Clone of A Prodigal Sheep

Her 'alternative view' on homosexuality and the Bible repeats the accepted mainstream theological view that religious tradition and translators have corrupted the meaning of various biblical texts commonly purported to condemn homosexuality. But then she goes on to state that for a committed gay couple to maintain a healthy personal relationship with Christ they should abstain from anal intercourse. On the subject of salvation, she says (emphasis mine):

Is it enough to have a relationship with Christ? Yes. It is all we need for salvation.

Can one be a homosexual and have a relationship with Christ Jesus? Yes. Absolutely, without a doubt.

Can a queer person be in a relationship with a member of the same sex and still have assurance that they are saved? Yes. It is the same for heterosexuals (for with God there is no respect of persons): if one is in a committed lifetime, monogamous relationship (marriage) and one obeys the commandments of God and does not sin purposefully and wantonly against God — lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, practice sodomy; worship men, traditions, angels, or other gods; bear false witness, dishonor parents, be proud, boastful; be a truce-breaker, a whore-monger, war-monger; full of hate, envy, or greed, is not wrathful; does not judge, condemn or covet, etc. — then one can know in their heart that because they abide in Christ, Christ and the Holy Father abides in them and nothing apart from their own wanton and unrepentant sin can take them out of the hands of the one true living God.

One is reminded of the comment often made in conservative circles that gay men are free to marry, so long as we marry women. Carey accepts that gay men can marry one another, so long as we limit sexual activity to non-penetrative sex. This is a decidedly odd position for a progressive to take. Cunnilingus and cum-swallowing are OK in God's eyes, whereas taking (or inserting) eight inches up the butt is not?

To the best of my knowledge the vast majority of sexually active gay men do fuck. Unless I misunderstand her position, Carey believes we should in effect act like lesbians (for whom anal penetration by a man is unlikely and by definition generally not something they desire anyway).

On what authority is anal penetration a sin? Because, according to Carey, the Bible says so. Kind of an odd position. Certainly the first biblical literalist I've come across who rejects anal sex while at the same time affirming same-sex marriage. I suppose this is the type of cognitive dissonance you get into if you try to reconcile a life-affirming spirituality with the dead letter of biblical fundamentalism. I'd love to know her views on menstruation, shellfish and synthetic fibers too.

In one sense Carey's perspective is little different from the emotionally castrated Catholic hierarchs she writes against—both make the fundamental error of trying the separate the 'sinner' from the the 'sin'. Being gay is OK, but gay sex (or for Carey, certain gay sexual acts) is bad. This type of muddled thinking arises from some inner contradiction that wrongly posits sexuality as some kind of interior state or condition that can exist apart from concrete desires and real sexual acts.

There is no 'gay sexuality' that can be dissected and analyzed apart from the gritty reality of gay sex. Sex isn't sexuality, but sexuality is surely defined by sex. To call a specific sexual act a sin independent of context is ultimately absurd. Moreover, doing so removes the need to focus on real issues of sexual brokenness and 'sin', including sexual violence, abuse of others for sexual pleasure, recreational drug abuse and the transmission of preventable but deadly sexual diseases.

Now my mother was not a particularly wise person, but I do remember one little gem she offered in relation to the priesthood. She said that as a woman she would never accept relationship counseling from someone who had never had a relationship with a woman and whose knowledge on the subject was obtained from other men in a similar situation. And so likewise, one should not take too seriously the views on male sexuality of someone who places scripture above common sense and is simply not in a position to talk authoritatively about male sexuality from a biblical, pastoral or psychological perspective.

That said, I still find the Purple Pew interesting reading and will continue to follow it.