[Vision2020] Homosexuality

[Joan Opyr]

On 5 Nov 2005, at 11:50, Michael writes:

"Then you worship a god who is eternally sexless; no warm embracing, no 
dancing, no pleasure of communion. He was eternally alone before he 
decided to create something else.  This god did not look down on 
creation and say Let Us make man and woman in Our image.  Rather, you 
have, at best, something more like a masturbating god. Right?   It is 
interesting that you find the meaning of sex to reside in your 
individual G-spot.  Surely, the pleasure and ritual of sex are not 
necessarily an ultimate expression of love and affection.  In our 
fallen world, they usually are not.  This is due to a lack of love, 
selfishness, emotional and physical problems, etc.  But I would be 
surprised if you argued that the pleasure and ritual of sex ARE NOT 
SUPPOSED TO BE the ultimate expression of love and affection. Is this 
what you are maintaining?"

I worship a God who is eternally sexless because he/she/it is not 
subdivided?  How does that work, exactly?  Are you picturing father, 
son and the holy spirit enjoying a sacred orgy in heaven?  Isn't there 
something a bit, well, pagan about your conception of God?  (And, yes, 
I'm using the word conception deliberately.)  God, for me, is infinite, 
Michael.  Why would our own natural world need to be an exact (if 
inferior) reflection of the supranatural world of God?  And as for God 
"masturbating," what would you call impregnating a woman who is virgo 
intacta -- and remains, post-impregnation, virgo intacta -- with one's 
son who is actually oneself?  I'd call it going around my ass to get to 
my elbow.  God said: I am that I am.  I don't think we necessarily need 
to or are even equipped to understand the essential nature of the 
divine.  I think that that is true vanity.

(Since all the persons of God are male in the Trinitarian conception, 
aren't you describing not just a great big orgy in the sky but a great 
big gay bath-house orgy?  Is that really an argument you -- and Doug 
Wilson -- want to make?)

Also, let me just say here that I find your talk of the "pleasure and 
ritual of sex" just a bit . . . icky.  I don't believe that having sex 
with your wife is in any way a re-enactment of the divine creation.  I 
think it's having sex with your wife.  It's something that many men and 
women can do while watching Late Night with David Letterman.  It's 
something the truly enthusiastic can do while listening to Bruce 
Springsteen's "Working on the highway."  It's fun, Michael.  At it's 
best, it's an affectionate, bonding experience.  It's certainly should 
be all about love and trust.  But an expression of God's will?  Does 
God in your view have so little to do that he/she/it is on perpetual 
bedroom patrol?  Does God smile just because it's Saturday night in the 
Metzler house?

Sorry, but eeewww.  There are a lot of other things God does besides 
create.  God cares for creation; God sacrifices for creation; God 
redeems creation.  It's not all rumpy-pumpy in heaven, Michael.  Surely 
God has cable and the ESPN total sports package.

Michael, who doesn't know when to quit, goes on:

"Paul and Solomon, at the end of their lives and after amazingly 
diverse life experiences, both concluded with the same thing: all is 
vanity without the blessing of God; it is best to obey his 
commandments."

I believe that I have the blessing of God.  In fact, I'm sure of it.  
This, despite the fact that I fail to obey all six-hundred odd of God's 
commandments.  That's because I think some of his would-be scribes got 
it wrong.  Scribes do that all the time.  They inject themselves into 
texts, both sacred and secular.  This is why it's both frustrating and 
gratifying to be a translator.

"I’ve commented a bit to this in my response to Joe.  To add to that a 
bit however, I’d be interested to know how you morally distinguish so 
strongly between sex with a donkey and leaving your husband for another 
woman."

Let's start with the fact that Melynda is not a donkey, shall we?  
She's not an animal.  She has the power of consent.  There is nothing 
exploitive about our relationship.  And, frankly, she's better off with 
me than if she'd been one of Lot's daughters.  I was not the property 
of my male husband, Michael.  I was a woman with volition and will.  
Are you familiar with Lesley Gore?  "You don't own me; I'm not just one 
of your many toys.  You don't own me; don't say I can't go with other 
boys.  Don't tell me what to do, don't tell me what to say, and, 
please, when I go out with you, don't put me on display.  You don't own 
me; don't try to change me in any way.  You don't own me; don't tie me 
down because I'll never stay."

[By the way, if you ever compare my wife to a donkey again, I'll kick 
your ass.  I'll kick it so hard, your children will be born with the 
words Goodyear Welt marked on their foreheads.  Are we clear?  Good.]

Michael, ignoring my increasingly rude and pointed yawns, carries on 
manfully:

"I’m not sure how your argument from Sodom and Gomorrah is supposed to 
work, and I’m still not sure how you see hospitality working this way 
in the narrative.  What we do know is that the Lord had already 
determined to destroy Sodom and he had already included Abraham in on 
his counsels of war.  “Their sin is exceedingly grave” (18:20).  The 
angels visited Sodom merely because the compassion of the Lord was upon 
Lot (19:16); the angels were showing hesed to the family, they were 
showing lovingkindness (19:19).  The brutality of the men demanding 
relations with Lot’s guests seems to show how the city was unrighteous, 
but this was not the cause of the Lord’s determination for its 
destruction."

I'm not going to explain this to you again, Michael.  Instead, I'm 
going to give you the opportunity to climb out the theological 
cardboard box and do a little Biblical research.  You can start with 
Google, if you like, but I'd begin with a good reference librarian.  
The reference librarian is the scholar's best friend.  Pop on over to 
WSU or UI or Moscow Public and ask for books by Karen Armstrong, John 
Crossan, and Elaine Pagels.  Hell, have a little fun -- read Bloom's 
"The Book of J."  You'll gain some real insight into the competing 
creation accounts of Genesis.  (Keely, if you have time, would you care 
to explain the sin of inhospitality to Michael?  Or do you want to 
field this one, Wayne or Joe or Nick?)

I'm done now.  I can't promise that I won't respond in the future.  I 
can say, however, that I'm long overdue for my nap.  Which is probably 
quite obvious.

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.joanopyr.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6579 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051105/df948b33/attachment-0001.bin