Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tyler Hampton on 3rd mo. 23, 2010 at 5:00pm

Elzie,

I have found a full range of opinion within OYM on this, and it is re-emerging in discussion among Friends. As far as membership that is something that the local monthly meeting would have to discern. Chances are they haven't had to wrestle with it yet. I'd encourage you to visit the meeting and get to know people there, worship with them, see how it feels to you in the Spirit. The deep Christian spirituality of OYM Friends has been a blessing to be around for me.

-Tyler.

-Tyler.

Permalink Reply by Geoffrey Gilmore on 3rd mo. 30, 2010 at 9:34pm

Several years ago, Cleveland Monthly meeting was a part of Ohio Yearly Meeting. They approved a homosexual marriage, and as a result were expelled from the yearly meeting. There were some who opposed that decision, and I'm sure there still are, but I hope the decision the yearly meeting made at that time will stand.

Permalink Reply by kevin roberts on 4th mo. 8, 2010 at 9:22am

Elzie Simons wrote:

does anyone know if the Ohio yearly meeting and its monthly meetings are accepting of gays in their meeting and will they accept us as members as that's the meetings here closest to me and i do accept Jesus Christ

Elzie, many members of Stillwater MM of OYM are outspoken that gays should be accepted as ordinary people within OYM. Stillwater is my own meeting, and is the largest in OYM. Other meetings have members that disagree.

I imagine that there will be a great deal of discussion of the matter at this June's Gathering of Conservative Friends, which will be held at the Stillwater Meetinghouse in Barnesville, Ohio, USA. There aren't any formal meetings at the Gatherings, but the attendance is lots broader and more diverse than the Yearly Meeting. If you can make it for a day or two, I would recommend that you come visit.

Permalink Reply by Michael on 11th mo. 21, 2010 at 12:38pm

Geoffrey: I can't help but get the impression that you are baiting us. But I'll take the bait. First the question about whether "th[e] [Sexuality/LGBT] group require[d] a certain view of sexuality, or [wa]s it open to discussion?" and then this passing comment that you "hope the decision [of OYM to expel the Cleveland Monthly meeting for approving a same-sex union] will stand."

What gives? I suppose my question, Geoffrey, is do you plan to expand on any of the seeds you've planted or is your goal simply to leave unexplained comments you know are contrary to the feelings of most people in this group?

Respectfully, Michael

Permalink Reply by QuakerQuaker on 11th mo. 21, 2010 at 2:10pm

Michael: Geoffrey is welcome to his opinions. This group does not have an official position. We welcome all as long as they stay respectful of others--which means respecting them when they disagree with us. Please see the section on Conversational Tone in the QQ FAQs if you have questions.
Martin Kelley as QuakerQuaker Administrator

Permalink Reply by Brad Ogilvie on 11th mo. 21, 2010 at 2:29pm

I have found, as a gay man, that people have become more welcoming as they have gotten to know me, and as long as I am comfortable with myself and my relation with God, I can help promote a higher comfort level among others. Conversely, I've sat in Meetings that seem completely open and accepting of glbt folks, but some glbt folks did not feel it - I suspect because they themselves were not comfortable within themselves. So, I'd suggest going and seeing how comfortable you are as a whole person in that Meeting regardless of their stance, and trust that, no matter where the Meeting is, as long as you are there it is a more accepting Meeting just because of that.

Permalink Reply by Michael on 11th mo. 23, 2010 at 9:00am

Martin:

I thank you for your message. And I wish to respond only to point out a few things.

I agree that Geoffrey is welcome to his opinions. I'm interested in hearing what they are. From the flavor we've received so far, I realize it is likely I will disagree with him. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear them. It does mean, though, that I find little value in a few passing unrefined and unexplained remarks which on their face seem to serve little purpose other than to antagonize.

Indeed, Elzie Simons' post was a request for information about where he might find an LGBT-accepting meeting in the OYM. Geoffrey's response was antagonistic -- the message being, essentially, "yes, there was one, but they got kicked out, as they should have, because LGBT marriages -- and presumably openly LGBT people -- do not belong as Quakers."

Now having looked at the Conversational Tone section in the FAQs, as you have advised, I couldn't help but notice that this very post (and his previous one, arguably) violate this principle: "Respect the basic intent of any group you join. If you don't agree with a group's basic premise you probably shouldn't join it. Debate for its own sake isn't appreciated here." Yet nothing is said of that?

While there may not be "an official position" for this group, it seems that at the very least we could agree that the "basic intent" of the group is to be a place for nurturing -- not attacking -- LGBT people. Even if those attacks take the form of subtly and innuendo, instead of full-fledged arguments.

Having said my peace, I will respect your desire to avoid conflict. But please understand my point of view as well.

Michael

Permalink Reply by QuakerQuaker on 11th mo. 23, 2010 at 10:49am

Michael: this group's purpose is clearly stated at the top of the page. It is to discuss "issues of gender and sexuality and the controversies over same sex relationships that divide many Friends." Many Friends bodies do not recognize same-sex marriage. That perspective is welcome here.

There are few places on the internet where Friends can come together in disagreement. I want QuakerQuaker to be one. We have had members both in favor of and against same-sex sexuality and marriage leave this site because this discussion wasn't one-sided enough for them. I respect their decision to leave. And I am grateful that there have been people on both sides who have stayed to explain their perspectives.

Permalink Reply by Elzie Simons on 1st mo. 13, 2011 at 2:29am

wow it's funny sometimes to come back and read a post from time past. like keeping a journal and then to revisit the entries to see how one has grown or changed!! I read what i wrote and read the responses. I was amazed that from a simple question the things that people went into!!! debating about things i never mentioned in my question!!! wow

Permalink Reply by Geoffrey Gilmore on 1st mo. 31, 2011 at 9:53pm

Actually, I thought that the discussion of sexual issues is important, so I joined a group whose stated purpose is to discuss them, but didn't feel a need to start an argument or antagonize people in the group, so I haven't said a whole lot.  I asked whether the group is open to varying opinions because I didn't want to offend people by being out of place in the discussion if it was intended as a support group for people with a certain opinion.

I answered the question in this discussion because the original poster asked about Ohio YM's position on homosexuality.  I thought that question had been settled when Cleveland meeting approved a same-sex marriage, and someone new to the yearly meeting might not be aware of that, so it would be useful for him to know.  Since then, I've learned that there is more disagreement on the question in OYM than I was aware of when I wrote that, but it still seems that it would be useful for someone asking about OYM to know this part of their history.

And yes, I did approve of the decision of OYM at the time, though I'm not a member myself.  I'm not trying to hide my opinion, but I don't see much need to start an argument either, so I haven't been very vocal about it here.  (Also, I hadn't looked at this sexuality discussion group for quite a few months; I don't follow it very regularly, so I didn't see your reply until tonight.)

 

Permalink Reply by Geoffrey Gilmore on 1st mo. 31, 2011 at 9:56pm

I hope that disagreeing with someone and remaining mostly quiet about it is not seen as an attack.

Permalink Reply by Sloane on 2nd mo. 6, 2011 at 1:46pm

Hi Elzie,

 

Long time no hear. 

 

I remember reading this also and forgot all about it.  I also decided to check out some old threads and found this.  

 

I remember actually thinking about posting but decided against it as the thread went odd after your initial post.

 

I hope you did find a meeting that is accepting of all, regardless of peoples differences.

 

God bless

Sloan

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page