|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: gay sex - being and doing
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Is it valid to compare anti-gay attitudes to racism?
One thing I’ve noticed recently both shipboard and elsewhere has been the unquestioning assumption that being anti-gay is exactly the same kind of obviously immoral attitude as racism. That has not only made me think, it’s actually ended up making me query that assumption….
Racism is, at least at first glance, a simple enough concept; people are genetically different and the ‘big’ differences of being ‘black’, ‘white’, oriental, or the ‘first peoples’ of various lands are of no more moral significance than the differences within my own family whereby I am fair and blue-eyed, average height and tend to plumpness, one of my brothers has similar hair/eyes but is tall and skinny, and brother three has dark hair, brown eyes, and is between us in height and also skinny. These are aspects over which we had no control (well, OK, perhaps I could diet a bit, but then my brothers can remain skinny while eating more than I do!! – it’s not just about diet….). Nor do these differences have any moral significance in the sense that they make me DO certain things as a necessary consequence. Likewise the racial differences – there is nothing in being white, black, or whatever which compels those concerned to DO one thing rather than another. One’s race does not make one a murderer or a thief or a rapist or whatever; nor of course does it make one an angel or saint. Being Asian, African or European is just that – a matter of BEING, of what one simply IS. And so, not a matter over which people should discriminate against one.
HOWEVER – in practice different ethnic groups do develop cultures which are not things they ARE, but things they DO. Over that DOING, they have CHOICE; and that DOING can therefore properly be the subject of moral debate and criticism in a way that the mere BEING can’t be. Put simply, nobody gets to say “I’m black so you can’t criticise my rape/looting/pillage/etc.” And to judge by some recent discussions here on board the Ship, I don’t think many here would let worries about ‘racism’ get in the way of criticising a practice of child sacrifice…!
OK, in fact some of these cultural differences are only different and not obviously immoral, and some of the criticism by one race may be effectively ‘racism’ at the expense of mere difference; but that can’t overrule the basic point – things DONE are, and indeed MUST BE, subject to moral question. 'Equality' simply implies that all races must accept the possibility of their doings being criticised.
If anything this point is even stronger in relation to sexuality; people of ‘minority sexuality’ are, after all, of the same 'race' as the culture around them. But it’s very much NOT just about what they ARE; the point is that they want to live out what they ARE by actually DOING THINGS. And to be blunt, other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS.
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO, or to play the “It’s like racism” card to insist that they be beyond criticism; indeed, the decades during which they have been playing that card may have constituted oppression and something very like persecution BY the gay movement….
I don’t want this OP to go on for ever; I’ve actually quite a bit more to say, and I hope I’m not kidding myself in thinking that much of it will be sympathetic towards gay people. But I think I’ve said enough to open up a serious debate…. Over to you, shipmates…!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
So gay people shouldn't be allowed to rape/loot/pillage with impunity. Yep. I'm with you.
You got anything else?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I think there are a couple of other elements that need to be addressed--specifically the difference between disagreement about the morality of personal sexual behavior, and the way the secular laws treat people.
I have very firm beliefs about what we, as Christians, are allowed to do sexually, and I have had to be very careful in sorting out what I believe I am permitted to do (it has taken years, and some people would consider me practically Puritan whilst others would consider me almost libertine. There's a whole thread on this in Limbo called "Explaining the Leather Thing" or something like that.) It's where the "Chast(e)" in "ChastMastr" comes from. (And, yes, it means I don't get too many play-dates, but such is the path I am on.)
But I do not want my beliefs about that, as I understand my Christian faith, to be encoded in the secular laws of the land as regards consenting adults of whatever sex, and how they choose to identify as families or as partners or as spouses.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Perhaps the key question might be "what kind of criticism are you talking about?" And for that matter, perhaps more critically than that, "how would that criticism be put?"
There's a big difference between saying "I don't believe we as Christians are allowed to put part A into slot B" and "People who do that should be jailed," for example.
"Do as you would be done by" is perhaps a helpful approach. If you were gay, how would you like to be treated? Even if it is by people who don't believe gay sex (in various definitions of sex!) is OK?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Garasu;
quote:
You got anything else?
I think you know you're deliberately twisting what I wrote. This is too serious for that kind of response.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Hmm. I suppose the thing about being, say, black, is that it doesn't have any necessary connection to how you behave. But being gay means, AIUI, that if you are going to express your sexuality- something which most straight people take it for granted that they can do, even within given moral or ethical or religious boundaries- you are going to have to do it with someone of your own sex: and that's the behaviour that some people object to. Of course there are gay people who conclude that they cannot express their sexuality in that way without breaking what they believe to be an important moral code, and whatever we think of that conclusion, we should admire that kind of self-denial. But (again AIUI) a lot of gay people, like a lot of straight people, would say that they see no reason not to express their sexuality: perhaps indeed that as it is all the orientation they have, they see it as being as God-given as anything else about them. So from that position the being/doing distinction is rather harder to maintain and, many would say, to justify: and if they are good Christian people they will one hopes maintain the same standards of sexual conduct- of fidelity, respect and so on- by which straight Christians should abide.
And in all honesty, if that is the case, I can't see any reason, apart from a rather selective emphasising and interpretation of a couple of Bible verses (and if you're going to do that, then you have to be consistent- no scallops with black pudding starter for you next time you dine somewhere fancy, and you'd better denounce anyone who does eat it!) why anybody should get hot and bothered about it at all.
[ 28. July 2014, 21:06: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Is it valid to compare anti-gay attitudes to racism?
Yes, of course. Both are about how we treat other people.
There may be anti-gay views which are not equivalent to racism because of some morally significant distinction, but there are also ones which are based on prejudice for which the comparison is apt.
quote:
If anything this point is even stronger in relation to sexuality; people of ‘minority sexuality’ are, after all, of the same 'race' as the culture around them. But it’s very much NOT just about what they ARE; the point is that they want to live out what they ARE by actually DOING THINGS. And to be blunt, other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS.
Sure, but there isn't any class of thing that all gay people DO, or that no straight people DO. You can, for instance, hold the view that promiscuity is wrong, and that gay culture that appears to celebrate promiscuous sex is therefore morally questionable, but if you do, then if straight culture that celebrates promiscuity doesn't appear to bother you quite as much, there's more at work than questioning DOINGS. Or so it seems to me.
Likewise you can disapprove of non-procreative sex, or unmarried sex, but gay people don't own the monopoly on either of those. If you pick on those expressions of sexuality for the purpose of criticising gays in particular, or to argue in favour of denying them equal rights with straight people who do exactly the same sort of thing, then again, it's not all about choices and actions, is it?
The way I see it is that no one, straight or gay, is automatically entitled to my uncritical approval of their sexual ethics, but everyone is entitled to a certain minimum level of respect, and that includes a fair amount of minding my own fucking business, rather than unhealthily obsessing about their fucking business.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I'm not sure that I'm twisting it. Being flippant, certainly. And ChastMastr has given you a much more considered and charitable response, for which ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Having said that... what are you actually objecting to in homosexual relationships that makes talk about rape/pillage/loot equivalent?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If anything this point is even stronger in relation to sexuality; people of ‘minority sexuality’ are, after all, of the same 'race' as the culture around them. But it’s very much NOT just about what they ARE; the point is that they want to live out what they ARE by actually DOING THINGS. And to be blunt, other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS.
Are we? I recall an incident where a law student asked Scalia if he sodomized his wife. I think this was in the context of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas where he essentially argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in sex. At any rate, despite not accepting that gays had a right to privacy in their sex lives, Scalia felt very emphatically that he was entitled to it in his own.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO, or to play the “It’s like racism” card to insist that they be beyond criticism; indeed, the decades during which they have been playing that card may have constituted oppression and something very like persecution BY the gay movement….
"The only real oppression is when you bring attention to oppression" is a popular position of late. I'm not sure there's much merit to the argument that lynching Matthew Shepard is just as oppressive as calling Matthew Shepard's death a "lynching".
Of course, if you insist on the distinction between "being" and "doing" you may feel better analogizing anti-gay hatred to religious bigotry than to racial animus. Religious bigotry is, after all, based on actions rather than inherent characteristics. If those on the receiving end of religious discrimination or violence had simply refrained from the various doing of their worship, then they never would have become targets of those who you argue are "surely entitled to question those DOINGS".
[ 28. July 2014, 21:15: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Garasu;
quote:
You got anything else?
I think you know you're deliberately twisting what I wrote. This is too serious for that kind of response.
Serious? really? Come on, it's only sex. Now, why you do what you do, and what your attitude is to those you do it with (or to someone else to whom you have a commitment)- those really are serious (which is why we are taught that monogamy and fidelity matter). But not the mere bumping of the uglies.
[ 28. July 2014, 21:18: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
A few thoughts in response to the OP.
quote:
the unquestioning assumption that being anti-gay is exactly the same kind of obviously immoral attitude as racism
In principal I guess I agree, anti-gay attitudes and racist attitudes are not *exactly the same as one another*. Yet, both involve discrimination against one or more other people on the grounds of something which makes them different. There also now seems to be widespread agreement [no source I'm afraid] that both involve discrimination over something that makes someone different over which that person does not have control, i.e. gay people do not choose to be gay any more than coloured people choose to have coloured skin.
quote:
people of ‘minority sexuality’ are, after all, of the same 'race' as the culture around them. But it’s very much NOT just about what they ARE
I don't agree. Some people dislike/hate/discriminate against gay people simply because they are gay. Try telling the family and friends of the three people killed in the bombing of the gay pub in Soho in 1999 that the bomber did not hate the victims simply for who they *were* rather than what they *did* (drink drinks in a gay pub...?)
quote:
the point is that they want to live out what they ARE by actually DOING THINGS. And to be blunt, other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS
Well, we all want to live out what we are, don't we?
I would defend human beings' entitlement to question others' doings so long as they aren't selective in those questionings based on the others' sex, gender, race, sexuality etc.
quote:
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO
So long as straight people aren't entitled to hide behind what they are to evade criticism of what they do. By which I mean that it should not somehow be acceptable not to question what straight people do in the privacy of their own homes, simply because so many other straight people do that. Yet, as gay people are in a minority, it becomes acceptable only to question what *they* do.
quote:
the gay movement
which is?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And in all honesty, if that is the case, I can't see any reason, apart from a rather selective emphasising and interpretation of a couple of Bible verses (and if you're going to do that, then you have to be consistent- no scallops with black pudding starter for you next time you dine somewhere fancy, and you'd better denounce anyone who does eat it!) why anybody should get hot and bothered about it at all.
Traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality has nothing to do with the Law. Therefore this argument of yours, which one hears all the time, is nothing but a strawman. Rather it is based on the words of our Lord himself.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
But actually the OP in this case has to do with humans relating to other humans on the basis of either what they *are* or what they *do*. I realise this is the magazine of Christian unrest, but the OP had nothing really to do with Christianity, or any other religion.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Some people dislike/hate/discriminate against gay people simply because they are gay. Try telling the family and friends of the three people killed in the bombing of the gay pub in Soho in 1999 that the bomber did not hate the victims simply for who they *were* rather than what they *did* (drink drinks in a gay pub...?)
I thought the irony was that none of the people killed in the Admiral Duncan were actually gay?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
OK, I'll rephrase, "Try telling the family and friends of the three people killed in the bombing of the gay pub in Soho in 1999 that the bomber did not hate the victims simply for who he thought they *were* rather than what he thought they *did* (drink drinks in a gay pub...?)"
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Over that DOING, they have CHOICE; and that DOING can therefore properly be the subject of moral debate and criticism in a way that the mere BEING can’t be.
The doing in this case in no way hurts straight people.
What I do in my bed affects no one not participating. Regardless of their source, moral claims in this instance are extremely dubious.
As has been mentioned, LGBT+ sex has no different moral connotations than plain vanilla straight sex.
Even should certain religious groups be correct and God hates fags, it does them no substantive harm to just bugger off.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Sorry, not a criticism, iamchristianhearmeroar, it's just a fact that I find rather fascinating.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality has nothing to do with the Law. Therefore this argument of yours, which one hears all the time, is nothing but a strawman. Rather it is based on the words of our Lord himself.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
For those who care:
Matt. 19:4ff
=
Mark 10:06 ff
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Yes, Christ says that in the context of a question regarding divorce but his answer is a whole lot more. He shows us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning. Anyway, my point was that Christians do not base their understanding of sexuality from the Law, rather it comes straight from the Gospel. I was just setting Albertus straight, that's all.
[ 28. July 2014, 22:26: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS.
But on what basis are these "DOINGS" to be questioned? The only two ways I can see "doings" being criticised is either on the basis of a pre-existing prejudice against homosexuality, which means that your argument begins to fall flat. OR, we question it on the basis of ALL sexual behaviour, which I think is what should happen; we should be judging all sex in the same way. If we did that, I suspect that "gay sex" would prove to be just as healthy as any other kind.
I can see that you are trying to resurrect the old distinction between "being gay" (which even most evangelicals will accept as being OK, if not ideal) and "acting gay" which would be rejected. "It's ok for you be a gay person, as long as you don't do anything about it" - which is nonsensical. You can't separate "being" and "acting" in this way.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO, or to play the “It’s like racism” card to insist that they be beyond criticism; indeed, the decades during which they have been playing that card may have constituted oppression and something very like persecution BY the gay movement….
This is where you just get plain silly. But of course, it isn't you alone - it is the cry of many evangelicals these days. "We're being persecuted by those nasty gays and their movement because they won't let us stop them having gay sex and they won't let us discriminate against them."
I find it deeply offensive that people who have spent a huge amount of effort in seeking to oppress gay men and women turn round and cry "persecution" the moment that they don't get their own way. It is childish behaviour.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
And celibacy?
Eh?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
And celibacy?
Eh?
Bit of a failing with the cleaving...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO
The way I see it, most gay people don't hide behind what they are to evade criticism of what they do. Rather, they say "There's nothing wrong with what we do".
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
The split between sexuality and its expression is as false as it's insidious. If a lesbian woman or gay man is told that it's a sin to ever act on their sexual orientation, it makes a great many feel terrible for having the desires. Most can't compartmentalize like that.
You can absolutely do the same with racism. Loving v. Virginia could be opposed with a claim that anti-miscegenation laws only punish actions, and punish both parties equally.
It could be said, and it would be as hollow as claiming that it's not homophobic to demand all gay people suppress their sexuality for life.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think the more precise comparison is between same-sex couples and interracial couples. I presume we would all agree that opposition to interracial couples is opposition to a behaviour, and it is also based on racism, yes? Then surely it follows that opposition to same-sex couples is based on an equivalent discriminatory prejudice, which for the sake of argument I will call homophobia.
Now, I'm sure there were Klan members and Nation of Islam members who would claim that they had no problem with whites or blacks (respectively) but that there was a natural order to things and black people were different to white people / placed by God on separate continents / insert pseudo-religious rationalisation of your choice and so shouldn't be in a sexual relationship. Their views weren't racist, oh no, because they only opposed this behaviour.
In many ways such a position would be less offensive than the anti-gay one, because at least most black people can find someone black to fall in love with. Most gay people can't happily pretend to be straight.
The most direct comparison for homophobia is not racism as a whole but specifically its anti-miscegenationist subset.
[ 28. July 2014, 22:37: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
And celibacy?
Eh?
Bit of a failing with the cleaving...
Ah! I see. Well, both our Lord and the Apostle address the question of celibacy. Some are called to it for the kingdom of God, others are not.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Is it valid to compare anti-gay attitudes to racism?
One thing I’ve noticed recently both shipboard and elsewhere has been the unquestioning assumption that being anti-gay is exactly the same kind of obviously immoral attitude as racism. That has not only made me think, it’s actually ended up making me query that assumption….
Anti-gay behavior is analogous to racism in many ways. You might want to consider why racism is "obviously immoral" when in the United States it wasn't fifty years ago. You could find clergy talking about the need to segregate the races and give lower status to certain races.
You also are dancing some fairly complicated dances to differentiate what people are and what people do. Would racism suddenly be moral if people could take a pill and change their skin color?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO, or to play the “It’s like racism” card to insist that they be beyond criticism; indeed, the decades during which they have been playing that card may have constituted oppression and something very like persecution BY the gay movement….
In what way are you being persecuted or oppressed by two people wanting to live lives of quiet domesticity in the way that straight people take for granted? And don't you think that it's a bit much claiming that Peter Tatchell writing a robust piece for Comment is Free is somehow morally equivalent to having people pop round and burn down your house. Oppression and Persecution are fairly strong terms with fairly determinate meanings and suggesting that bigotry against gay people is roughly analogous to bigotry against black people ain't one of them.
In any event it's a false dichotomy. Anyone who spends any time with racists will learn pretty quickly that there is a litany of offences committed by the offending ethnic minority. Naturally they are not bigoted. Indeed some of their best friends are black or Jewish or whatever. However observation and experience have taught them that black teenagers have a penchant for stabbing their peers with stanley knives or that Jews are incapable of patriotism or that the Muslims are all conspiring to blow us up on the underground. Of course, we tend to discount this as bullshit and as a glib rationalisation of prejudices that already exist. I suggest the same thing applies to much of the charge sheet against homosexuals.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Having been fairly vigorous in discussing the Second Great Commandment on another thread, I'll try it here as well.
You may not like people who have some visible characteristic - skin colour, physical deformity, size/shape - for whatever reason that you may think up or that you were taught. Does that give you the freedom to EITHER tell those people that they are not loved by God, OR take some action to make sure that those people aren't allowed to do ordinary things that you do?
No? Obviously, they may react badly to what you have proposed, and they, by the same principle that you used, can tell you to do the physical impossibility with your genitals.
Now, let us suppose that you are made squeamish by the thought of what some gay people may do when with another willing partner. Do you have the right to demand that those people should not go to a bar and have a drink in public, when fully-dressed and not doing those activities? Do you have the right to demand that they should not be employed in a business where you might be present?
What is it about your perceptions that allows you to demand the oppression of certain persons, based on your internal attitudes/obsessions/paranoia?
Why are you, Stephen Langton, so oblivious of the damage/hurt/injury done to people "not like you", while at the same time, you write on a religious board? What part of "Do unto others..." do you not understand?
The only arguments for denying equal rights to identifiable groups are based on "because I want it that way" and do not consider the other people as actually human, with the same reactions to hurts as you have.
Society shouldn't run on the basis of demeaning and hurting other people for no reason beyond personal vindictiveness.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And in all honesty, if that is the case, I can't see any reason, apart from a rather selective emphasising and interpretation of a couple of Bible verses (and if you're going to do that, then you have to be consistent- no scallops with black pudding starter for you next time you dine somewhere fancy, and you'd better denounce anyone who does eat it!) why anybody should get hot and bothered about it at all.
Traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality has nothing to do with the Law. Therefore this argument of yours, which one hears all the time, is nothing but a strawman. Rather it is based on the words of our Lord himself.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
If you understand this literally, how do you understand intersexed people ?
[ 28. July 2014, 22:57: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
It says nothing about the wife leaving her father and mother. As I don't live with my mother-in-law I'm clearly an abomination.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
HOWEVER – in practice different ethnic groups do develop cultures which are not things they ARE, but things they DO. Over that DOING, they have CHOICE; and that DOING can therefore properly be the subject of moral debate and criticism in a way that the mere BEING can’t be.
You mean like "I can't stand the smell of their curry. Why can't they eat normal food like proper people?"
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO, or to play the “It’s like racism” card to insist that they be beyond criticism; indeed, the decades during which they have been playing that card may have constituted oppression and something very like persecution BY the gay movement….
In much the same way that Trailways was oppressed and persecuted BY the Freedom Riders. This is fucking bullshit.
[ 29. July 2014, 00:35: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Steve Langton,
What you seem to be really asking is for people to refrain from critizing those that hold anti-gay views. I've seen a lot of Christians request this sort of thing - insisting that others should not be allowed to judge or condemn them for expressing their "sincerely held religious beliefs" while they themselves judge and condemn everyone else.
The New Testament is actually quite scathing of that sort of hypocrisy. But I've seen that hypocrisy over and over and over again in these debates - religious people saying nasty and judgmental things about gay people and then crying like a baby if anyone dares to criticize them in any way whatsoever.
It makes me think of a school bully being told off by the teacher for bullying the other kids, who then turns to the teacher and cries "you're bullying me by telling me not to bully them!" When the religious bullies are told to stop bulling gay people, or told that their nasty judgmental behaviour is bad, then they cry "oppression" and "persecution". They insist that they have free speech to bully gay people with, but they find it convenient to forget that other people can use their free speech to criticize religious people should they wish to do so.
If you are going to express judgment upon others, prepare to be judged yourself by others in return. Trying to request or demand exemption from criticism, or the ability to judge others without being judged yourself, is just laughable.
To directly address your original comparison of racism vs anti-gay discrimination...
The major problem with all types of discrimination is the harm done to the group that is being discriminated against. This can be big and obvious harm like bombings of gay bars or burning down the houses of black people or jailing gay people or enslaving black people. Or it can be a denial of basic rights and freedoms allowed to the rest of the population such as refusing to allow marriages between black people or between gay people, or not allowing black people to play on sports teams or not allowing gay people to play on sports teams. Or it can be a day-to-day demeaning of these people by refusing to serve black people at restaurants or refusing to serve gay people at restaurants.
Discrimination can involve less obvious harms, such as name-calling, expressions of condemnation, criticism, and contempt. Unfortunately the cumulative effect of these minor slights adds up, and the day-in day-out barrage of judgment and condemnation that people from the stigmatized group receive and endure takes a heavy psychological toll, a death by a thousand cuts. In such circumstances, the stigmatized group suffers increasing rates of chronic stress, anxiety and depression - everyone is out to get them and they know it. Chronic stress and anxiety are psychologically harmful, and people suffering from them suffer from greatly increased rates of strokes and heart attacks, so being subjected to continual condemnation does have the eventual effect of literally killing them. Also, stigmatized groups often resort to much higher rates of alcohol and drugs usage, wanting to escape from reality. They have much higher rates of suicide - a rate typically about four times higher than the usual suicide rate. Such insidious psychological effects of discrimination on stigmatized groups have been well documented throughout the world in many different cultures. (Jesus' ministry in the gospels, reaching out to those who are being discriminated against, I think is best read in this light) The harmful effects of social discrimination on black people and gay people fit this pattern. For this reason all the world's major medical and psychological organisations have issued statements saying that we ought to support gay rights for medical reasons alone - to reduce the massive psychological and physical harms that are being done to gay people through discrimination against them and which are causing a massive number of suicides. (eg Expert opinions)
The measurable and significant harmful effects on those who are discriminated against is the important thing about discrimination, the reason for which it has historically come to be seen as distasteful, and the reason for which anti-discrimination laws are usually passed. So when you argue that being anti-gay is different to being anti-black because one is objecting to what people are doing and the other is objecting to what people are, your argument is completely missing the main point which is that in both cases discrimination against a minority is significantly harmful to the minority being discriminated against.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Yes, Christ says that in the context of a question regarding divorce but his answer is a whole lot more. He shows us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning.
Right. And do you support killing your child for disobedience?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Yes, Christ says that in the context of a question regarding divorce but his answer is a whole lot more. He shows us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning. Anyway, my point was that Christians do not base their understanding of sexuality from the Law, rather it comes straight from the Gospel. I was just setting Albertus straight, that's all.
I guess you missed the first part of what you quoted Jesus as saying: "Have ye not read . . . ?" Jesus was quoting Genesis, i.e. Torah, i.e. the Law. To rely on this one quote to say that the Christian understanding of sexuality comes from the Gospel, not the Law, ignores that this particular Gospel understanding comes directly from the Law.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
Interpreting that as anti-gay is arbitrary and inconsistent. You are seizing on a couple of words in the sentence (the gender of the people mentioned) and making them hard-and-fast rules that admit no exceptions, while taking it for granted that the other conditions mentioned in the quote (leaving the father and mother) are optional.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Sorry, but it is simply wrong to equate being gay with having sex. The entire premise of the opening post is wrong.
It's well known that conservative Christians, opposed to gay sex, habitually equate 'gay' or 'lesbian' with actually engaging in sexual activity. The Gay Christian Network, which is based in America, did a survey that demonstrated this quite effectively. But it's simply not how the gay and lesbian communities see themselves (as the same survey also demonstrated).
Nor should it be. Straight teenagers perceive themselves as straight before they actually get to have sex. It's the desire that defines their sexuality, not their actual activity. It makes no sense to apply a different standard to homosexuality.
I've related this before, so I might as well relate it again. I had no sexual activity with another man whatsoever while I was in the closet. My 'coming out' was before I had gone on a single date with a man.
The notion that I wasn't gay for the 17-odd years between first realising, as a teenager, that I was attracted to men and finally allowing myself to express that attraction is just absurd. What was I, then? Was I some sort of ambisexual human equivalent of Schroedinger's Cat?
Do I somehow stop being gay because I'm not seeing anybody? How long do I have not have sex before I somehow cease being gay? Or is that not enough? Do I have to have sex with a woman to cancel out the previous gay sex? How often does a bisexual person have to switch the gender of their sexual partners to maintain their bisexual status?
[ 29. July 2014, 03:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Yes, Christ says that in the context of a question regarding divorce but his answer is a whole lot more. He shows us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning. Anyway, my point was that Christians do not base their understanding of sexuality from the Law, rather it comes straight from the Gospel. I was just setting Albertus straight, that's all.
I guess you missed the first part of what you quoted Jesus as saying: "Have ye not read . . . ?" Jesus was quoting Genesis, i.e. Torah, i.e. the Law. To rely on this one quote to say that the Christian understanding of sexuality comes from the Gospel, not the Law, ignores that this particular Gospel understanding comes directly from the Law.
You're being very silly. When we talk about "the Law" we means the laws Moses sets out in Leviticus etc. For most here that is the accepted definition of "the Law".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
Interpreting that as anti-gay is arbitrary and inconsistent. You are seizing on a couple of words in the sentence (the gender of the people mentioned) and making them hard-and-fast rules that admit no exceptions, while taking it for granted that the other conditions mentioned in the quote (leaving the father and mother) are optional.
Thanks for the link but it's bollocks. It's not arbitrary and I certainly don't know where yoy get inconsistent from. Heaven forbid that anyone should think that the scriptures have anything to say on these things.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And in all honesty, if that is the case, I can't see any reason, apart from a rather selective emphasising and interpretation of a couple of Bible verses (and if you're going to do that, then you have to be consistent- no scallops with black pudding starter for you next time you dine somewhere fancy, and you'd better denounce anyone who does eat it!) why anybody should get hot and bothered about it at all.
Traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality has nothing to do with the Law. Therefore this argument of yours, which one hears all the time, is nothing but a strawman. Rather it is based on the words of our Lord himself.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
If you understand this literally, how do you understand intersexed people ?
A result of the fall.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Yes, Christ says that in the context of a question regarding divorce but his answer is a whole lot more. He shows us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning.
Right. And do you support killing your child for disobedience?
Eh? Are you arguing then that if we believe God made man and women for a particular purpose we must believe that? It's completely unrelated to the Law which Moses gave to the Israelites. The Apostle uses "the Law" in the same sense too.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I call bullshit on the unrelated claim. You are picking and choosing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If you understand this literally, how do you understand intersexed people ?
A result of the fall.
Yes, but then what? What should they do? What should we as Christian brethren and sistern do for them?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A result of the fall.
So, have they been around the whole 6 thousand years?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eh? Are you arguing then that if we believe God made man and women for a particular purpose we must believe that?
I'm highly skeptical of the idea that God made people for one and only one purpose, and that this God-ordained One True Purpose™ for humanity is heterosexual fucking. It also seems a bit harsh to judge anyone who dies without having heterosexual sex (the gay, the lifelong celibates, those who die young, etc.) as failures in God's eyes.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
