The Gay Church, Andrew Sullivan

  • Thread starter Thread starter tafan2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tafan2

Guest

I do not always agree with Sullivan, but his writing is normally very thought provoking. This piece is no exception. It is very much worth reading. He makes a couple of claims I find questionable, but on the whole it is very balanced. I do not completely buy into his conclusions, but I do not think he is far off the mark. Read it with an open mind.
 
Last edited:
I read the article before, and he makes some claims which are flat-out wrong. These can be found on this thread.

However, he does bring up some good points, particularly regarding the problem of secrecy (towards the end of the article).
 
I had not seen that thread. I know a few things are not accurate. It is still worth reading.
 
It’s a lengthy article, and it seems to me to attribute homosexuality to some historical figures who may not have agreed with that designation. A strong friendship with someone of the same sex does not make one homosexual or even gay.

Frankly, I’m just tired of hearing about sex all the time. Sexual preference, sexual urges, sexualized friendships, sexual orientation. I don’t much care what other people do about sex. Most priests that I know seem entirely too busy to have either same sex or opposite sex affairs. When a priest is so busy that he falls asleep during the readings, he’s too busy for sex.

And I don’t really think it’s any of my business if a priest or anyone else considers himself straight or gay. I don’t want to hear married people discuss their sex lives or single people either. If a priest remains chaste, what does it matter if he is gay or straight? And if he sins, it’s a matter for the confessional. If a married priest falls into adultery, the same thing applies.

Does a same sex orientation mean that a man is attracted to every single person of the same sex? Obviously not. Does an opposite sex orientation mean that a man is attracted to every woman? Obviously not. And even if he were, marriage calls him to forsake all others and take only this one for his wife. And celibacy calls for one to forsake marriage, and sexual activity, altogether.

Sometimes I’d just like to discuss sometjing other than sex. String theory. M-theory. Crockpot recipes. Something else.

But that’s just me. Sorry for the rant.
 
JimG said:
Sometimes I’d just like to discuss sometjing other than sex. String theory. M-theory.
Click to expand...
Shall we have a thread on String theory? Why not start one? Let us know if you decide to do so. Yes. it is true that the AdS/CFT correspondence does relate string theory to quantum field theory. But in string theory there are way too many vacuum states and where is the experimental verification? M theory unites all versions of superstring theory, but it appears that Richard Feynmann didn’t like it.
I am not sure what this would have to do with Roman Catholicism, except that the Pope might try to unite all versions of Christianity under his leadership, but since there are too many non-catholic quasi- vacuum states of Christianity, it seems that this would be extremely difficult to accomplish.
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
Sometimes I’d just like to discuss sometjing other than sex. String theory. M-theory. Crockpot recipes. Something else.
Click to expand...
You should start some threads on those topics. I know nothing about physics, but could contribute a crockpot recipe.
 
I think I read most of it and it definitely wasn’t my cup of tea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top