Diary of a Donkeybody: Pain in the offering - gay marriage and the Church
(Fournier and Grey, ; du Gay, ; and Cohen and Musson 31, .. are, I argue, ersatz relations: substitutes in lieu of the inability (because of the This is not to suggest that the risks that Paul and John have taken in 'stepping off. An “ersatz” product is a substitute for a higher-quality version of that item, as an “ersatz homosexual relationship” on The Big Bang Theory). I am returning to the issue of same sex marriage. I suspect that this will be my final post on the subject - at least for a while! But I need to write it.
However, I will reproduce the critique from the blog http: The reaction of the author, Rachel Held Evans, is near enough to my own for me to mis appropriate it! But I was impressed.
I'm sure Matthew would be the first to acknowledge the scholarship is not his own, but the way he so carefully and skillfully puts together the argument is unique and effective. It's not perfect, but it's compelling and reasonable. So even though I grew up only hearing the traditional view, I have that bias based on new information about homosexuality and new relationships with people who are gay, and I'm not ashamed to admit that bias.
Still, I don't want to believe something because I 'want' it to be true; I want to believe something because it 'is' true. So as a Christian committed to the authority of Scripture I've been working through these passages and others for a few years now, struggling to understand them better. And I confess to playing the devil's advocate in my head, no matter which perspective I'm reading.
I really see both sides on this one His response to the challenge that 'all the Bible's references to homosexuality are negative', is, I think, a good one. That has always been a hang-up of mine, and while Matthew's response still leaves a question in my mind why are there no positive examples of a homosexual relationships in Scripture?
I also think he responds well to the charge that gay Christians who don't want to be celibate are just trying to take the easy way out and are unwilling to commit to the sacrificial nature of following Jesus. Having spent a good deal of time studying those head covering passages, I love that he shows the similarities between Paul's argumentation in 1 Corinthians 11 and in Romans 1.
I also think his points about how homosexuality was generally perceived in the Ancient Near Eastern world as a compulsion toward excess rather than an orientation is worth considering. We don't fault the writers of the Old Testament texts for assuming that water was held above the earth by a sold firmament, so why would we fault them for assuming that gay sex was something heterosexual people did when they grew unsatisfied with their heterosexual partners?
Raj Koothrappali - Wikipedia
At what point do we allow the new information we have about sexual orientation affect how we understand the context and assumptions behind these texts? Why assume we know exactly what the authors were referencing there when we simply don't? He rightfully points out that the context of Adam and Eve as suitable partners is that of procreation, something I think Matthew overlooks.
He sorta just defaults to the old 'this guy doesn't believe in the authority of Scripture' line rather than seriously engaging what I believe are strong arguments from Matthew regarding the context and language of Romans 1. After reading Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, I've grown somewhat wary of the idea that whoever 'wins' with the most proof texts in this debate will be on the right side of history.
You just can't read the quotations from southern preachers regarding the Bible and slavery and not see the similarities in the rhetorical style and approach.
Honestly, if given the task of making a clear biblical case for the abolition of slavery, I'm not sure my arguments could hold up against those armed with Bible verses that appear to support slavery as an institution. As we discussed a few weeks ago, many of the same passages once used to support slavery are still used to support the subjection of women. For a fuller account see "Jesus affirmed a gay couple".
Surprisingly the centurion escapes any censure but on the contrary is held up as a paradigm of faith. It seems to me that there is a disjunction between the "traditionalists" and those wanting change.
The traditionalists look at behaviours; the radicals look at relationship. In his biography Marc Eliot maintains Leach was fundamentally homosexual and resurfaced in times of crisis and disorientation in Grant's life: Gary Cooper, that straight-shooting womaniser, declared Grant ambiguous.
Eliot claims the actor Randolph Scott was Grant's housemate and lover, but this is old chestnut remains unproven despite Eliot's best efforts, and owes a lot to Grant's cultivated ambiguity. Where Hollywood was usually taken as an excuse for sexed-up people to indulge a system of pampered slaverythis was not Grant's motive.
He was fascinated by the studio machine and intent on beating it. Hours were spent discussing with Scott ways of increasing creative control and a gaining a financial stake.
To begin with he was little more than a well turned out dummy with an outsize neck from years of acrobatics in vaudevilledisguised with high cut shirt collars. It took time to learn that he was not so much an actor as a perfect imitator.
With it he reinvented the concept of the Hollywood romantic lead, treating sex as a subtle allusion, somewhere between romanticism and irony, a long stretch from what was being offered by those "largely humourless rural hunks" Gary Cooper, Clark Gable and John Wayne. Grant mostly avoided horses, westerns and costume. Few saw through Grant; Hitchcock the exception. The crafty cockney read the provincial boy for what he was, and found a soul mate in temperament and slyness.
The Big Bang Theory - ersatz homosexual relationship
Grant became Hitchcock's surrogate in his fantasies regarding the unobtainable women he cast. Raj recounts a dream where he and Howard both had mansions with a secret tunnel that connected Howard's "front yard" to his "back yard".
He uses a female avatar in World of Warcraft. In season four he claims to be a metrosexual and in season 8 it is revealed that he and Howard were once in couples therapy. In season 10's "The Emotion Detection Automaton", Howard tells Raj that if they are both unattached in the next thirty years, he would be open to the two of them having a relationship. In the season 4 finale, Penny and Raj become intoxicated and, despite agreeing to remain good friends, end up in bed together.
The next morning, both agree to pretend it never happened, but they are caught by Leonard, Sheldon, and Howard as they try to leave,  causing Penny to think about moving back to Nebraska. In the opening episode of season 5, Raj reveals to Penny that they did not have intercourse; instead he ejaculated prematurely and they fell asleep. Penny promised not to tell the guys, although subsequently she sometimes calls him "Quick Draw".
Raj gets along well with his parents' first selection, but discovers that the woman is a lesbian trying to conceal her sexual orientation from her family: Happy with his new companion, a female Yorkshire Terrier he names Cinnamon, Raj proceeds to see if the pup fits in his man-purse. This leads Bernadette to dispute Raj's heterosexuality.Best of Big Bang Theory - "Homosexual Tendencies"
This culminates in a dream sequence where he and Bernadette dance together in a Bollywood musical number. He reflects upon these fantasies by observing that he is "definitely not gay". After giving a speech about how one cannot define themself by being in a relationship, he is approached by a woman named Lucy Kate Micucci. They both leave to get a cup of coffee, with Raj hypocritically declaring "Later, losers! Lucy gives Howard her phone number to give to Raj. Later, Lucy goes to his apartment to apologize and tells him that she has problems around new people.
Raj describes his own psychological problems, and they agree to have a formal date. In the following episode, "The Contractual Obligation Implementation", he takes Lucy out for a first date to a library where they text message each other instead of speaking, in light of her social anxiety and his selective mutism.
They continue to date and by "The Love Spell Potential" they kiss. However, in the season 6 finale "The Bon Voyage Reaction", Lucy feels too pressured by Raj to meet his friends, and a dinner between Lucy, Raj, and Amy does not go well. Raj apologizes for his behavior and asks Lucy to come to Leonard's goodbye party before his departure for the North Sea on Professor Stephen Hawking's expedition.
However, Lucy text messages him at the party saying she will not be there and does not want to see him again. The next day, Penny goes to comfort a heartbroken Raj, who thinks he is completely unlovable.
Penny suggests that this lament is attributed to alcohol, but Raj says he that he has not had a drink since the night before: In season 7, Raj's newfound ability to speak to women allows him to put aside his previous difficulties with them, and though he does not date, he manages to charm several women throughout the series, including the divorced HR representative Mrs. Davis, and a veterinarian named Yvette. Eventually, he begins dating Emily Sweeney Laura Spenceran attractive but rather sinister young dermatologist he met on the Internet.
Their initial interaction does not go well, when she finds Raj's shyness and passivity off-putting, but she eventually agrees to go on a date with him: In "The Valentino Submergence", episode 15 of season 9, Raj breaks up with Emily right before Valentine's Day, because he has developed an interest in Claire, a bartender working on a sci-fi screenplay for a children's film who he met in the previous episode. Upon learning that Claire has reunited with her former boyfriend, he begs Emily to take him back, but she refuses.
During season 12, Raj asks his now-divorced father to arrange another marriage for him: In "The Consummation Deviation", their attempts to be physical together bring about a brief relapse of Raj's mutism.