From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Bisexuals
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:07:33 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Perhaps some of you who are well versed in gay-lesbian issues could answer
a long-standing question of mine. What rationale can be given for a 
Christian to live a bi-sexual lifestyle?

The issue here is not homosexual genital sex. The issue is marital
unfaithfulness--or, in the homosexual context, sex outside a single,
intended lifelong, committed relationship. To consummate bisexual desires
would seem to require at least two partners, one male and one female.
Whether these relationships are simultaneous or sequential, to seriously
entertain the intention of having more than one sexual partner is a
problem for a Christian, isn't it?

I know there are Christian heterosexuals who argue that multiple sexual
partners are permitted, so long as the relationships are not concurrent and
that there is "real caring" on both sides. I am not one of them. It is one
thing to experience marital breakdown and to remarry. It is something else
to enter a relationship fully expecting that it will be followed by
another.

Perhaps I misunderstand what it means to be bisexual, or perhaps I mis-
understand what Christian bisexuals would like other Christians to
support.
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

[One interesting aspect of the homosexual discussion is that I've
heard very little positive discussion of Christian sexual ethics from
the homosexual side.  I've never been quite clear when we are asked to
support ordination of homosexuals whether we're talking about only
homosexuals who subscribe to standard Christian ethics, but with
people of the same sex, or whether people are proposing more radical
revisions of sexual ethics.

It's clear that many Christians are not willing to listen to anything
beyond traditional heterosexual marriage.  However I think some of
those who are willing to listen are worried about the wider
implications.  When the Presbyterian Church (USA) rejected the report
of the committee on human sexuality a year or so ago, a lot of the
concern focused not on homosexuality, but on a perception that it
called for all rules to be abolished.  This may have been a
misperception.  The report was calling for major changes, but clearly
hadn't worked out all of the implications in detail.  The one area
that was carefully worked out (clergy sexual relationships with
parishioners) was quite good, and has continued to be influential.
This gives me some hope that what the authors had in mind might not
have been quite what was feared.  At any rate, I found it interesting
that even the conservative minority report showed some sympathy for
the idea that the church might want to bless homosexual unions in some
way.  This is consistent with my guess that the really crucial issue
was not so much homosexuality as the overall concept of "justice
love".  This was widely perceived as meaning a codeword for allowing
just about any relationship *except* traditional marriage.  (One of
our elders, who would generally be willing to accept just about anyone
else's lifestyle, was quite incensed that her traditional male-headed
marriage -- a relationship accepted openly and voluntarily by both
partners -- seemed to be rejected as un-Christian.)

--clh]