay person, or if there is simply a philosophical difference between what a gay person believes and what the church teaches.

 

I don't agree with what my church teaches on certain points.  However, I can still attend without being spiritually troubled.

 

I do keep my mouth shut about my personal disagreements with the church.

 

 

People certainly choose their actions.  If I was a gay person who didn't believe the/my church was correct about gay people I would not be a part of that religion.  

[Slartibartfast]

People certainly choose their actions.  If I was a gay person who didn't believe the/my church was correct about gay people I would not be a part of that religion.  

 

Church is not religion.

[Frances]

I'd say that makes a difference.

 

But lots of people do and have simply consider that to be private. If you are celibate, there generally isn't a lot of call to discuss your sexual attraction with other people. This follows the question of sexual preference as something that is really important to identity - it hasn't typically been seen as part of identity until pretty recently, so that isn't especially something people thought of as important to share with others, or necessarily even contemplate much themselves.

But most people are heterosexual and in most places until fairly recently, it was only acceptable to be heterosexual. So for those who were heterosexual, what was there to discuss or to contemplate? And for those who weren’t, while they may have been doing lots of contemplating themselves, the risks of acting or even discussing could be very large. And in some places they still are.

[Bluegoat]

But speaking as a former Catholic, many Catholics don’t believe and/or follow all of the church teachings around marriage and sex. And it’s my understanding from still practicing family members that gay couples (and their families) are very welcome in their parishes. While I understand this may not be true at all parishes, I doubt it would be the case at any church in Scarlett’s faith, at least based on her previous statements.

 

Yes, I think there is a more strict discipline in Scarlett' community.  To some extent that reflects a difference in other kinds of views.

 

That wasn't really what I was getting at though.  Even well before the current secular acceptance of homosexuality, or before the idea that it was fundamental to identity was common, there were plenty of men who would now be considered gay who were active in the Catholic Church, and who agreed with its views on sex and marriage.  

 

It's pretty common though for people to think that people's views are based largely on whether a POV accepts whatever facet we think is really important to their identity.  

[Frances]

Yes, I think there is a more strict discipline in Scarlett' community. To some extent that reflects a difference in other kinds of views.

 

That wasn't really what I was getting at though. Even well before the current secular acceptance of homosexuality, or before the idea that it was fundamental to identity was common, there were plenty of men who would now be considered gay who were active in the Catholic Church, and who agreed with its views on sex and marriage.

 

It's pretty common though for people to think that people's views are based largely on whether a POV accepts whatever facet we think is really important to their identity.

Yes, and many of them became priests, a place where celibacy was required of everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. My aunt and uncle used to be a priest and a nun and knew many gay priests, a way higher proportion than outside of the priesthood. Edited March 21, 2018 by Frances

[Bluegoat]

But most people are heterosexual and in most places until fairly recently, it was only acceptable to be heterosexual. So for those who were heterosexual, what was there to discuss or to contemplate? And for those who weren’t, while they may have been doing lots of contemplating themselves, the risks of acting or even discussing could be very large. And in some places they still are.

 

What I am saying is that in the past, and still commonly in some groups, "being gay" is not considered a thing in terms of being an identity.  To think of people as being repressed or silenced around their identity is a bit of an anachronism.  They knew of course if they had attraction to people that weren't considered potential sexual partners, and that might be cause for personal reflection or direct their lives in one direction or another.  It might be something discussed with a mentor or close friend especially if it created challenges.

 

But it wouldn't be something for general discussion any more than anyone's private sexual thoughts or desires were.  

 

That is not at all incompatible with believing all the teachings on marriage and sexuality, or being in leadership positions.  It's just not rare to find gay priests that are entirely in line with the traditional/orthodox views on these questions.

[Daria]

People certainly choose their actions.  If I was a gay person who didn't believe the/my church was correct about gay people I would not be a part of that religion.  

 

On the other hand, I know some gay Catholics who believe that the Catholic church is wrong about homosexuality, and also other issues related to gender and sex; but who also identify strongly as Catholic and believe many teachings that are exclusively Catholic.  Instead of leaving, they've chosen to stay in the church and have dedicated themselves to fighting for change from within, in the same way that someone might choose to stay and fight for change within a country with a government they believe is wrong.

[LucyStoner]

Yes, many of them became priests, a place where celibacy was required of everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. My aunt and uncle used to be a priest and a nun and knew many gay priests, a way higher proportion than outside of the priesthood.

In 2005 the Catholic Church issued a directive intended to stop gay men from entering the priesthood. I believe those with “transitory†homosexual feelings were supposed to not enter seminary for three years and those with more than “transitory†feelings were not to be allowed to enter at all.

 

It wasn’t long after that that this cradle Catholic from a long line of Irish Catholics left the church for good.

[Scarlett]

People certainly choose their actions.  If I was a gay person who didn't believe my religion was correct about gay people I would not be a part of that religion.  

 

 

Church is not religion.

  

 

There I fixed it.  

[Bluegoat]

Yes, and many of them became priests, a place where celibacy was required of everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. My aunt and uncle used to be a priest and a nun and knew many gay priests, a way higher proportion than outside of the priesthood.

 

Yes, or monks.

 

Actually, this is part of a wider sense of corporate life I've heard from several people in this position - they don't see themselves as especially called out for being gay, but as members of a fairly wide group of people who are in the position of living as celibates.  Monastics and priests, but also people who have to avoid having kids, people who can't marry for financial or health reasons, people who can't find a spouse, people who are in careers not easily compatible with marriage, those whose spouses are dead or absent or unloving.

 

When that's the identity, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to see it celibacy as a kind of exclusion.

[Scarlett]

On the other hand, I know some gay Catholics who believe that the Catholic church is wrong about homosexuality, and also other issues related to gender and sex; but who also identify strongly as Catholic and believe many teachings that are exclusively Catholic.  Instead of leaving, they've chosen to stay in the church and have dedicated themselves to fighting for change from within, in the same way that someone might choose to stay and fight for change within a country with a government they believe is wrong.

 

 

Yeah, I just don't get that.  

[Frances]

What I am saying is that in the past, and still commonly in some groups, "being gay" is not considered a thing in terms of being an identity. To think of people as being repressed or silenced around their identity is a bit of an anachronism. They knew of course if they had attraction to people that weren't considered potential sexual partners, and that might be cause for personal reflection or direct their lives in one direction or another. It might be something discussed with a mentor or close friend especially if it created challenges.

 

But it wouldn't be something for general discussion any more than anyone's private sexual thoughts or desires were.

 

That is not at all incompatible with believing all the teachings on marriage and sexuality, or being in leadership positions. It's just not rare to find gay priests that are entirely in line with the traditional/orthodox views on these questions.

I’m not disagreeing with your description of different times and places, but if wasn’t ever part of the general discussion, then how would we ever get to a place where there is not discrimination against those who are living as homosexuals?

[Daria]

Yeah, I just don't get that.  

 

If I remember correctly, you're a member of a religion that holds a number of beliefs that are unique to them, just the way that Catholics hold a number of beliefs that are unique to them, or Mormons, or any one of a number of other groups.  It also seems like those beliefs are really important to you.  

 

Can't you imagine a circumstance in which there was one teaching you didn't agree with, while you agreed with the rest?  What would you do?  Go without organized religion?  Switch to a denomination that you agreed with on that one point, even though there were many other points you didn't believe in?

 

And what if you thought that specific teaching was harming others within the religion.   People you loved, who you'd be connected to your whole life.  Would you still walk away, or would you stay and try and change things?

 

I'm not saying there's a right answer, but I can see where these people are coming from.

[Frances]

If I remember correctly, you're a member of a religion that holds a number of beliefs that are unique to them, just the way that Catholics hold a number of beliefs that are unique to them, or Mormons, or any one of a number of other groups. It also seems like those beliefs are really important to you.

 

Can't you imagine a circumstance in which there was one teaching you didn't agree with, while you agreed with the rest? What would you do? Go without organized religion? Switch to a denomination that you agreed with on that one point, even though there were many other points you didn't believe in?

 

And what if you thought that specific teaching was harming others within the religion. People you loved, who you'd be connected to your whole life. Would you still walk away, or would you stay and try and change things?

 

I'm not saying there's a right answer, but I can see where these people are coming from.

My aunt and uncle, the former Catholic priest and nun, disagree with several Church policies including that priest can’t marry and that women can’t be priests. But even after they left their orders and married, they remained practicing Catholics and all of their subsequent jobs were with the Catholic Church. At least in my experience, it’s very common for people to disagree with at least some of the teachings of their religion.

[SparklyUnicorn]

See I don't know any religious people who follow all the rules so...

 

My BIL is gay and very into his Catholic faith.  He didn't tell anyone until he was around 40 and if he has had any relationships he has not been open about it.  I have no doubt this has been somewhat of a conundrum for him, but he is still a Catholic so...

 

 

[Scarlett]

If I remember correctly, you're a member of a religion that holds a number of beliefs that are unique to them, just the way that Catholics hold a number of beliefs that are unique to them, or Mormons, or any one of a number of other groups.  It also seems like those beliefs are really important to you.  

 

Can't you imagine a circumstance in which there was one teaching you didn't agree with, while you agreed with the rest?  What would you do?  Go without organized religion?  Switch to a denomination that you agreed with on that one point, even though there were many other points you didn't believe in?

 

And what if you thought that specific teaching was harming others within the religion.   People you loved, who you'd be connected to your whole life.  Would you still walk away, or would you stay and try and change things?

 

I'm not saying there's a right answer, but I can see where these people are coming from.

 

 

I would not have become a part of said religion. Especially over such a BIG issue..

[Daria]

I would not have become a part of said religion. Especially over such a BIG issue..

 

The people I'm thinking of are cradle Catholics, they never became Catholic, or rather according to the Catholic church they became Catholic through the early sacraments of baptism, first reconciliation and first communion, all of which would have been long before they had would have realized that they were gay, or understood the church's teaching on the subject.

[Frances]

I would not have become a part of said religion. Especially over such a BIG issue..

But most people are raised in a particular religion, so leaving it can be very big deal, especially if they still live near family and friends in the same religion. For some, it’s not just about the religion, but about a way of life and a community and family.

 

I personally don’t know anyone who agrees with all of the teachings of their religion, not even the priests and ministers I know. And even within many religions, there is disagreement about what it means to live in a way that is true to the beliefs and practices of that religion.

[LucyStoner]

The people I'm thinking of are cradle Catholics, they never became Catholic, or rather according to the Catholic church they became Catholic through the early sacraments of baptism, first reconciliation and first communion, all of which would have been long before they had would have realized that they were gay, or understood the church's teaching on the subject.

Exactly. Religion is very tied up in culture. One side of my family is all Catholic. I grew up in the church. My parents were really active in the church so we tended to be there up to 5 times a week for different activities and classes on top of mass. From epiphany dinner to midnight mass on Christmas Eve and everything in between.

 

It takes a lot of stay and a lot to leave. People make all sorts of decisions on it. For me, the final straw was probably seeing that my kids would have been welcomed for baptism but not my nieces. But there were many other things before that that got me to the point of “ok, it’s time for me leave.†At this point, if I’m attending mass, it’s a funeral and the person probably has the same last name as me. Once my father is dead, that’s the last time. I won’t deny my parents Christian burial just because my beliefs have changed.

Edited March 21, 2018 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

I’m not disagreeing with your description of different times and places, but if wasn’t ever part of the general discussion, then how would we ever get to a place where there is not discrimination against those who are living as homosexuals?

 

There was certainly social disapproval, and in many cases legal disapproval too, as far as people who were actually having homosexual encounters or relationships.  

 

I think what I was trying to get at, and this is what brought the question up because of a comment up-thread, was the idea that whatever goes on internally in a person's mind or body was seen as quite different from what someone chooses to do.  

 

There are lots of things we think of in much the same way.  If people do them, they meet with social disapproval, or it can be quite a lot more severe than that depending on what it is.  But the internal motivation or whatever you want to call it is a different thing, mostly other people don't know about it and we all understand that people have desires they can't control and often don't really even want.

 

But we can probably understand general social prejudice against people's internal experience in the same way - there are always people who dislike people or think they are bad if they are perceived to be a certain type of person, even if they aren't actually acting in a way that would be a problem.  In some cases it's because they suspect that the person will go on to cause problems, or in other cases it might just be that they are disdainful of others.  It seems to be a phenomena that is pretty widespread.

[Bluegoat]

I would not have become a part of said religion. Especially over such a BIG issue..

 

Well, most people don't agree 100% with the direction their religious group takes.  And not all groups claim the same level of authority either, so there is that.  Especially for people who see a lot of value and have ties to a religion, you often find they stay for the good things, and figure that either the teaching will change eventually, or they themselves will realize the teaching is right, and in any case the relationship is important.

 

 

I think a major question though is to what extent they see that thing as big, or fundamental.  Most people see specific rules like that as somewhat less fundamental than other questions.  They may also see value in having a policy that is applied consistently, even when they think it's not quite the right policy.  

 

There have been some changes to the teachings in pretty much every group that were seen as impossible to some of the people living at the time the changes were made - often they will cause splits when people cannot reconcile as to where the authority lies.  If you are a person who disagrees with a policy you might well think that it is that kind of thing.

[Frances]

There was certainly social disapproval, and in many cases legal disapproval too, as far as people who were actually having homosexual encounters or relationships.

 

I think what I was trying to get at, and this is what brought the question up because of a comment up-thread, was the idea that whatever goes on internally in a person's mind or body was seen as quite different from what someone chooses to do.

 

There are lots of things we think of in much the same way. If people do them, they meet with social disapproval, or it can be quite a lot more severe than that depending on what it is. But the internal motivation or whatever you want to call it is a different thing, mostly other people don't know about it and we all understand that people have desires they can't control and often don't really even want.

 

But we can probably understand general social prejudice against people's internal experience in the same way - there are always people who dislike people or think they are bad if they are perceived to be a certain type of person, even if they aren't actually acting in a way that would be a problem. In some cases it's because they suspect that the person will go on to cause problems, or in other cases it might just be that they are disdainful of others. It seems to be a phenomena that is pretty widespread.

I’m not really disagreeing with you, but I actually think that at least in the US today, many people are quite open about their internal struggles with all sorts of things and discuss them freely in support groups, on discussion boards like this, with family and friends, etc. So for example, you have people stating that they are an alcoholic even though they no longer drink at all, haven’t for many years, and never intend to again. Although it’s not my personality at all, it seems to me that it’s actually more common than not for people to be pretty open about their internal struggles, at least in the US.

[ktgrok]

Yeah, I just don't get that.  

 

It's a logical position, not sure what there is to get. If you feel that the church you are part of is the first and only church established by Jesus, you might not leave even if you think it gets some things wrong. I'm one of those people. 

[Scarlett]

It's a logical position, not sure what there is to get. If you feel that the church you are part of is the first and only church established by Jesus, you might not leave even if you think it gets some things wrong. I'm one of those people.

I was specifically referring to the decision to stay and fight for a change.

 

But no none of it seems logical to me. I don’t want to be part of an organization if I disagree with their teachings.

[bolt.]

I was specifically referring to the decision to stay and fight for a change.

 

But no none of it seems logical to me. I don’t want to be part of an organization if I disagree with their teachings.

Some people view church as not an 'organization' but as something more like a family -- something that *automatically* connects all of the people who are in relationship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit.

 

The above view of what church is changes their ability to see themselves as belonging or not belonging to that family. In a way, church is not a choice... Jesus is a choice. Church is just the reality that Jesus loves other people too, and by faith we entrust ourselves to him, therefore the Holy Spirit joins us all together.

 

If some of those other people Jesus loves have various ideas and opinions, and "I" have other ones, that's just something that happens. Wow: Jesus loves people who aren't correct about everything all the time. Wow: Jesus loves "me" too. (And "I" am probably not correct about everything all the time either.)

 

For some people it's not a matter of 'wanting to be part of an organization' -- it's a matter of being unable to reject people that Jesus has included. If you aren't going to reject them, and you still think they are wrong -- you can either ignore the issue or try to help them see things your way.

[Daria]

I think that often people are motivated to change an religious community, because they care deeply about the people in that community.  Someone who grew up in a community that they loved, and then found themselves unwelcome, might want a different experience for the next generation, and believe that working within the community would help bring that about.  

[Bluegoat]

I’m not really disagreeing with you, but I actually think that at least in the US today, many people are quite open about their internal struggles with all sorts of things and discuss them freely in support groups, on discussion boards like this, with family and friends, etc. So for example, you have people stating that they are an alcoholic even though they no longer drink at all, haven’t for many years, and never intend to again. Although it’s not my personality at all, it seems to me that it’s actually more common than not for people to be pretty open about their internal struggles, at least in the US.

 

 

Yeah, that's cultural in part.  Americans probably do it more than many others, but it's kind of feature of modern life.  Psychology was invented less than 200 years ago after all.

 

OTOH, in the past people did talk about these things too, but not necessarily so much or with so many people.  Anything really intimate like your sex life was going to be relatively private.

 

But even today - there is a level where people open up, but once you get into things that have more of a social taboo attached, they are a lot more quiet about it.  Either really socially embarrassing like wanting to have sex with your cousin, or you could think about stuff that isn't seen as PC too.  People will talk about some of these things in certain environments but not more publicly.