Being 'socially inacceptable'...

[MrsSeanBean]

I just wanted to say that it's great to be able to chat about this topic (Philosophy / religion / spirituality ) on MN.

I find it so much more diffuclt to talk about religion / faith / spiritual things in RL.

I find assume that no-one in RL will think in a remotely similar way to me, or share any of my beliefs, and will think I am some kind of religious nutter.

Do you think it's just the case that people are more reluctant to talk about these things in RL?

Do you think it would be worthwhile / beneficial to instigate more RL conversations on this subject?

I heard the other day that to say you believe in God is almost 'socially inacceptable' now, which is rather sad.

I agree with what you say Scienceteacher.

QS - my opinion is the same as 'what I think' the church's is. I'm not just being a sheep about it either, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it and reading about it, and questionning.
I used to be far more of the persuasion - 'people should do what makes them happy' - but it is really the consequences arguement I mention above that now makes me think 'People should do what is right' (not that I do all the time by the way )
To be honest, I think it's a bit 'sheepish' for people to say that the church is hompohobic or go on about paedophiles (which has no relevance to the church's doctrine).
My beliefs are sound - based on what is true and lots of investigation... NOT on populist views ecouraged by the media!

As for pubs (sorry, reading this thread backwards), we have a couple of homegroups that meet in the local pub, as well as Pub Alpha.

Our local pub was very keen to have Pub Alpha - they even provided the food for free.

In our church, we definitely believe that outreach is going out, and not simply drag in (which is a common mistake).

Pub Alpha sounds great

Our one was for men only

Personally, I'd say the consequences listed aren't those of "homosexual sex" or "sex outside marriage", but of promiscuity and lack of sex education.

I'd also say that sexual orientation is something fundamental in a person's nature, and that very few people of any orientation feel called to lifelong celibacy. Therefore, the best Christian response to homosexuality is to encourage homosexuals as well as heterosexuals to have faithful, committed relationships.

Saying "it's ok to feel that way, but you can't express it physically in the way that your natural desires would want" is discriminatory. If churches are not anti-gay then they should allow same sex marriages on the same basis as other marriages. I'm not just blaming the RCs here, most other denominations fudge the issue to a greater or lesser extent.

AMumInScotland - I agree it's a really difficult issue - it's certainly one of the ones I've struggled with most in accepting my faith. The only conclusion I can come to is that it is a kind of cross these people have to bear, just as other people have hardships in their life which are beyond their control (losing loved ones etc...) I'm sorry if that sounds patronising - I really do not mean it to.
My view (and this may not be the church's view!) is that sex between homosexuals in a loving relationship is pretty low down on the list of sins - nowhere near as bad as sex outside of marriage between two heterosexuals for example. (I also feel that homsexual acts have less dire consequences, ie. abortion which Pope JPII called the biggest evil of our lifetime)
However, some of the consequences ARE due purely to homosexual sex. For example;
''There is an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections documented among male homosexual practitioners because of oral-anal contact. In fact, there are so many infections that a syndrome called "the Gay Bowel" is described in the medical literature "Gay bowel syndrome constitutes a group of conditions that occur among persons who practice unprotected anal intercourse, anilingus, or fellatio following anal intercourse." Although some women have been diagnosed with some of the gastrointestinal infections associated with "gay bowel," the vast preponderance of patients with these conditions are men who have sex with men.''
(from Catholiceducation.org)

Well, to be fair, there are plenty of heterosexuals who don't get married, and the church (be it Roman Catholic or otherwise in the non-liberal end of the swimming pool) teaches that they have to spend their life not getting any sex. It's not torture, it's just self-discipline. Believe it or not, there are Christian people who are straight, unmarried, and struggle with that, but still believe it's right.

Some of us even get married and never have sex again.

I dont think that you as a christian should say that gay people should not have sex due to consequences of their sexual act, in the same way as you cannot say that smokers should not smoke, due to the health consequences they may suffer.

What about women? When a woman has sex with a woman, there is no anal intercourse, is that ok?

What if gay men do not have anal intercourse, but perform other sexual acts together?

I think that using the possible consequences of some types of gay sex as a reason to be against it, is not really that well thought through.

I can see that this is a problem worthy of a real religious quandry. One of the most tolerant and openminded non-judgemental priests I have known, has a gay son (a very good friend of mine)

Lol KH, it is always so good to see you.

QS - As a catholic Christian I believe I should say that gay people should not have sex due to the consequences - it is part of my religious beliefs!

{Incidentally I DO say smokers should not smoke due to the health consequences they may suffer!! For one reason it places a huge burden on the NHS, for another I watched my dad die of lung cance and I think most smokers don't face up to what dying of smoking related diseases actually entails - but that is a thread for another day }

The anal intercourse thing was just one example - there are many other examples which are applicable to both men and women.

If you think my reason is not well thought through I can give you another! I (and the Catholic church!!)believes that sexual acts are wrong when they are based only on lust and selfish desire. The natural outcome of sex is to produce children, and I think that if the act is closed to that then it is unnatural.

It is a problem worthy of quandry definitely! However the priest that you know who has a gay son is not really relevant - we all do things that are 'wrong' or against church teaching whether it's lust, envy, greed etc... The point is as a Christian we are told to love the sinful and let God be the judge and (hopefully) forgive.

Mersmam, If the rule against homosexuals is justified by physical consequences does that mean if we make a medical breakthrough that cures all those that it will cease to be a sin?

You mention that it's also wrong because they can not have children, but surely that means if a man and woman are infertile with each other then they are committing the same sin?

An infertile couple might have a long and happy marriage and perhaps adopt and devote their lives to bringing up children who'd not otherwise have a home. So might a homosexual 'couple'

Btw If you search you will find at least one topic (not mine) which explains why smokers do not place a huge burden on the NHS, but actually support it financially to the point where it would be in dire straits if all smokers were to stop tomorrow. This is even true if you take the most pessimistic figures put forward by anti smoking groups.

The reason I picked up on your comment is that it's a good example of what sounds right turning out to be wrong when examined more closely.

Onager - I think such a medical breakthrough that cures all diseases is pretty unlikely - and if it did come other disease would probably develop (just as HIV did) to take their place. And anyway, yes it still would be a sin for the other reason, it would be sex based only only lust and not sex open to new life.

Married men and women who are infertile are not committing the same sin unless they have chosen to be infertile (eg. by taking contraceptives) - they are not doing anything to wilfully stop the act leading to the creation of a baby and sex between a man and a women is what nature and God intended.

I have nothing against adoption - not sure what your point is there!

Ok you may be right about smokers not placing a burden on the NHS - I don't claim to be an expert on that topic (but i still think most smokers realise what it entails to die of a smoking related disease and I think smoking is actually a sin too as is all abuse of our body! But again a discussion for another time).

I'm probably going to sign off now and not go any further with this whole 'gay sex' thing as being the mumsnet token Catholic is starting to get me down a bit... I've given my views and what I believe to be my religion's views in the best way I can, and hope perhaps it might make just one person think a bit harder before labelling the pope a homophobe... but maybe it won't!

Does this mean that my husband and I are committing a sin, if we still have sex, even though our family is complete?

Well then to anyone still reading I would say that homosexuals are not choosing to be infertile with each other. They do know in advance this is the case, but if a man and woman in love knew they would be infertile and still got married they would be in the same position.

It doesn't matter if this doesn't happen often. It only matters that they would not be condemned for it.

If we counter all the justifications we are left with 'it's just wrong' - A simple anti-gay prejudice. Fostered by a group that prides itself on being the moral beacon we should all follow.

Mersmam if you, as an individual catholic, choose to avoid sex that is not going to lead to conception, that's your business. People who are not catholics - and indeed, people who are but who disagree with some aspects of the catholic doctrine - are entitled not to give a monkey's bollock what you or other catholics think. The problem is that Catholic institutions, which are funded by the state, think they have a right to meddle and discriminate in other people's lives (campaigning to cut off funding for women's health charities which offer abortions, campaigning to stop gay people working in certain professions or being able to adopt). And the reason the Catholic church has such a big problem with paedophile priests is that the Catholic church is founded on a disgusting and dysfunctional attitude towards sexuality, which manifests as an obsession with interfering in and controlling the sex lives of other people.

This started out as such a lovely, open-minded thread (which also made me laugh every time solidgold said something like 'don't give a monkey's bollock' - keep it up! I love your turn of phrase!).

As someone who's had a faith all my life I have recently decided not to call myself a Christian, because I find that nowadays it's a loaded term which means 101 things to 101 people. There are so many assumptions made about what you believe/ ought to believe (made by believers and non-believers alike) and I have chosen, for the time being, at least, to distance myself from this so that I can see what life is like to live a 'silent' faith.

Someone mentioned Christians being judgy earlier on. I agree that sometimes they can be, but also sometimes when a Christian chooses not to be seen to agree with stuff they don't agree with, non-believers assume this is judgy. I remember this from my younger days; friends would talk about getting hammered and shagging strangers. I'd sit there thinking: 'it's not something I do, not in my value system, so rather than sound like I'm telling you not to do it I'll just sit here and listen to your convo'. Then they'd look at me with 'that look' that was clear that they thought I was judging them. The only way I found to avoid 'that look' was to join in as if I thought what they were taling about was totally fine. So basically it seemed that if I stayed true to my beliefs I was seen as judgy, and if I contradicted my beliefs I was seen as acceptable.

I have just got in and am too tired to read all through thread now, will return tomorrow...am confused how it has turned into gay sex and donkey bollocks thread, but, as ever, I'm sure there is good reason!
Merry, I know just where you are coming from: but something wrong when one has to compromise or contradict beliefs so as not to be seen to 'judge'.

I find that a lot of the time, MrsMH, that I just sit back and listen, as I dont think I have anything to contribute. I can be quite judgey, but try very hard not to be. Even though, as a Christian, I try put my own believes at the back of my mind, and speaks first and foremost as QS the person, not the Christian. I think many people take different stances, the introvert Christian (such as me) or the extrovert one who is openly true to doctrine and beliefs, and will ride out any storm with chin up and outspokenness.

But I am also very curious, not necessarily because I am judgemental, but because I want to understand what people believe and how they reason it through. Probably because I have my own struggles.

I do think it's possible, but very difficult at times, to state your beliefs without coming across as judgemental or a nutter. My housegroup recently studied the book of Esther in relation to this. With balance, sensitivity and common sense I believe we can and should talk about our faith without being side-lined by friends.

I generally don't find it a problem. I have many Christian and non-Christian friends and obviously the chat is different but they all know about my beliefs. I would say that occasionally I do not get invited to social events by non-Christians because they think I might not "agree" with what they are doing.

My brother-in-law is seen as quite nutty but I think it's because he mixes only with Christians and starts preaching almost as soon as he meets someone, i.e. lacks the balance aspect. I once invited non-Christian friends over for dinner and he shoved some leaflets in their face and looked rather proud of himself. Was not too happy with him.

The comments I usually get from friends are about having been to church in the past but given up as they found it an unfriendly and judgemental place which I find extremely sad.

Have come back this morning with a bit of renewed energy - we had a sicknesss bug in our house last nice and posting opinions to be constantly lambasted for them between clean-ups of dd1's sick was starting to get to me! Will try not to get so heavily involved today though as it just makes me miserable and everyone else annoyed

I agree that everyone has the complete right to disregard what I say and/or think it is complete rubbish - that is human fee will.

I am allowed to have my own opinions though and to follow my own religion in a strict way - I'm sure I would not be criticised for my beliefs nearly as much if I were a Muslim! QS You say you are curious about other's beliefs and reasoning - this is what I'm trying to put across - I'm trying to present the views of a 'strict' (!!) catholic in a way that is logical and at least makes sense to me!
Solidgoldbullet - I do find your comments quite offensive - you say that catholics are harsh and judgemental towards others, but I find that you are extremely harsh and judgemental towards Catholics! I have tried to present reasons behind all my beliefs yet you continually answer them with statements like, ''the Catholic church is founded on a disgusting and dysfunctional attitude towards sexuality, which manifests as an obsession with interfering in and controlling the sex lives of other people!!'' - I have been a Ctholic all my life and I've never had any reason to come to that conclusion. Like me, you are entitled to your opinions but please do not make such random wild statements all the time. Sorry, I'm getting all serious and depressing again now...

My own sincere belief (in line with the Catholic church's view) is that sexual acts which are deliberately not open to the creation of new life are wrong. I believe this partly because in my opinion they lead to negative consequences, partly because they are based on lust rather than love and partly because it is what the religion that I follow teaches.

I do not think that evreryone who commits a sin like this is condemened to hell (there'd be no hope for me if that was the case!!)

Onagar - with regard to your point about a man and a woman who know they are infertile and get married - they are NOT committing a sin. They have not done anything wilfully themselves to prevent conception of a life, and you could say that if God wanted he could create a miracle for them (in the bible there are a few examples of barren women who were made fertile, eg. Rachel and Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Not likely to happen I know - but it allows such people to marry without it being wrong.

What I'm trying to say (probably not very well) is that as a Christian I believe that certain things are right and certain things are wrong - and I have just tried to explain my reasoning in relation to that using the example of sex.

Actually I'd really rather talk about something else now as there are about a billion aspects of my religion that i prefer to discuss (it's just that the sex thing is always the one that people seem to pick up on and criticise!)

Anyway, this started off as a thread on how great it is to be able to discuss religion openly on mumsnet - which I wholeheartedly agree with! One thing I'd like to discuss is what is people's concept of heaven? I have absolutely no idea what I think heaven is like but I'd like to hear if other people have any thoughts on it?

oops i meant free will not fee will (!) Think that is my longest post ever by the way!

AND I still forgot something!
QS I wanted to address your point, ''Does this mean that my husband and I are committing a sin, if we still have sex, even though our family is complete? ''
No it does not. The catholic church teaches natural family planning, meaning that you can restrict intercourse to those days of the month when you believe you are not fertile (you are not doing anything 'against nature' by doing this - we believe that God gave us those non fertile days for a reason!) It is actually an extremely reliable method of family planning if used properly - it has worked 100% for me and other people I know.
Contrary to what some people think, the church does not teach that we should go on to have child after child - only as many as you can support financially, emotionally etc...
Hope that answers your question!

Mersman, sorry to hear about the sickness bug, hope dd is better now.

I find your posts very interesting.

I struggle to form an idea of what heaven is like. I don't believe it is all fluffy clouds. I do believe that it is a place of perfect peace, light and happiness, with no more sadness, tears or pain.

MrsMerryHenry, I think there is something to be said for keeping your opinions, but not using the label, or not the same label.

One of the things that's been in my mind recently about these threads is that those I am talking to are probably not out to hurt gays and other sinners. However using the label implies agreement with those who are and with other policies, so we end up having a go at you for things that other christians stand for.

The other side of people calling themselves christians no matter what, is that those you see in the news demanding this and that, do so on the basis that they represent millions of christians. They are implying that you somehow voted for the things that want changed.

Of course I can see that you'd prefer to be able to say you are christian really. Maybe there needs to be a word for 'christian who has thought through what that means to them and doesn't necessarily agree with the rest'

As for keeping quiet in company about it that is a problem for us atheists too. For example if someone says to me "oh I have prayed for my friend and she will get better now" I'm not going to say "but prayer is meaningless" and make them feel bad. So like you I have a choice of keeping quiet or pretending to agree. I usually stick to keeping quiet, but sometimes people trap you by saying something like "oh she will get better now I have prayed - don't you think?"