November 1978 Archives

When I was a high school lad, I think I would have jumped at the chance to shower with the girls in their locker room.  And so would most of my male friends.  From my perspective on top of decades of life, I wish I had not been so cavalier about sex then and for some years after.

I think I would have fit the label of your garden variety 'macho heterosexual teenager' (this was before the word "gay" became popularized) back then, at least as far as sex was concerned.  I admit it; I definitely had a prurient interest in taking that shower.

Still, I don't think the girls would have let me shower with them.  And if they couldn't get rid of me, I don't think they would have undressed, let alone showered.

Here's something that might have gone through the mind of some of those girls:  "Getting undressed and showering in front of others is kind of a personal thing for me.  The last thing I need is for some oversexed boy staring at me like I'm a hunk of meat. Or worse yet, looking at me and thinking about ... well, you know".

In fact, I don't really believe that boys and girls are required to shower separately simply because of their different body parts. Well, a little maybe.  Today, I think one would say that those girls didn't want to be sexually harassed, or exposed to an exploitive, objectifying, demeaning environment.  Even today I don't think you could get unanimous approval from all the naked women in their locker room shower to let a few horny males in.  I wonder, could one find a shower where 20% of the women agreed to shower with the boys?

Boys. Lots has been said about boys, or rather, young men.  e.g. On average, they have sexual relations with more partners than woman do.  Heck, didn't Wilt Chamberlain claim thousands of partners?  They think about sex, on the average, more often women.  Many teenage males claim to have uncontrollable erections at unpredictable times.  At least that's how I remember it.  Males are much more willing to have sex without intimacy than women.  Don't They say "any port in a storm"?  I heard an old wise man say: "The key to a good relationship?  She gives him sex, and he gives her intimacy".  Even gay males are said to have a higher than average number of partners. (I wonder if this sentence is true?  I wonder if what that old man said is true?)

Here's one way all the above can be put together, although only one way out of many:

When a homosexual man takes a shower with hetrosexual men, will it be like the above?  After all, I would expect the nude male body to be viewed by homosexual men in an analogous way.  I could be wrong about this.  Might not the hetrosexual men feel a similar objectifying atmosphere?  Might they also feel they have the right to shower in a, shall we say, lust-free environment?

If this is true, it would pose quite a dilemma, wouldn't it?  If homosexual men needed approval to shower with hetrosexual men and didn't get it, would they be restricted to showering only with other homosexual men?  If so, what if one of those homosexual men said they would like to shower in a lust-free environment?  Would they then have to shower alone, one at a time?

What a thought!  A homosexual man's 'natural' sexual desires possibly creating a hostile environment.  What will They think of next?

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at www.m-w.com/dictionary:

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Function: noun
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

Bumper stickers that caught my eye:

"Vegetables are not food.  Vegetables are what food eats".

 

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most".

TO: The Leaders of my Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

RE: The 2007 Assembly's decision regarding Ordained/Ordaining practicing homosexuals

Dear Leaders,

I have spent many hours at our website, elca.org, researching our Church's thoughts and actions regarding Ordained/Ordaining practicing homosexuals.  Our most recent position is the result of the 2007 assembly which states:

Assembly Encourages Restraint in Discipline of Congregations, Leaders

The Churchwide [sic] Assembly made no changes to ELCA standards for professional leaders, declining proposals that suggested specific policy changes. By a vote of 538 to 431, the assembly asked its synods and bishops to 'refrain from or demonstrate restraint in disciplining' people and congregations that call otherwise-qualified candidates in mutual, chaste and faithful committed same-gender relationships, and it called for restraint in disciplining rostered leaders in committed same-gender relationships. The proposal was adopted as a substitute for a recommendation of the Memorials Committee.

Following the decision, Hanson said, "These are words of counsel. They are not words that change the standards of the church. They reflect the mind of this assembly as it seeks to give counsel to the leaders of this church."

I am sorry to say that I think Presiding Bishop Hanson is dissembling (see above - ...not words that change...); the previous standards of the Church called for the removal of practicing homosexuals from all official positions, whereas our current position is to condone (as in 'refraining from disciplining') homosexual behavior among our Leaders.

By the various votes is clear that our church is deeply divided on this issue and that an official position of disciplining those engaged in homosexual behavior might fracture our church as it has the Anglican/Episcopal Church.  I suspect that at least some of you Leaders wish to prevent this at all costs; some of you see it as a Civil Rights issue; some of you see it as tolerance, or acceptance, of diversity; some of you see it as the loving inclusion of practicing homosexuals into the life of the Church; and so on...  Some may even see it as a financial issue in terms of the potential lost revenue if thousands leave our Church.  The rest of you see it as I do; a Sodom and Gomorrah-esque rejection of God.

By accepting practicing homosexuals as Ordained Priests, you are declaring them to be approved role-models worthy of emulation by all in our congregations.

In my opinion, Protestantism had come to a point analogous to that of Roman Catholicism right before Luther began the Reformation, where the common Christian could no longer support the corrupt institution the Church had become.  The current state of extreme and pervasive secularism and licentiousness in America has put a tremendous strain on Christianity, and those religious institutions too attached to this world will fail in their commitment to Christ and become ensnared by that world.

While we may all, hopefully, "love the sinner", please let those that also 'love the sin' go; let them leave our church for one of their own.  Let our church stand fast in 'hating the sin'.

"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." John Milton

"I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor." Henry David Thoreau

He who walks with the lame learns how to limp. - Latin Proverb

Bumper Sticker that caught my eye:

     "If Bush is the answer, it must have been a STUPID question."