Beware the Amish pirates

Sexism has never been so much fun.

May 30th, 2007 by Skylark

Ba-ack step, tri-ple step, tri-ple step, ba-ack step, spi-in left…

I had way too much fun swing dancing this weekend. When I sat down to blog about it on my personal blog today, I started realizing just how much gender roles are infused into that seemingly-innocent passtime. I thought back to my comment in response to Tom’s giving-up-music post, how it was admirable to be willing to give up something you like because something else is more important. I realized swing dancing might be that for me. Now, I know I only just got back into it, and it’s not an ingrained part of my life (yet; it very well could be soon). When near a thrift store today, I stopped in to see if they had any heel-less shoes I’d want to wear dancing.

The difference between music/secular music and dancing is the music is a personal morality issue, which the prolific YAR posters tend not to be concerned about, while the dancing definitely could contribute to social sexist pressures and all that. read more »

Is it really a sin?

May 17th, 2007 by folknotions

OK. I had originally thought when I came to this blog that there was consensus on the issue of “homosexuality” (a term which I don’t like using, as it is often conflated with GLBT when it is a term that doesn’t refer to that whole spectrum). I don’t entirely like “GLBT” either (is there a privileging of groups in there?). I usually use queer and gender queer, I hope it is clear what I mean when I say that.

Anyway, I’m getting off topic. I thought we had consensus on this issue. Yet from previous posts, it seems we don’t. There are others that I’m not linking to because I don’t have the time to search.

So, though I know Katie has sounded off on this many times and very well, even to me, I want to ask:

Is being queer (or gender queer) really a sin, as understood biblically?
As a related question: does it even make sense to look at it in this context?

Maybe this is a question for the sidebar.

If you’re arguing this either way, cite verse.

I’m not sounding off on this until I get at least 5 responses.

Also, all of the materials that Katie has linked us to should be in the sidebar if possible. They are invaluable.

Do We Look Like Jesus?

May 15th, 2007 by joe

So many times we find a way to take the easy road out. It is easier to fight against something than to love someone. I am just as guilty as the next person. What do I mean? I mean sometimes we it’s easier to protest and petition than to take the time to love and care for those whom we are petitioning against.

Instead of trying to hold power over people by fighting against gay marriage, maybe we should come under and beside homosexuals and love and serve them. Show them their unmeasurable worth in God’s eyes. Allow God to transform hearts and minds. That’s what he does. Instead of telling homeless guys to “get a job” (or at least thinking it), maybe we should pull up a chair and spend time with them. We can find ways to get them work and a safe, warm and dry place to stay. Maybe even restore some dignity in the name of Jesus.

See, it is a lot easier to protest and petition than it is to love. It is alot cleaner. No one is saying we can’t believe in a cause or vote for what you believe, but have we tried to reach out to those people we rail so hard against? I know we say we love them and it isn’t about attacking them, but let’s put ourselves in their shoes. Jesus didn’t fight and protest against the tax collectors, prostitutes, outsiders and sinners. He embraced them. He served them. He showed them their unmeasurable worth. Do we look like Jesus?
read more »

On the Choice of Sexual Expression - for clarification

May 3rd, 2007 by folknotions

I seem to be having a discussion on the same issue in two different threads and I think some folks might be confused. Therefore, I want to clarify an argument I was making.

Here is my argument: sexual expression is a choice. For everyone, regardless of orientation. I don’t think I’m making assumptions on particular sexual practices here or pejoratively ranking different types of sexual expression. There have been terms in the debate on this issue that have become ambiguous.

I have heard the argument levelled often that people who are queer have “chosen” to be that way. When you hear this argument, it is made by someone attempting to prove that they have left their “straight” ways and gone to “the dark side” (i’m a Star Wars geek, I can’t help the reference). However, as Walter Wink has noted, this does not allow the possibility of a homosexual orientation (thanks Katie).

read more »

“Sex” - More on bigoted language

May 3rd, 2007 by eric

Why is there so much talk about “sex” around here? What is this “sex” thing that we are saving for marriage? And what is this marriage thing?

The whole conversation is based in hetero norms and assumptions. Dictionary.com mainly defines “sex” the way we talk about “gender.” It also links to Coitus, which it defines as hetero intercourse - a penis penetrating a vagina. According to all that, I don’t have any gay friends who have ever had sex (coitus) in their lives (though most have had sex (gender) since birth or soon after).

So much for promiscuity. By hetero norms, Gay and Lesbian people are generally celibate, and it all gets confusing when you start talking Trans-gendered.

And don’t say “you know what we mean” because I don’t. Where’s the line? What’s the definition? Holding hands? Kissing? Petting? Nudity? Orgasm? Genital to genital contact? It’s not only a continuum without clear delineations, it doesn’t all even line up. Which is worse, clothed orgasm or nudity without touching? What about orgasm without touching? Where is oral or anal sex in the mix? What makes them more “sex” than, say, petting? There is no answer. Coitus is a hetero concept, and a false delimiter.

Language is important.

And then you have marriage. read more »