I am heartened to see this post, and saddened by some of the responses. I was not raised Quaker, in fact, my first exposure to Meeting when I was 14 years old was so different from my Southern Baptist upbringing, I didn't go back for over a decade! Instead, I explored Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and a host of other religion and means of meditating. But in the end, I was drawn to Quakerism because the adults in Meeting treated my children as equals AND the presumption that when Quakers spoke and listened to one another they were communing with "That of God in one another". I am proud that I have instilled this belief into my children in such a way that this spring when they were told someone was "evil", they responded that no-one is evil, we all have that of God in us.

But that brings me to the problem I have with some of the responses. I feel that some responses are written froma place of fear, instead of a place of love. I too was uncomfortable with Friend Micah's extremely (to me) Biblical slant. But this is my own struggle, and not something that I feel Friend Micah was purposefully trying to illicit in me. Being raised Southern Baptist and being taught "Jesus loves the little children, Red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in His site" and not seeing the reality of these teachings, makes me very uncomfortable with the Gospel. As a friend of mine put it, the Bible is an excellent story of a very dysfunctional people and what one shouldn't do in life. But that is my personal struggle. This post is about a communal struggle, Quakers as a whole trying to discern God's leading on our sexuality. As the mother of 3 children, we are constantly talking about sex: Sex as procreation, sex as a bond between 2 people, and sex because it feels good. We talk about how God designed it to feel good, and that ideally actual intercourse happens between 2 people committed to one another in a lifelong relationship. There are a myriad of reasons we discuss it this way. One, I have more than one GLBT family member, and I know the pain of not being accepted for who they were. Two, I have a 14 year old daughter, and I don't want her to become a divorce statistic: a teen-age mom. And three, I believe in a perfect world we can wait until we are in a committed relationship (married) to be fully sexually active. I have never seen marriage as the exclusive right of a man and a woman, but rather as the commitment between two individuals, their Meetings, and God. Before I came to Meeting I thought marriage was a farce. I had never seen one work. I believe it is possible to be intimate without sex, and I have discussed this with my children. But what works in my family may not work in yours, and so I offer it as an idea, not a proscription of how it should be done.

My mother, before she died when I was a teen, shared a beautiful piece of wisdom, and I think Friend Micah has glimpsed and tried his best to share this wisdom. She told each of her 3 daughters that your virginity is a sacred gift, and it can only be given once...so choose wisely and wait for marriage. She did not imply that marriage was solely between a man and a woman, and I did not take it that way. Nor did I get that inference from Friend Micah's post. And due to the fact Micah is a Friend, and not a member of the clergy at a denominational church, I did not feel that I was being preached at, that he was merely standing up and sharing as the Spirit led him, and it was up to me to decide what to take from it.

Walk in the Light,
Torrey Moorman
Bellingham Friends Meeting

"liberal quakerism is fundamentally and clearly about individuals discerning god's plan for their life--and their life alone."

This statement puzzles me. What are we doing, then, in Meeting for Business? It is my understanding that from our beginnings Quakers have gathered for corporate discernment of God's will for our community. And sometimes we have discerned that we are called to challenge practices of the wider culture.

I think most of us find this legitimate in some instances. I think that at one FGC Gathering Friends met to witness to the loving bonds between same-sex couples, and to protest Virginia's laws which did not give equal rights to such couples. This also is passing moral judgment on behavior engaged in by other people. Indeed, some Friends here seem to be passing moral judgment on Micah for writing about his understanding of sexuality and spirituality.

I believe that we are called to listen for God's leadings in our individual lives and our communal life. Sometimes this will occasion discomfort and conflict. There's a hard balance between acting and speaking faithfully and fearlessly according to the truth we have been given, and knowing that we don't have the full measure of truth. Sometimes we'll miss the balance. But I think we need to keep trying.

Joanna Hoyt
NEYM/NYYM

"I feel really uncomfortable having this level of judgement, exclusivity and creed on a Quaker Youth blog, especially one from FGC." this friend speaks my mind. not jumbled at all, melina. really beautifully put.
while i am thrilled to have micah be vulnerable by putting his own experience of celibacy (an incredibly, incredibly unpopular life choice in our society [and our Society]) to suggest that this is God's plan for anyone besides him is to presume that he knows how God leads the rest of us which is not only not possible, it's downright unquakerly. i have no idea why fgc--which, last i checked, is an organization for liberal MMs and YMs and not in the theology biz--would publish anything suggesting that anyone knows anything about god's plan for anybody. liberal quakerism is fundamentally and clearly about individuals discerning god's plan for their life--and their life alone. if i remember the t-shirt correctly, the phrase is "Quaker Youth: Speak THY Truth" not "Quaker Youth: Tell Other Quakers What They Should Do/Believe" i hope to see this reflected in the upcoming posts for this blog.

This conversation is genuine, Spirit-led, diverse, and relevant. This discussion happens in many places all across America and rarely carries such a degree of genuine dialogue between so many different and complementary points of view.

And because of that, I feel moved to query Friends:
*How can we share this conversation with the wider world of Faith?
*How can we live into our role as publishers of Truth, in terms of this conversation?

There is a deep need for this kind of discussion to be modeled more publicly, in places that are not primarily Quaker-oriented, and we risk isolating ourselves (even further!) and succumbing to navel-gazing if we fail to bear such witness in the wider world!

Thankyou for your Faithfulness.

Let us pray it will bear fruit for more than just Friends.

~Stephen Dotson
(a lonely ecumenist)
http://www.quakerquip.org/?q=writersconference
http://www.faithconnectsus.org/

I've been mulling over my response to this, because it feels pretty jumbled. Well, this post seems pretty jumbled too, really. A discussion about sexuality is one thing, but this seems to be more about marriage vs. celibacy, and what constraints we should be putting on our sexuality, instead of a discussion about sexuality itself. It is important to remember that marriage and sexuality are two very different things.

I also feel harshly judged and left out by this post. I am an unmarried woman who dates and has had long-term relationships with a variety of people - male, female, trans, black, asian, white, etc. (I like to think of myself as 'equal opportunity' when choosing a partner) This is one of the ways in which I choose to live out the equality testimony. By truly looking at the spirit of the person instead of outside labels, I am able to expand the level of intimacy and connection that I can feel with anybody, especially those that have vastly different experiences than I do. These differences can make others uncomfortable, and I have experienced judgement and backlash from people that were very close to me because of the complexity of my partners' identities. But it is within these differences that I have found the most to celebrate in others. It has helped me to extend more love in my day to day life, not just in my romantic life.

Micah is right in saying that sexuality is an incredible force that can also be used to hurt ourselves and others. But for me this is not tied to marriage, celibacy, or any other status choice. This is rooted in the integrity testimony. The times that I have hurt others, sexually or not, are the times that I was not honest with them. The times that I have hurt myself, sexually or otherwise, were the times when I was not honest with myself. I had to work on that, because as Friends have pointed out, we get some crazy messages in this society that are hard to sift through. But I have worked hard to bring integrity into every one of my relationships, and this in turn has been a huge gift to my sexuality.

I believe that each person is a whole sexual being. We don't need someone else to complete us, or be our other half. Companionship, intimacy, and the sharing of ourselves with another are wonderful gifts, but they are just that - gifts. We are giving the experience of ourselves to someone else, and taking that gift from our partner(s). This exchange of energy, touch, intimacy and connection must be treated as sacred, and recognized for the vulnerable act that it is. However, this doesn't mean that it needs God's blessing in marriage. What it does need is open communication of heath, history, intentions and appreciation. If our sexuality is truly the way God intended us to relate to each other on an intimate level, it does not actually follow that there are caveats of marriage attached to that. Like any other gift, it is the way that we use it, not the institution under which we do so, that is important.

I admit, whenever someone begins talking about "God's plan" or "God's intentions for us," I get real twitchy. I didn't grow up Quaker, and one of the things that most attracted me to this faith was the lack of creed. My spiritual journey is about my personal connection - to God, to other people, to the wind and life and everything. I need others in my journey - as support, sources of wisdom, as a community to hold me up - but I do not need anyone telling me what my spirituality should be. If this is the truth that you have found, Micah, and this is the way that you can live your life in love and with integrity, then you have all my support. But please do not tell me that it should also be mine. It insults my ability to commune with spirit and have truth revealed to me. It also makes me feel like my identity - as a Queer woman, as an unmarried but sexually active person, as someone who is not always monogamous - is somehow "wrong," and therefore God doesn't like me for it. I would agree, if I were acting sexually out of selfishness, dishonesty, or fear. But I am proud of myself as a sexual being, and of my ability to enter into sexual situations with integrity and respect for myself and others. As a consequence, my sexuality has blossomed and become a wonderful, integral part of who I am and how I can relate to others.

Micah offered us some queries in his post - but I would like to offer others instead: What role does my sexuality play in my life? Have I ever used my sexuality in a way that was harmful to myself? Do I treat my partners with respect, as whole sexual beings? Do I abide by the campfire rule (always leave someone in equal or better shape than how you found them)? How do I find that of God within my sexuality, and how do I honor that in my sexual practices?

Lastly, I want to say that while this is an important discussion to be having, I feel really uncomfortable having this level of judgement, exclusivity and creed on a Quaker Youth blog, especially one from FGC. I hope we can post things that are more inclusive in the future. We all have enough "shoulds" to wade through without posting them here.

Melina Larkin

Strawberry Creek Meeting, Berkeley, CA and
University Friends Meeting, Seattle, WA

I want to begin by thanking everybody for sharing; I think everybody's thought have contributed to a very good discussion, although I second the moderators in asking Friends to remember respect for each other.Personally, I will say that I never took Micah's comments on marriage to exclude same-sex or trans marriage, despite its illegality in most states. I suppose I figured that since "marriage is not a human institution," that meant two people can still be married in the eyes of God, even if not in the eyes of the state. However, even with this interpretation, the flaws I and others have pointed out still stand.In response to Nathan, I would like to thank him for his kind words while gently disagreeing with him as to whether any of the actions he describes are "natural" tendencies. Well, except substance abuse, I guess.But shoving aside the discussion of natural tendencies, I think we can agree on the larger point that many people, for whatever reason, regardless of sexual orientation, are incompatible with the two-partner, monogamous, one flesh, one soul, sharing our lives for all time system of matrimony, and always will be no matter how much you tweak it. And there's nothing wrong with that. (Come to think of it, it's probably healthy even for those who are suited to monogamy to practice safe sexual experimentation before they settle down.)Peggy brings up an interesting point which I hadn't considered. I suppose it's possible Micah's intended the word "marriage" to mean "a sexual relationship in which all partners involved treat each other with sensitivity, respect, and caring." While he does refer specifically to just two people, this definition does not necessarily put any restrictions on monogamy, duration, the sexes of the couple involved, or anything else we here have expressed concerns about. It would also make the statement "marriage is not a human institution" a lot less divisive--in fact, it would leave it entirely redundant.Then again, I don't see how a sexual relationship in which not all partners involved treat each other with sensitivity, respect, and caring could possibly be said not to harm people, so the "common attitude in our society" would still look down on such a thing. "Harm" doesn't just mean "physical harm," after all.If this "spiritual marriage" was indeed the kind Micah had in mind, then his specialized use of the term "marriage" is unfortunate, given this wide audience, but understandable. I dare say there are a few words I myself use in a specialized manner which would be taken quite differently by people who don't know me.I'm not sure I necessarily believe this interpretation, but I'm open to the possibility.

Lincoln Alpern 

Friend speaks my mind.

Don writes:

> If you welcome an evolving understanding of marriage that would include those unions, I wish you would say so, so that young GLBT friends are not hurt and alienated.... If you believe that marriage is an unchangeable institution handed down by God and therefore impermeable to same-sex unions, I wish you would make that clear as well....

Thank you, Don, for saying this so articulately.

I fully respect this blog's attempt to draw out diverse viewpoints on this topic. I wish it had been done by including diversity of viewpoint in the original blog posts to which people are responding -- I think that would have given those with varying viewpoints more of a comfort level that their voices were welcomed. I would love to see a respectful, loving, prayerful consideration of this topic but this forum seems to be prompting strong reactions much more than prayerful consideration.

Dear Friends,

We are really glad that people are engaging about this topic. We recognize that it takes a lot of courage to blog or comment about our beliefs and experiences around sexuality and spirituality, so let’s be gentle with one another in our responses.

Our intention when creating this series was to open up a space for Friends to share the diversity of our experiences. Let us hold this space so that all reflections are welcome. Let us not attack or belittle each other’s experience. We hope that Friends engage in a way that honors that of God/Light/Spirit/Love in every person. Let us write as if we were in the same room, seeking clarity, and speaking from a place of worship and in the spirit of love.

In peace,
Emily Stewart and Kody Hersh
Moderators/Editors of the Quakeryouth.org blog series

Thank you, Micah. I appreciate the clarity and gentleness of your writing, I'm particularly grateful for your description of the value of celibacy. That's the path I've been called to, and it's often not well regarded in this society.
Joanna Hoyt

To claim that marriage is an institution created by God strikes me as a way of shutting down all discussion about what form it should take and what role it should play in the world we live in today. At any rate, it is an assertion for which I cannot imagine any solid evidence.

Friend Micah, you do not not explicitly deny the legitimacy of same-sex unions (as do most others who use this sort of language). If you welcome an evolving understanding of marriage that would include those unions, I wish you would say so, so that young GLBT friends are not hurt and alienated by what they read on the FGC website. If you believe that marriage is an unchangeable institution handed down by God and therefore impermeable to same-sex unions, I wish you would make that clear as well, though I think you would also have to explain how, after all the other changes that have occurred in the institution of marriage over the centuries, that one alone should be debarred.

I am sorry that FGC would allow a posting that at least seems to deny the legitimacy of the lives and unions of so many Friends to stand as the "Introduction" to a discussion on sexuality.

Don Ulin
Bradford, Pennsylvania

I think Friend Micah would be well served by reflecting on the unhumble nature of making assertions that purport to know the nature and will of god for all people. When he writes "If our relationship with another person involves sexual intimacy, God calls us to the sacred commitment of marriage" I hope the us to whom he refers is not all of us, but simply himself and his wife, and that he does not assume a priestly mantle of proscription and prescription at odds with the manner of Friends, which supports us each to find the path to righteousness in the still small voice within ourselves. Perhaps he meant that because the relationship between Faith and himself involved sexual intimacy they felt called to the sacred commitment of marriage, and wish to let their lives speak for them.
We may do well to be cautious that we do not contribute to the incalculable harm that the mix of religion and sexuality has caused when distortions and repressions in the priestly proscriptions and prescriptions of professors, including those of the apostle Paul, have been imposed against others. In that direction can be found the slippery slope to burning witches and sodomizing altar boys.

My name is Tyler Hampton. I'm a young gay man 5 years into a committed relationship. Like Peggy, my reality hasn't always lived up to ideal which Micah has described. But as I listen to God's leading and correction in my life, and sit with the teachings of Scripture in the Spirit, I have become more and more convinced that what he is describing is Gospel Order.

It can be difficult for those of us who have heard similar language used for condemnation not to hear that again. There is nothing in what Micah has presented that is exclusive on gender or orientation lines...but still, some might hear in a call to greater sexual faithfulness a conviction of their own behavior.

Conviction is a necessary part of our spiritual growth. If our faith (and faith community!) does not speak to our personal lives and conditions, that's the silliest and poorest of gospels! Personally I know that in this area it can be very hard to let go and admit that God knows better than we do. It is hard for us to admit our sin and our need for a Savior. And the political and social culture of our time make it seem to be a dichotomy of either "it's all good" or "gays are going to hell."

But Jesus shows us the more excellent way, the way of love. Micah is on point that our relationships should be a reflection of the unwavering love of God- including the joy of sexuality. While it is very hard for us to live up to this ideal, our God is a God of grace and mercy and gives us countless opportunities to begin again and live for Him.

-Tyler Hampton
Detroit MM, LEYM
New City Friends Worship Group

I am glad to see discussion up here about this point!

As I have been reading the comments, however, there are a couple of concerns that arise, that I hope Friends will consider. The goal of the "Quakers and ..." series that QuakerYouth has been doing, in a replication of what QuakerQuest seeks to do is to represent all the vioces that need to be, and deserve to be, heard. It is imperative to have as many voices putting words to their ideas, thoughts, and beliefs, from as many different views of Quakerism as possible. We all need to remember that there is a large breadth and depth of the beliefs that Quakers can hold, and if this blog only represented a small portion of that, it would not be representing all the voices that need to be heard (by each other, and by non-Quakers).

I would also like to point out that these posts, while wonderful, enlightening and informative, do not encompass everything that the individual believes on the subject, but is a snippet of that. I would encourage readers to not read into what *isn't* there, but to be open to what is there, no matter if in your belief structure you agree or disagree with the post.

I hope that we all can continue conversations about Quakers and Sexuality in a constructive yet spiritual and deep manner, whether here or in the future.

in Light,
Mary Crauderueff
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting

Preface: I don't know if Micah meant to make intimacy and sexuality be synonymous, but I do feel like in this discussion there needs to be a clear distinction between the two words.
I think, in today's world, the two words intimacy and sexuality often become synonyms. In a future romantic relationship, I do want to experience sexual intimacy with my (yet-to-be-found) partner. But, for me, intimacy can and does exist outside sexual relations, just as sex can happen without any form of intimacy. I have experienced different degrees of intimacy within deep friendships that I have developed over the years. I have also felt intimacy in cuddle puddles at Quaker conferences and these feelings were not at all sexual.
I feel that there is a danger where we confuse these two words as being the same thing, because I feel that I grow spirituality when I am intimate/vulnerable with other people and when they are vulnerable with me. So many times I have felt like I needed to be guarded out of fear or custom, but when I do follow that, I do not gain a deeper connections with others that I so yearn to have, so that we can struggle with difficult issues and hear each other. When I do let go, I gain wonderful insights into life and spirituality as well as a deeper understanding of other people.

Greg Woods

Friends Meeting of Washington

Micah, You have started a very important conversation here. Sexuality is a topic that is very rarely (maybe never?) discussed in my own meeting. I think this is because our long-time members would rather assume people agree with them, rather than hear clearly that they don't. Just from reading your blog and the responses to your blog, it's clear that Friends don't all agree on this topic, and the hurt this disagreement can cause is also very clear. See what happens when people share what is from their heart? Hurt feelings, people feeling attacked... It's proven that it's easier to not discuss "it."

I think I'm being facetious, though part of me can't help but feel that this hurt is just language and semantics getting in the way, as is often the case with Quakers. Maybe that's my training: to brush aside difficult topics and assume that people really do agree with my viewpoint after all! (Boy, am I a picture of my Meeting...? Something for me to ponder.)

Anyway, while I don't feel in my own heart every single one of these words, I don't feel any amount of hate or exclusion, aimed at any particular group, in this blog. Instead I feel words carefully crafted to briefly explain your own take on a VERY complex portion of life. I also feel the integrity you have spoken with, Micah. You write words that are true for you and that you have--and will continue to--live. Words spoken through such integrity are honorable.

It's valuable to continue this conversation about sexuality and its relationship to spirituality so that we can more clearly understand other viewpoints and discern how all of these viewpoints fit in the spectrum of what God has created, with celibacy and married sexuality being a part of this spectrum but not the only viewpoints. If we can speak --and respond!-- to people's honest feelings with a loving heart and an open mind we will have the most chance for community growth.

--Cassie Wright, Whittier First Friends Church
Whittier, California

I am Peggy Parsons, pastor of Freedom Friends Church in Salem Oregon, a Christ-centered, independent, inclusive, meeting. I am also 51 years old. I am divorced and presently in a committed same gendered relationship that has not quite risen to the level of marriage yet..

I have read and re-read Micah's Post. I find it to be well written and clear. I find his language to be very inclusive. He uses "two friends", "two individuals" and "two persons" when speaking of marriage. I do not hear him using man and female language. I see no reference to procreation - just to "community and family."

He is very clear that he is talking about spiritual marriage, not legal marriage that is held so inconsistently by states and nations these days. His description of marriage is available to all since all it requires is two humans, God and witnesses. So his choice of celibacy or marriage is a real possibility. He draws the line between the two in a slightly different place than I would. But the line is always there somewhere. My experience of several decades of professional counseling and pastoral ministry have convinced me that casual, unmindful, uncommitted physical intimacy almost always has negative effects, for all God's children of whatever stripe.

One of the reasons that we started an inclusive meeting was to call all people into sincere relationship with God where the spirit calls them to living that becomes increasingly close to Gospel order. What Micah has described is one very good description of Gospel Order. There is room for disagreement in definition and application. I am thirty years older than Micah and have found that things are not very clear cut, not black and white at all, and that reality very rarely approaches the goal. But that does not mean that there should not be a goal, an ethic, a covenant, a life-long commitment to seriously seeking the guidance of the Spirit in all matters including sexuality.

I am not hurt, offended or alienated by Micah's sincere and worthy effort to articulate his understanding of Gospel Order. I trust him to the Spirit as I know he trusts me.

Peggy Senger Parsons
freedomfriends.org

ps I think Micah and Faith are still on their honeymoon - Mazel Toff! and I hope he doesn't spend anytime with this until they are home.

As a close friend of one of the site's moderators, I hope to respond to the issue of his reasoning behind this posting and his understanding of what his Friend (and friend) Micah is saying. By defining "marriage" in the course of his post as an institution of God rather than of man, I believe he was trying to avoid the same problems that have come up in these comments. He definitely could have been more clear, but ultimately, the way I read his definition of "marriage" is as the bond and commitment between two people (regardless of sex, gender, and sexuality) to forsake all others and come together to form a lasting partnership. The definitions of "marriage" that exclude homosexual partners would be confined to the institution of marriage as practiced by many human-made administrations, including the United States government. Conflating the two is problematic. Other people disagree with Friend Micah's remarks regarding celibacy, using the Bible as a moral code, and marriage (the union and commitment of two people) as a relationship encouraged and designed by God for human improvement. Disagreement will always take place when diverse groups of people from different backgrounds and belief come together; as long as there can be discussion and civility, disagreement is not inherently problematic. This is particularly salient since the sites' moderators hope to present writings by people who reflect the various sections of the spectrum of beliefs on the intersections of spirituality and sexuality.

Jessica Anne Wheeler
New Orleans, LA

After reading this blog post I felt hurt and betrayed. I continue to feel these feelings even after sitting in worship on this for an hour last night, and thus I am moved to respond. I have several questions for Friend Micah.

Friend Micah uses the terms, "identity" and "homosexuality" in this post, but that does not mean these terms are used correctly or in a meaningful way. I am sad to see a post which so clearly alienates sexual and gender identities which do not fit easily into the categories of "heterosexual" or "normal." Friend Micah asserts that God has "ordained marriage" between two people (presumably between two people of opposite gender AND sexuality since he has not chosen to include LGBT Friends in his post at all). In fact, the kind of marriage Friend Micah seems to be talking about here is lifelong marriage for the purpose of creating children. Does that mean, Friend Micah, that same-gender or same-sex marriage is disliked by God since it is not sanctioned in the bible (which you lovingly quote)? May I remind you of some of the bible's other quotes regarding marriage?

Corinthians 38: "But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry-- Also known as, you can marry your own daughter.

Leviticus 20: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and adulteress shall surely be put to death"

Ephesians 5:22 "Wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife..."

Friend Micah, I ask you, is this the marriage you were talking about in your post? Do you believe these things? If you do not, then I ask you how it is which we are able to pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow and which not to?

In my opinion, a "Friend" understanding of sexuality should be approached using a covenental (NOT creedal) framework. Friend Micah uses a set of creeds (celibacy, marriage) which we must all believe in, but I would argue that Quakerism approaches sexuality from a covenental perspective--a practice of -being- together in order to search for the truth. When you start espousing creeds, Friend Micah, and telling us that God has a favorite few, those of us who are gay, or women, or transgender, or non-Christian tend to get left out or even worse--persecuted for things which we have no control over (our sexuality, gender, gender-presentation, race, etc).

Further, marriage in the bible was created for the specific purpose of passing on property, in the form of women, to other men. This is not ordained by God--it is a historical fact. Talking about marriage as being ordained by god upholds a tradition which treats women as property.

So I ask you, Friend Micah, do you consider your wife to be your property?

Besides that, assuming that marriage is a "lifelong" bond which should not be broken is a dangerous one, what if one of the partners is abusive? The bible tells us that a husband can do what he will with his wife and that she can't leave him. Is that a society you wish for us, Friend Micah? If not, be clear about your intentions.

A few words on celibacy. While I have no problem with celibacy or marriage as individual choices (let us not forget, however, that some people are unable to marry because they are gay), asserting that god wants us to be celibate or only practice sex in lifelong marriages is unrealistic and a dangerous thing to assert to young people who read Quaker Youth materials. It is generally accepted in dominant culture today that there are safe, healthy, and important ways to experience sexual intimacy outside of marriage. Indeed, safe sexual experimentation is a very important part of discovering one's sexual identity and being a healthy member of society. Just because one consenting adult chooses to practice safe sex with another consenting adult does not mean they are hedonists, as you suggest Friend Micah.

Besides, If God wanted us to only have sex to create children he would not have made pregnancy so easy to prevent. There are lots of resources available through local Planned Parenthoods, as well as books on this subject. I consistently practice safe homosexual sex with my partner and I have not yet burst into flames or been covered in boils. Go figure, right?

I will close by saying this: I am a person of faith. I am queer and I believe in justice. I ask that you not wonder what or who God likes best (as if we could even do that effectively), but acknowledge that there are people and practices which are not like yours, but which are also holy and right in their own ways. Let us as a spirituality come together on a search for the truth, not seek ways with which to cast each other out.

I have felt cast out by this blog post, and I deeply disappointed to have been made to feel this way by a spiritual community which I have put so much of my life into. I can only hope that the moderators of this site will take into consideration who their posts are hurting when they post them. I would suggest putting a disclaimer on this particular post or removing it altogether. The world does not need more intolerant religious language--and neither do I.

I am currently working on a campaign called Standing on the Side of Love, which is a campaign which seeks to use faith to fight oppression. Fighting oppression is one of our deepest callings as Quakers, and I pray that we remember this.

Janine "Jay" Carmona
Pacific Yearly Meeting
Proud Queer since birth
Online Organizer with Standing on the Side of Love
www.standingonthesideoflove.org

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation,

Dear Friends,

In all honesty, I write to you as 40 year old gay Quaker who grew up as a missionary/pastor’s kid within non-denominational, Evangelical fundamentalism, and also had a wonderful period of experimentation in my late teens through mid-twenties.

As someone who grew up with a healthy dose of the Bible, word for word, I think I can say a couple things:
1) Using the Bible as a literal Rule-Book for relationships & sexuality is probably not helpful (unless you’re living under shariah law and like it that way.) The Jews of Jesus’ time were living by a code mainly spelled out in Leviticus, and most of our modern understandings of marriage, divorce, sexual abuse, sexuality, the role or equality of men and women, etc., would be utterly foreign to them. I could go through the long list, but I think you probably know enough history that you can figure this out. If not, spend a wee bit of time as a woman in Saudi Arabia to get a better picture. Much of what Jesus and early Christians spoke to around marriage, divorce, sexuality were aimed at specific criticisms of the abuses to which women and the “lesser” of their society were treated. Even the idea that we are united with one partner for eternity was more-or-less culturally aimed at women, not men. (Women probably couldn’t expect to live very long anyway, once their bodies gave out after multiple childbirths.) Remember the ol’ “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you” rule?

2) Any time we presume to speak for God’s will, we should do so with incredible humility. Looking back at my two buddies, Peter and Paul, and the good fights they used to get into about who actually gets to be in the early Church, I see how truly human we are. And how easy it is for even the incredibly Spirit-led to get it wrong, or to misunderstand what God is asking because of ego, culture & custom, etc. I’m sure the dear Friends who tried to hold Woolman back for so many years in his pursuit of the abolition of slavery thought they were doing God a favor by speaking on His behalf. Most of our modern understanding of marriage (and sexuality?!?) as a larger culture are so very recent. (What - you didn’t realize getting married was really about property and inheritance?!? And, you actually believe women have souls?)

Having said all that, I’m surprised at some of the vehemence I hear in response to Micah’s piece, and to Joanna’s as well.

Micah clearly spoke of marriage as not being a “human institution.” I believe that in terms of Friends historical understandings of marriage, this is true. In fact early Friends cut both government and the established state church out of the picture entirely. And they suffered for it. (Now wouldn’t *that* be an interesting testimony for modern Friends and monthly meetings!!!!) Friends saw themselves as marrying one another in God’s sight, and not by any person or legal mechanism.

But they also understood that one’s marriage and personal expression of sexuality was an issue to be held by the entire spiritual community. I know many modern Friends who still believe & practice this understanding (including myself) and who look to their communities to hold them accountable in their relationships, no matter where they fall in that spectrum of beliefs about relationships and sexuality. So as a Friend, there is a basic understanding (however badly we practice it) that marriage and sexuality are not purely solitary or “personal” activities or choices, and affect the entire community.

Having spent much of my early twenties beginning to form an understanding of sexuality in San Francisco’s gay culture, I’ll also completely agree that sexuality is an incredibly powerful force for good or ill, that everything we do in this life affects someone (and I mean everything!), and that, yes, our relationships and sexual expression are best nurtured when held in loving community. I got to experience first hand how sexuality is an intrinsic part of spirituality.

I also got to see first-hand the awful destruction it can cause in people’s lives when misused or misunderstood. I experienced the deaths of a number of young adults in the early 90’s (when one could mostly no longer claim ignorance about unprotected sex). I also got to see the reality of the pain of sexual addiction in the lives of my friends, as well as the pain caused by sexual abuse from others. Much of what our culture tells about sex, about our bodies, about our relationships, is simply evil. If you don’t believe me, watch a few hours of commercials on TV or pick up an issue of Vogue to see what they say about womanhood, women’s bodies, and sexual worth.

I also experienced people older than myself trying to use the old lines about, “It’s okay if it doesn’t hurt anyone” or “Loosen up and have some fun” or trying to pressure me into something when I clearly did not want to.

So “everything” is definitely not “good” when it comes to sexuality and relationship, and yet I have a feeling there is still a larger spectrum of sexual expression than the option of “marriage to one person for all time” or celibacy. (Noting that I’ve been partnered with one man for 12 years now.)

So how do we hold this tension around knowing what is right and not being absolutist. By returning again and again to test these things with God and with our spiritual communities.

- Eric Evans, CPMM

Thank you Friends for the opportunity to have this fascinating discussion. I agree with many of the things said so far. In particular I agree with Friends Micah's points, "Our sexuality is purposed to be a sign of God's love for humanity." and "Let us be slow to assume that we know what is beneficial and what is harmful to ourselves or to others."
In friend Lincoln's post I particularly liked, "And if the spirit leads you down any of the infinite other paths of healthy sexuality, I will support you in that, too."
The query that I often give myself, and would like to present to Friend Micah, is very much like what he was asking, "Do I know what is beneficial and what is harmful to myself and others?"
The more experience I gain with the world and the diverse beautiful people living in it, the more I realize how inadequate the moral compass by which I live my own life is for judging the lives of others. In particular, it is particularly difficult to judge the value of abstract statements like "Anything you desire is permitted, so long as you do no harm to others." This can be understood many different ways. Easier, but still difficult, would be a specific example of a particular person making a particular choice in a particular situation.
I can, with difficulty, imagine a scenario in which I might be called upon to make a choice about my sexuality in which there was no physical or mental harm in question, but that I feared some spiritual harm would be done. In other words, that I, or my partner(s) might be turned away from, or moved against, what we felt was our leading from the divine. In such a scenario, I would certainly hope that I would go against my natural inclination to indulge my sexuality in consideration for the harm I believed might be done.
Which brings me to my next point. Although I liked Friend Lincoln's post, and agreed with most of the points within, I am very hesitant to endorse natural inclinations as a guide for one's moral compass.
The more I study neuroscience, psychology, and evolution the more I draw away from the concept of "natural" as good. I certainly don't think that natural inclinations are inherently bad, simply that they can't be assumed to be good or bad. People can be naturally inclined to do all sorts of things to themselves and others which are rife with harmful potential: horde wealth, seek social dominance, blame scapegoats, imbibe addictive substances....
I think the discussion of what we are naturally inclined to do, and what it is right for us to do, and what we actually end up choosing to do (all too often a guilty compromise between the two) is an incredibly valuable discussion. I also think that it is valid and worthwhile to point out to others that we think they are doing something less than ideal, particularly if it is apparently harming themselves or others. I do think it is very important that we are careful when we do so, as ethics is a slippery subject and highly context dependent. Moral condemnations are infamous for sneaking up and biting us on our hypocritical backsides when we least expect it.
Seeking the light, your Friend,
Nathan Helm-Burger
Pacific Yearly Meeting

Spirituality and Sexuality

I might be misunderstanding the purpose of this post, but this article appears to be saying that exploring your sexuality is okay, and in fact encouraged, if it's done within the parameters of either a monogamous married relationship, or through celibacy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celibacy
1 : the state of not being married
2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse

What I want to know here is if the poster is referring to not being married, or if the poster is referring to abstaining from intercourse. Based on the phrasing he or she uses, celibacy seems to be used as a term for abstaining from sexual intercourse. Saying that if we pick celibacy, we are free to "...complete devotion of our whole life, including our sexuality, to God". This indicates to me the reference is in regards to sex, and not marriage, however I may be completely wrong here. If I am, please disregard my post! Now, assuming it is a sexual reference...

I have zero issue with either a married relationship, or celibacy. I, myself, wish to get married someday. I adore the idea. However, I'm a woman. It's very possible, in my life, that the Spirit might move me to join with another woman. In my state, we are not legally able to marry. It seems like this post is telling me I'm going to alienate myself from God, if I find love, happiness, and security in the arms of another woman.

I'm more than a little disgusted that a website dedicated to Quaker Youth would post something that comes across as hateful. In my youth the Young Friends of my Quarterly Meetings helped me greatly. The support and friendships I gained and strengthened through my time with my meeting are precious to me. Almost ten years later, I'm thankful for not only my own positive experiences, but those my closest friends gained, as well.

One of my best friends is still closely involved in the Quaker community. She's living happily with her female partner. They are both productive, caring, compassionate members of society. I can't think, even for a second, that because neither of them are choosing to be with a man in a married relationship that they're doing anything that could be considered remotely alienating themselves from God.

What I see here is a very slippery slope of reasoning. While it is said very kindly in this article, it is stated very firmly that the only two acceptable options are marriage or celibacy. And that we should examine anything else we're doing because even though "...it does not harm others" it may be causing us to be "unfaithful to God's will for our sexuality and has the capacity to alienate us from God". Really? Are you serious here? Even though I'm not causing any harm, I volunteer, help the homeless, help animals, take care of my mother when she is ill, assist any of my friends who might be in need, and work tirelessly to improve myself as a human being - if I choose to hold someone of the same sex close to me at night, my loving, compassionate, all-knowing God will feel alienated? I, personally, don't think God is that petty. How sad it would be to love a God who picks and chooses who he loves based on who they hold hands with.

What's stopping us from very politely, but very firmly, extending this to other people? Unmarried gays having sexual relations is alienating God! Maybe Chinese people are alienating God. 'The common attitude in our society -that skin can be any color, as long as it is not harming others- is a false one.' This statement has the same hateful segregation as, "The common attitude in our society - that anything we desire is permitted, so long as it does not harm others - is a false one."

Segregation based on sexual preference is the same, in my eyes, as segregation based on skin color. If I'm not harming anyone, I see absolutely no reason why what I do in the privacy in my own home with consenting adult(s) should be taken into account when it comes to my spiritual beliefs. If God is really there, watching over me, guiding me, helping me, and listening to my prayers, then God knows my intent when I make love to my partner(s). God knows my love for them, and my desire to make them happy, and their desire to make me happy. God knows our sexual experiences together are joyful, happy, and in no way an alienation from divine love.

God loves me, God loves my partners, and God loves my friends. Because we are good, honest, and strong people - not because of our bedroom preferences.

-Jasmine

Thank you for what you have said, Friend Micah. There is much in what you have said which gladdens me. But there is much that distresses me also.

You assert that marriage is an institution created by God. This is not my experience. Marriage is a purely human institution, its meaning specific to the society in which we leave. (This is explains the great variety of marriage customs among different cultures.) If two people are together in God, what need have they of any social institutions to display it?

God (if She exists) created us with a vast spectrum of healthy sexual proclivities--so why should she then turn around and construct a One Size Fits All formal institution through which we are to express that sexuality?

Since the invention of marriage, it has been broken and/or ended numerous times, indicating that, for many people in many situations, marriage is not the right thing, after all. In fact, it is very likely that our cultural obsession with marriage as the only valid form of sexual and romantic relationship between people is in part responsible for untold thousands of people getting married who are either incompatible with each other or with the restrictive requirements of traditional marriage.

This view of marriage is even more distressing given that you appear to suggest that the only other valid option is celibacy. Anything else is, by inference, a perversion of God's intent for our sexuality. (I think I hear an exasperated celestial chuckle.)

Anti-gay marriage advocates say it's perfectly fine to have any sexuality at all, so long as the only way you express your sexuality is a single member of the other sex, who you must be married to. Otherwise, you shouldn't be having sex at all." Even if we strike the "other sex" proviso, that still leaves an awful lot of people out in the cold.

Neurological studies suggest that some people tend naturally toward monogamy (one of the pillars of the traditional marriage) while others do not, much as some people tend naturally towards heterosexuality while others emphatically don't. Are those human beings who are not naturally monogamous fundamentally flawed, their own experiences of the Divine invalid? If so, then we must abandon the maxim that there is "That of God in everyone." I, for one, am not prepared to do that.

Personally, I don't seem how celibacy brings us closer to God. It is by our connections to other people that we grow closer to the Divine, not further. If anything, enforced celibacy to me seems a way of denying the sexuality that God or nature or whatever has gifted us with, although I am open to the possibility of having my mind changed on this point.

This does not at all mean that I am anti-marriage or even anti-celibacy. If the spirit leads you down either of those paths, I will support you in it. And if the spirit leads you down any of the infinite other paths of healthy sexuality, I will support you in that, too.

My position is only that 1) we acknowledge the existence and validity of those other paths of healthy sexuality and 2) we acknowledge that as people grow and change, sometimes their leadings change, too. If the spirit leads you off of any one of those paths and onto another, then I will support you in that, as well. My parents had, I think, a beautiful marriage, and I supported them in being married for many years, and now that their marriage is no longer a source of strength and happiness for them, I fully support them both in moving away from it and onto different paths.

In many ways, Western society's views of sexuality are restrictive and monstrous, as are its outlooks on every other facet of human existence. This is why, as Seekers after Truth and Goodness, we must constantly resist our societal mores, no matter how ingrained they may be, when they come into fundamental conflict with the principle that there is "that of God in everyone."

Lincoln Alpern
Scarsdale Friends Meeting
New York Yearly Meeting

This gives me great hope, Friend Micah. You have a clarity and conviction which was much lacking as my generation struggled and fumbled its way into the Brave New World of the 1960s and '70s. With advancing years, I have come to see the wisdom in the simple, demanding, and ultimately liberating vision which you are putting forward -- with both your words and your life.

May God be with you, your comrades, and your life-parter Faith, as you draw from and stay attuned to this vision. We will all be the stronger for it.

As one who has been in the married state for 45 years (yes, the secret is now out), I can attest that such things last ONLY by the Grace of God and the forebearance, understanding, and forgiveness of each other -- "for better or worse, in sickness and health..." As many have no doubt already observed, very little of it is Honeymoon; a lot more of it is hard work. But, the reward can surely be worth it.

We can endure in those committed relationships ONLY if we are prepared to grow, to be challenged, to humbly learn, and to be willing to laugh -- mostly at ourselves, and sometimes at the irony of it all.

You are a good teacher for us, Friend, at whatever age we happen to be.

Blessings and appreciation,

Thy Friend, David Finke