Ship of Fools: Can conservatives at least oppose violence against homosexuals?

Thread: Can conservatives at least oppose violence against homosexuals? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028515

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

One thing I noticed in Vancouver is that whenever there is a publicized gay-bashing, the gay community usually comes out in force, either to hold a rally or a memorial.

Given that conservatives say they oppose the behavior, and not gay people in general, why is it that I hardly hear anything from the religious right criticizing homophobic violence?

Or should I assume that some conservatives implicitly support violence against homosexuals?

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

This is a bat crazy conclusion to make.I voted for prop 8 and still went to a baby shower a friend gave who is gay and married to partner. I still associate with some gays and oppose violence to them. I guess I should go out though now and beat up gays because I am a staunch conservative? [Confused]

Posted by prettybutterfly (# 15024) on :

I think it's because a substantial proportion (NOT all) of conservatives who oppose homosexual behvaiour are flaming hypocrits.

I do know some people who have studied the issue, thought about it and come to a different conclusion than me - that homosexual behaviour is inherantly immoral. These are not the kind of people I'm talking about, they oppose anti-gay violence.

I'm talking about the people who haven't thought the issue through or studied it, who hold strong positions in ignorance, who enjoy the superior feeling they get from being anti-gay. Unfortunately I know a few of the latter as well and it's these kind of people who go very quiet when anti-gay violence is perpetuated, or worse, start going on about how if gay people weren't gay, this would never have happened, or if they must be gay they should stay in the closet, (...and the violence is wrong...) but really if there were no gay people there would be no violence...

So to answer your question, some can, some can't and one group is often louder than the other.

[ 12. September 2009, 08:03: Message edited by: prettybutterfly ]

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
....
Or should I assume that some conservatives implicitly support violence against homosexuals?

Yes, you should.

Look at Nigeria and Zimbabwe - for a start.

Isn't there something in the Bible about if we don't oppose something we support it? Seems to me that if we don't speak up against such violence then we should be ashamed.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

And someone like Akinola supports their imprisonment amd I suspect he would like to see stoning as it is in Leviticus.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
....
Or should I assume that some conservatives implicitly support violence against homosexuals?
Yes, you should.

Look at Nigeria and Zimbabwe - for a start.

Isn't there something in the Bible about if we don't oppose something we support it? Seems to me that if we don't speak up against such violence then we should be ashamed.

To argue that conservative Christians who don't oppose homophobic violence are complict in that violence really only makes sense to the extent that anybody who doesn't oppose it is complicit in it.

That is, I don't think conservatives have a greater duty to oppose homophobic violence than anybody else has.

In principle we all have that duty, but there's only so much energy and resource that a person can muster for activism, surely?

For example, if somebody asked me if he could stage an anti-gay rally on my land, I would refuse. But if somebody asked me for, say, £5000 to support an anti-homophobia campaign, I would have to decline, however much I supported it. Somewhere there's surely a line between what level of opposition to evil can reasonably be expected of a certain of person, and what can not?

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

CrookedCucumber: To argue that conservative Christians who don't oppose homophobic violence are complict in that violence really only makes sense to the extent that anybody who doesn't oppose it is complicit in it.

But conservative Christians are the ones who obey the Bible, aren't they? [Biased]

But I agree - we all should oppose violence against gay people.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Re the thread title: yes,absolutely, 100% - at least as far as this 'conservative' is concerned.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by prettybutterfly:

I do know some people who have studied the issue, thought about it and come to a different conclusion than me - that homosexual behaviour is inherantly immoral. These are not the kind of people I'm talking about, they oppose anti-gay violence.

What she said here. THIS. I have had some pretty unoomfortable moments like turning down going to a gay marriage ceremony. This and other uncomfortable moments have all caused me to sin by drinking too much, eating too much (then repenting) and also the dreaded sitting out in my car and crying. Beating up someone BECAUSE that person is gay is NOT a thought I have. I honestly only want to beat up gays who are rude people just the same as a rude straight person. Not that I go around beating up anybody...even a person years ago who slapped my desk loudly and hard then proceeded to scream at me at work. Wanted to beat that person up but they were not gay...

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

That is, I don't think conservatives have a greater duty to oppose homophobic violence than anybody else has.

In principle we all have that duty, but there's only so much energy and resource that a person can muster for activism, surely?

I thought about it last night and wondered why conservatives have "more" of a duty than their Liberal counterparts...Xtians...to high-light violence is wrong against gays? Perhaps Liberal Xtians do more public condemnation of it?

I do remember hearing about Mars Hill Church in Seattle refusing to take part in some event that they felt was unloving towards gays. This was not publicized and thus I am unable to find any links to it. I tried last night.

I know Xtians who are conservative could be doing more to condemn violence on gays....but then there is wife-beating, child-abuse etc that seem to dominate the public speaking agenda.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I thought about it last night and wondered why conservatives have "more" of a duty than their Liberal counterparts...Xtians...to high-light violence is wrong against gays?

Because the conservatives are so vocal about the immorality of homosexuality. They need to publicly and vocally distance themselves from the far end of the road they are standing partway down.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

When I made this thread, my mind immediately raced to a rally in Vancouver that I attended after a guy got beaten up while in the city's gay district. There was no one who was a leader who identified herself as a Christian conservative who attended. There was no letter to the editor either. I can understand saying "Look, I have a moral objection to the behavior, but under no circumstances violence cannot be justified against anyone." But there was nary a peep after these incidents.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
There was no letter to the editor either. I can understand saying "Look, I have a moral objection to the behavior, but under no circumstances violence cannot be justified against anyone." But there was nary a peep after these incidents.

But it's a bit of a bizarre way of thinking to assume that if somebody doesn't say something against violence, then of course they must be in favour of violence...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
But it's a bit of a bizarre way of thinking to assume that if somebody doesn't say something against violence, then of course they must be in favour of violence...

Not if that someone has spoken out strongly against the victims of that violence.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

Really I don't think so. E.g., even if I had strong views against Israel (which I don't, really), I don't think I'd have to explicitly dissociate myself from every terrorist attack on Israel. I think in most cases it should be taken as read that whatever their views on the political issues, decent people don't support violence against innocent people.

Unless, of course, somebody says something that suggests otherwise. There was a recent libel case in Canada where an anti-gay activist sued a radio station and its editorial commentator for having suggested that she "would condone violence" against gay people. The courts ultimately held that there was enough material in her public statements on the issue to establish a basis for the fair comment defence, and so she lost her lawsuit. But frankly I think it would be wholly outrageous to suggest, e.g., that there's any basis for concluding that the more conservative posters on this board would condone violence against gay people on the basis of their remarks about the issue on this board.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

There is a certain subset of conservative voices who DO speak in strong negative terms about gays and who DO condone violence against gays, roughly along the same line of reasoning as the subset of males who condone violence against women by saying "she asked for it" or "she behaved in such a way that she had to expect rape".

This doesn't mean that EVERY conservative is automatically a rapist of females and a basher of gays. Get off your high horse. You personally haven't been accused of anything. Just because you specifically have some friends who are gay doesn't mean that the whole world is totally gay-friendly.

But, like gays, some few of whom are outrageously, publicly camp, conservatives can be identified as being part of a group that does include gay-bashers.

Some of my friends are Bible-saturated Baptists, but that doesn't mean I've been dragged through the immersion tank.

As a Christian, I totally oppose violence agaisnt people for any reason other than defence against overt physical attack, and I say so publicly, even in relation to Muslims in the wake of 9/11.

I would prefer that the Christian conservatives would have read their Bibles enough to oppose violence or noisy shunning, but, judging by several letters to the editor in our local rag, that is not a view found among vocal fundagelical conservatives around here.

[ 13. September 2009, 00:56: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Get off your high horse. You personally haven't been accused of anything.

To whom is this directed?? [Confused]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
Really I don't think so. E.g., even if I had strong views against Israel (which I don't, really), I don't think I'd have to explicitly dissociate myself from every terrorist attack on Israel.

The difference is that you're not a Palestinian Arab. If you were, then yes you would have to explicitly dissociate yourself from the terrorists.

American conservatives, many of whom claim they are Christians and far be it from me to say they aren't, are physically attacking gays. American conservative Christians who speak out against the morality of homosexuality have a responsibility to speak out against the violence.

[ 13. September 2009, 03:48: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Actually this goes for any country with this dynamic, not just the US -- sorry for my provincialism.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Get off your high horse. You personally haven't been accused of anything.
To whom is this directed??

I think he means me. Sorry for being stuck up about having some gay friends. It's hard not to have them and use them as my tokens, growing in the SF Bay Area.

[edited.]

[ 13. September 2009, 04:41: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Because the conservatives are so vocal about the immorality of homosexuality. They need to publicly and vocally distance themselves from the far end of the road they are standing partway down.

What would this look like? Sound like? What are some ideas you might have for getting this message out? Honestly reflecting.
[code! argh!]

[ 13. September 2009, 04:44: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think it would mean not ending your sermon about homosexuality with how it's not in God's will or whatever the exact wording is, but going on to say that nevertheless these are people that Christ died for, and while we hope they stop doing naughty things, nevertheless we must love them with Christ's love, and yelling names at them, or God forbid physically harming them, is not at all in keeping with the Gospel. Something along those lines.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The difference is that you're not a Palestinian Arab. If you were, then yes you would have to explicitly dissociate yourself from the terrorists.

Why? Palestiniana Arabs are, on the whole, by far the greatest losers from the violence in the region over the last 80-odd years. More than any other group of Arabs, and more than Israelis. More of them have been killed, more of them have been impoverished, and almost all of them have been dispossessed. Why should the people who are most likely to be victims be the ones to apologise?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Who said anything about apology? Have you read what I wrote at all?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

A statistic (y'know, lies, damned lies and...): in the years 1991 to 2007, there were about 120 murders in canada, where the homosexuality of the victim was of significance.

I've not heard of any right-wing Christian being killed, or even physically attacked, because of his religious view. There seems to be an problem in this, since r-w Xtians make all sorts of fuss about how put-upon they are and how threatened their religion is, because gays actually exist and dare to say so in public.

Not that I want even the most assholish r-w Xtian to be physically attacked. But why should gays be physically attacked? And why should the loud voices be silent on this issue?

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I thought about it last night and wondered why conservatives have "more" of a duty than their Liberal counterparts...Xtians...to high-light violence is wrong against gays?
Because the conservatives are so vocal about the immorality of homosexuality. They need to publicly and vocally distance themselves from the far end of the road they are standing partway down.

I can understand this point of view, but I wonder how many conservatives really feel themselves to be standing on the road, at any point, that leads to homophobic attacks?

I think I would argue that once you're standing anywhere on that particular road, you've got absolutely no moral authority to criticise anybody anywhere else on it.

The conservative Christians I know seem to have no issues with homosexual people at all, whatever they may think about homosexual acts. How they handle the cognitive dissonance this must create, I really don't know. But, in any event, they probably don't feel they are doing anything to encourage attacks against people, and therefore don't have any greater obligation than you or I to discourage them.

I am a vegetarian and an activist for animal welfare. But I don't feel that I need constantly to distance myself from the `animal rights' people who go around vandalizing battery farms and whatnot. Of course I disapprove of that kind of action, but I don't feel I do anything at all to cause it. It's a problem, sure, but it's not exclusively a vegetarian's problem.

I think the conservative homophobia thing works the same way.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Who said anything about apology? Have you read what I wrote at all?

In America black men are about five times as likely to commit murder than white men are. Do you expect every African American you meet to "dissasociate" themselves from murder before they talk about politics or crime?

And yes, that expectation of Palestinians is demanding an apology. An apology on behalf of a whole community from every member.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If you think there is a connection between "I am black" and "I should commit murder" that is as strong as the connection between "Homosexuality is wrong" and "I should oppose it" then you're dumber than I thought.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Conservatives blame homosexuals for undermining society, subverting morality, attacking straight marriages, pedophilia, and even the 9/11 attacks. Given all this you can certainly see a "he/she had it coming" mentality developing amongst conservatives regarding gay bashing. Heck, if they sincerely believe all of the above they'd plead self defense (and in some cases they have.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Further it was speaking out against Israel that was linked with violence against Israel, not merely being a Palestinian Arab (honest, go back and re-read (or read for the first time) what I wrote). Facile comparisons to black criminals are racist but none to the point.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Conservatives blame homosexuals for undermining society, subverting morality, attacking straight marriages, pedophilia, and even [URL=http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2001/09/You-Helped-

Certainly some do. But in the UK, which is the only place I know anything about, it's pretty rare. I find the conservative Christian line on homosexuality bewildering, but I've never heard a Christian that I know personally blame homosexuals for any of these things.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Conservatives blame homosexuals for undermining society, subverting morality, attacking straight marriages, pedophilia, and even the 9/11 attacks.
Certainly some do. But in the UK, which is the only place I know anything about, it's pretty rare. I find the conservative Christian line on homosexuality bewildering, but I've never heard a Christian that I know personally blame homosexuals for any of these things.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that although some conservatives "certainly" regard homosexuals as vile enemies of all that is good and decent who work tirelessly to destroy society from within, you don't happen to know any of them personally? (Or don't know that you know them.) That's not a lot of use without knowing a lot more about your social life than is appropriate for this forum.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

We used to get more of that on the Ship, though thank God not so much now, but if you want to see that sort of blaming gay people for the continuing decline of UK morals, you can find it in online comments sections of newspapers (I saw a text book example on a gay minister thread on a Scottish quality newspaper yesterday).

I've described it before as a form of 'magical thinking' because it targets hedonism/promiscuity/divorce/selfishness carried out overwhelmingly by straight people, by attacking (mostly) dutiful gay people and denying them rights. It's as if its advocates think that tactic is going to magically make the misbehaving straight majority change their ways.

The argument goes 'Everything is falling to bits because of this 'Me! Me! Me!' human-rights based society where people identify their selfish sexual desires as human rights and want to have them gratified. Gay people wanting to marry/ be ordained/adopt is an example of this selfishness masquerading as human rights, and will cause further rot of traditional moral values, and so it must be opposed.'

But usually the dead horse in question is a gay person wanting to do something which is anything but selfish: marry, give a home to a neglected child, serve people and God as a minister, (and if any of that is selfish, you'd have to say the same thing about all the heterosexual people who do it too, but somehow that is never the case).

It's as if the gay people are being attacked by proxy for the sins of straight people (especially in the divorce courts)

It gets more confusing still when the sort of conservative that likes to make these arguments, encounters another societal group who very much agree with them on their prescription for a good society: anti-gay, family-centred, pro-women in the home, pro male-headship, believing and praying, anti sex-out-of-marriage, and in most cases frowning on divorce, and quite likely to be creationists. You'd think they'd be delighted, but no er... apparently those paragons of virtue the conservative Muslims are also destroying our society, just like the gays, despite doing all the 'right' things. Odd that.

But of course Muslims generate a different sort of anxiety - the sort of things the poor Catholics used to cop it for in Bismarck's Kulturkampf or in the views of Sectarians, being seen as too loyal to some external authority, and 'foreign' not 'people like us' committed to 'our' nation state but a sort of fifth column.

What both groups have in common though is that they've become scapegoats, for people anxious about social change.

That scapegoating mechanism is what leads to violence. If you study the wake of the Black Death and the huge social changes that came with it, you see an upswing in the persecution of jews and muslims, the demonology that leads to the great witch-hunts is created, and you get the sudden appearance in statute books across Europe of laws punishing sodomy by death. All these things were justified from the Bible and Christian thinking.

We've stopped believing in executing witches, despite the fact that the verse it was all built on is still there. The holocaust and the creation of Israel has cured a fair bit (not all) of our historic anti-semitic tendencies, despite the traditional interpretation of Matthew 27:24–25 but using gay people and Muslims as 'The Other', as scapegoats for anxieties about social change is still with us. It's playing with fire, and when that gets out of hand innocent people suffer - that's where the violence comes in.

I think if people can see that kind of scape-goating going on in their church (going after gay people or Muslims as an answer to societal ills, instead of putting the responsibility where it belongs) they have a responsibility to come out of that and to oppose it, before they end up being complicit in rhetoric or campaigning which helps legitimate abuse or violence. Suppose you think that gay sex is a sin - is it as bad as being complicit in the persecution of people as societal scapegoats, knowing what we do about how that works?

L.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure what your point is here.

I thought his point was clear. Try this:

"Atheists believe in giving the State totalitarian power. They instinctively distrust Western democracy, and say they'd use military power to spread Communism to every country in the world."

Surely it's understandable for someone to mention it if that doesn't accurately describe the atheists he knows? Especially if it seems like a crude caricature created for rhetorical cheap shots.

Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
... r-w Xtians make all sorts of fuss about how put-upon they are and how threatened their religion is, ...

I started responding to that rhetoric by asking just how many conservatives had been kicked to death by angry liberals. Strangely enough, no one ever seems to have any examples [Big Grin]

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HenryT:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
... r-w Xtians make all sorts of fuss about how put-upon they are and how threatened their religion is, ...
I started responding to that rhetoric by asking just how many conservatives had been kicked to death by angry liberals. Strangely enough, no one ever seems to have any examples

I don't know what constitutes a right-wing conservative anymore outside of the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson block. You can just label anyone who is even ever so slightly to the right on the richter scale from yourself and others you know who are more on the left side...but I ask if you do understand that many of us too are fed up with the witch hunts and the neo-signs? Such pointing away our own sins like reaching out to the poor, shunning non-Christians, living in doctrinal rich fortresses, even into status.

This does not mean we change our doctrinal views on all things you might find right-wing to have, if we see the bible saying that in inerrancy, does it? It seems that there is always that last little bit to add of "change your views to be more inclusive of gays by changing your doctrine. That is really the only way, but I tack that on at the end of what I say so it seems I just slipped it in there."

But it does mean exploring finding more loving ways to convey things. And quite frankly, there has been so much damage in this area, it can be overwhelming to know where to begin to pick up the pieces to repair?

All I can speak of freely is my own life.I don't give sermons in a church, only have done mini-sermons in juvy hall to those kidlets and reached out to those who have been hurt by "my kind". I also have been made available to those who used to e-mail me privately to ask me "why" I felt those things I felt on the ship.

So should someone like Mark Driscol, John Piper, John Macarthur or Alistar Begg, CJ Mahaney and/or Joshua Harris end their sermon with a footnote "btw, I know I have preached some lessons today stating the bible outsides homosexual acts as unbiblical, please duly note that we are not to commit violene towards them".? Or do you just mean the 700 Club or Focus on the Family?

One guy profiled here (you might consider him a right-winger, I don't know) actually has walked away from the Christian Coalition for the focus being too strongly on those issues...please read below...

"His [Joel Hunter's] national profile emerged after he resigned from the Christian Coalition in2006, saying the organization was unwilling to expand its mission beyond fighting abortion and same-sex marriage. During the2008 presidental election cycle, Hunter prayed at the Demorcratic National Convention last summer and with the President on Election Day."

Sept.09 issue Christianity Today - the Art of Cyber Church, page 50

[edited since I have a migraine but felt compelled to write this all for some reason now instead of doing my laundry. going now...sorry for any grammar mistakes.]

[ 15. September 2009, 03:22: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

I meant to spell violence right.
I also meant to convey I try to do my own part in my own life of discouraging violence towards gays, helping the poor and generally being available for level-headed discussions meant to pass wisdom, love and understanding towards each other. NOT Perez Hilton or anybody else of that manner*.

Okay done here.

*no discussion possible when there is flame-throwing, IMHO. But it is fun to post in hell on SoF sometimes. Just not outside that in real life. *sigh*

[ 15. September 2009, 03:28: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Conservatives blame homosexuals for undermining society, subverting morality, attacking straight marriages, pedophilia, and even the 9/11 attacks.
Certainly some do. But in the UK, which is the only place I know anything about, it's pretty rare. I find the conservative Christian line on homosexuality bewildering, but I've never heard a Christian that I know personally blame homosexuals for any of these things.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that although some conservatives "certainly" regard homosexuals as vile enemies of all that is good and decent who work tirelessly to destroy society from within, you don't happen to know any of them personally? (Or don't know that you know them.) That's not a lot of use without knowing a lot more about your social life than is appropriate for this forum.

Well, yes. The unspoken part of my argument is that my experience of the beliefs of conservative Christians is more accurate than is portrayed in the media, for example.

But even if I'm wrong about that, I think my argument still stands.

A Christian (or anybody else) who actually proposes that homosexuals as people are wicked in some way, has no moral authority to condemn homophobic violence. That would be like a Nazi saying ``Yes, Jews are subhuman, but we shouldn't actually gas them''. Pointless.

And a Christian (or anybody else) who does not believe that homosexuals as people are wicked is not in any sense arguing for homophobic violence, and is thus not obliged to oppose it (any more than the rest of us are).

If all the conservative Christians on Earth had a sudden epiphany and realized (or joyous day) than God had no gripe at all with homosexuality, I don't think the amount of homophobic oppression in society would decrease at all. The gay-bashers don't do it because it's unbiblical -- they do it because they're evil.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

Louise: what a fantastic post. Especially the point about divorce. I think it would be very healthy for the church on both sides of the divide to see that the arguments about homosexuality are nothing more than a proxy war, with a disproportionate number of civilian casualties.

- Chris.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
The unspoken part of my argument is that my experience of the beliefs of conservative Christians is more accurate than is portrayed in the media, for example.

I think there may also be a pond difference. The beliefs of conservative Christians in the UK are different from the beliefs of white conservative Christians in the US (although the white conservative Christians in the US are trying their best to export theirs), and they're different again from the beliefs of black conservative Christians in the US.

quote:
A Christian (or anybody else) who actually proposes that homosexuals as people are wicked in some way, has no moral authority to condemn homophobic violence. That would be like a Nazi saying ``Yes, Jews are subhuman, but we shouldn't actually gas them''. Pointless.

I am not convinced about this. A Nazi who says that the Jews are subhuman but we shouldn't actually gas them' is certainly obnoxious, but they aren't gassing Jews themselves and they are making attempts to stop other people from gassing Jews. And really the important thing here is whether the Jews get gassed. The obnoxiousness of the opinion is by comparison neither here nor there. If someone stops me from being gassed, I'm not going to care very much whether he or she had the moral authority to do so.

That said, there is a sense in which condemning beating up homosexuals gives the beating up of homosexuals legitimacy. Most churches do not regularly preach against murdering your wife in order to marry your mistress. That's because most churches don't think that anyone in the congregation considers that acceptable. The corollary is that if the preacher starts preaching on it, the idea might grow that it wouldn't be odd to consider it acceptable. (Before the law came, I did not know sin, and all that.)
Personally, if I heard that a preacher finished regular rants about homosexuality by saying 'but beating them up is wrong', I'd rather suspect them of encouraging violence by insinuation than trying to suppress it.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

The best article that I've ever read on the subject of homosexuality and Christian belief can be found at theologian.org.uk
The author takes a conservative viewpoint, based on an impressively scholarly analysis, and includes in the final summary a few points about the attitudes that Christians should hold.

A couple of quotes: 'Homophobia - a fear of homosexuals which leads to rejection - should not be on any church's agenda' and: '...Christians should be in the forefront of those who protest when homosexuals are treated unjustly.'

If you don't want to wade through the pages of theology, skip to the summary at the end. [Smile]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Not very advanced, scholarship-wise. Conservatives have moved on from the anti-gay verses to the pro-family verses. This author writes almost exactly as he did 20 years ago in a Grove Booklet.

More interesting, in that online journal, is a fairly devastating critique of Alpha courses.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

There is another article on that website that says women should never preach in church - just so you know what sort of website it is.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Further it was speaking out against Israel that was linked with violence against Israel, not merely being a Palestinian Arab (honest, go back and re-read (or read for the first time) what I wrote). Facile comparisons to black criminals are racist but none to the point.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not very advanced, scholarship-wise. Conservatives have moved on from the anti-gay verses to the pro-family verses. This author writes almost exactly as he did 20 years ago in a Grove Booklet.

Do happen to know of an example of more advanced scholarship? And do you know why it is that conservatives have 'moved on from the anti-gay verses to the pro-family verses'? If the Word of God hasn't changed over 2000 - 3500 years, then I wouldn't be surprised that the application of it hasn't changed over 20 years.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Yes - read the C of E House of Bishops' Commentary on Issues in Human Sexuality. It is conservative in its conclusion but quotes many 'pro' and 'anti' scholars but the stuff on the so-called 6 bullet points i.e. Sodom, Leviticus, Romans etc. and found to be fairly evenly balanced whereas people have moved on to quote creation and family verses.

That is to say - NOT what God said was wrong. More: What is God's plan for humans?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Further it was speaking out against Israel that was linked with violence against Israel, not merely being a Palestinian Arab (honest, go back and re-read (or read for the first time) what I wrote). Facile comparisons to black criminals are racist but none to the point.

I'm not sure that follows: if I call some of the Israeli actions in Gaza a few months ago 'war crimes', I don't think I'm at all to blame if some Hamas nutjob decides to blow himself up on a bus.

Posted by DagonSlaveII (# 15162) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think it would mean not ending your sermon about homosexuality with how it's not in God's will or whatever the exact wording is, but going on to say that nevertheless these are people that Christ died for, and while we hope they stop doing naughty things, nevertheless we must love them with Christ's love, and yelling names at them, or God forbid physically harming them, is not at all in keeping with the Gospel. Something along those lines.

I agree that this is absolutely not done enough. "Hate the sin, not the sinner," is the slogan I most hear on that.

But there is a huge habit in every movement, to show how they are different from another group, especially the more extreme churches (either polarization). Staunch Conservative groups are too busy trying to show how the Gays are going to hell to fight against ridiculous forms of intolerance. (Grew up in such a church... about the only thing they'd "hate on" more than gays was the Catholic church.)

If our job is to bring souls to Christ, then we're not going to do it by letting people die on the streets. Besides, there's a perfectly good example of what to do with something a good bit worse than same-sex couplings. How about being a church member that sleeps with, at the least, his father's wife, and at the most, his biological mom? I Cor. 5

I Cor. 5:9-13

quote:
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

If practicing Gay behavior is a sin, all we can do is kick them out of our church. If they aren't in the church, we have absolutely no authority over them, from the Bible. What we do with secular law is what we do with secular law.

To be coldblooded: Besides, it's plain good outreach to defend the more defenseless person.

Can of worms:

All that being said, the quote "If you don't want to be in a bar-fight, don't go to bars," comes to mind. *sigh* Most of the Gay/Straight fights I've personally known about (where I usually knew both people involved), it was where the gay guy inappropriately touched the straight homophobe male and got the snot knocked out of him for it--rarely if ever have I known this type of fight to end with someone in the hospital. Not commenting on whether it's right or wrong to fight, but pointing out that there are a few occasions where people ask for the problems they get. I have yet to see where it was the straight one who did something similar, and was hit by the Gay one, but I'm sure it happens. Again, this type of fight is rarely very brutal. These also tend to never make the paper, either.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

As I pointed out earlier, there are, on average, 8 murders a year in Canada which are related to the gayness (or perceived gayness) of the victim.

I've never yet heard of a Christian right-winger being physically attacked, let alone murdered, because of his Christian orientation (although some of them are irritating enough to deserve a good smack)

Are you sure that the "touching" that led to the snot-kicking wasn't just an incidental to moving around a room, which the hypersensitive oh-so-straight righteous person took as an excuse to vent his anxiety? There is a certain subset of straights who look for any sign of difference in oreder to make a fuss, or worse, about it, in situations that any fairly stable person simply wouldn't see an issue.

Being gay isn't a commuinicable disease. it is just how people are.

Yes, there are the "campy" ones, and some of those are straights with attitude issues.

Perhaps your church could work on dealing with some preconceived issues among the flock, instead of giving permission to destroy Christ's message by using physical violence.

Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on :

Ah yes, the Gay panic defense

Dead Horses runs on Purgatory rules, so I'll describe this as "casuistic, cynical, dishonest, repugnant, and invariably untruthful." As opposed to the shorter and more pungent term it deserves.

[ 24. September 2009, 11:05: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on :

Apologies for posting in the wrong dialect and failing to preview.

Posted by scribbler (# 12268) on :

To answer the OP: YES, hate-based violence against homosexual persons is gravely wrong, just as it is against anyone, and should be opposed.

[ 02. October 2009, 20:05: Message edited by: scribbler ]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I voted for prop 8 [...] I guess I should go out though now and beat up gays because I am a staunch conservative?

No need to bother. You already did.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Well Matt, instead of posting smilies which imply 'poor wee misunderstood me!', perhaps you should inform yourself what can happen to gay families in American states where their marriages are not recognised

Why Marriage equality matters

People face the heartbreak of things like being banned from the bedside of a dying loved one.

Given a choice between a smack in the face from some boot boy and being banned from the bedside of my dying spouse, I'd consider the smack in the face to be a lot less evil. Indeed I'd queue up for the smack in the face if I'd then be allowed in to the hospital. Some people who call themselves Christians huff and puff about how lovely people like them cannot possibly be classed with the gay bashers, but then vote for things which lead to violations even worse than physical assault.

Until gay couples are given the same rights as as the rest of us, so that they can protect their families and relationships, everyone who cites the Bible as the reason to deny them those rights has dirty hands.

Your precious wee Bible-believing consciences are kept clean at the price of other people's suffering.

L.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

The equation of voting according to one's conscience and beating someone up is intellectually dishonest and reeks to high heaven.

The well-deserved smiley stands.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It is not intellectually dishonest at all. You can claim that you aren't guilty for violence perpetrated by others but that is to misunderstand cause and effect.

There is some research that shows that every time some bishop rants on homophobically, there is a rise in the number of attacks on LGBTs.

Ditto for when a state votes against a pro-gay law.

It is similar to anti-Jewish and Islampophobic incidents.

How would you react if someone voted for the BNP but said that they weren't racist, nor responsible for attacks on ethnic minorities?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Apples and oranges. Are you to deby us a conscience now? Are we deemed guilty of thought crime? I'm beginning to wonder who the intolerant ones really are here...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The equation of voting according to one's conscience and beating someone up is intellectually dishonest and reeks to high heaven.

If you vote according to your conscience, you live with the consequences. That's why you get to claim you voted according to your conscience, and not just on a whim. If someone tells you that they feel that they'd rather you slapped them in the face, then you live with it. You get a gold star from your conscience. You don't get to demand a gold star from everyone affected by your vote as well.
You certainly do not get to tell them that because you voted according to your conscience their feelings are intellectually dishonest.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Why not? Or is that to be censored too?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Apples and oranges. Are you to deby us a conscience now? Are we deemed guilty of thought crime? I'm beginning to wonder who the intolerant ones really are here...

We need EDUCATED consciences.

For example, the Anglican Communion's Lambeth Conference of 1988 voted to continue with the line that 'homosexual genital acts' (I can just see married couples asking if they can go upstairs early for a genital act) are sinful but they also said that they should listen to the experiences of gays.

In response, one organisation urged people to pay for their diocesan bishop's subscription to Gay Times.

Then the bishops would know more about the people and their struggles, as opposed to a mere 'issue' before sounding off again.

So if your conscience is educated, you will have met and listened to the testimonies of many LGBTs, read books about them etc.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Fine. I'm more than happy to read the story Louise linked to by way of doing the same. But I also - just the same as people have the right to say they'd rather be slapped in the face - have the right to call the equation of voting according to conscience with criminal violence bullshit when I see it...

I guess we're back to the "criticism of Israeli war crimes in Gaza = anti-semitic support for suicide bombers" fallacy on page 1.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

Those who are affected by the outcome are in a better position to assess the thuggery committed.

Spare me your weaseling out of the consequences of a vote on the grounds of "conscience" when it directly affects the life of my family and not yours.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Why not? Or is that to be censored too?

You're telling other people that their feelings are intellectually dishonest, then crying censorship when they say that you're wrong? Do you not get any cognitive dissonance from this at all?

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

If I was a radical atheist and voted for the state to de-recognise all religious marriages, leading to situations such as religious people being denied visitation to dying spouses in hospital, then yes I'd be as culpable of causing harm as someone who liked to go out and kick Christians on a Saturday night. Because I used a ballot box as my weapon instead of a baseball bat, why should I be allowed to say my hands were clean?

When California allowed gay and lesbian people to marry, my fiance was in SF and he phoned me to tell me he could see the people lining up to be married, so I said to him, 'Hey let's celebrate their relationships too! Could you get a bunch of flowers from us and give it to a couple?' So he did, and congratulated two women in the line from us, and got me on the phone so I could congratulate them too. Now gay people who want to get married like those women have been stripped of their rights and their abilities to protect their partners through marriage. That's shameful and it's worse than a slap in the face to people, it's a violation of their family life.

People who voted for it did something more harmful than going up to a couple who want to get married and punching them.

Of course, people are entitled to do that, I just think they shouldn't be allowed to wash their hands of how it hurts people.

And it really hacks me off to see people who have all the rights and protections of marriage, rolling their virtual eyes because they're asked to acknowledge the very real damage anti-gay views can do at the ballot box. Yes it can hurt people as badly as physical violence. No people don't get off the hook because they found a few anti-gay texts in the Bible - the Bible is not there for us to look for textual loopholes which allow us to hurt and damage our neighbours in defiance of all we've been told about loving them. If you're applying the Bible and the end result is destroying relationships where people love, honour and protect each other while harming no-one, then you're doing it wrong.

L.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

The New York Times also had an article on the higher costs gay couples pay under current law.

New York Times: Your Money - The Higher costs of being a gay couple

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Why not? Or is that to be censored too?

Common decency. That means taking responsibility for the effects of your actions on other people.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

ISTM there was a certain gentleman some centuries ago who had something to say about "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you".

If you are going to be rude, defiant and unnecessarily nasty to or about others, they may respond in kind, or they may just try to live out their understanding of "the right thing to do" despite you.

After all, you're the one crying "discrimination" and nothing has actually happened to you, and nothing will happen to you. But gays are often beaten up or killed just for being (or being thought to be) gay. When was the last time you were phtysically attacked just becaue you look the way you do?

Saying "Oh, I didn't care that my action hurts you" doesn't get you off the hook.

It is possible to deal with the existence of gays without going out of your way to make their lives miserable.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Having read the article, slept on the matter and read the further posts on this thread, the following points (in no particular order) come to mind:

The 'intellectual dishohesty' jibe was ill-though out and -expressed and I apologise for this and withdraw it. However, the title of the thread was about whether conservatives oppose violence against gays and lesbians and, having answered unequivocally 'yes' to that, to then be told that that's not enough, that effectively you can't have or express a conservative Christian opinion on the issue, and the conflation of anti-gay violence with Duchess' vote did, I'm afraid raise my hackles.

...which brings me to Louise's article: the problem in that situation seems to be twofold. Firstly, you have the disgraceful conduct and disregard by both the hospital and the court (the judge should be shot for misadvising himself so badly) of the Power of Attorney document which, certainly under English and Welsh law, would have given the partner access to her dying loved one and also some say over treatment in certain circumstances. Secondly, you have this rather vague comment of "this is an anti-gay State"; now, whatever that means, that would I suspect have informed the bad attitude of both the hospital staff and the court to a degree, and I would suggest that that attitude was the major problem here. So, I'm not convinced necessarily that having the US equivalent of a civil partnership certificate would have helped massively: if the officials are prepared out of prejudice to ignore one legal document, I'm not sure they're going to pay attention to another. I'd like to know more about the enforceability in the US courts of both before commenting further, but for the moment, the jury's still out for me on the conflation point.

For the record (if it matters), I would have voted against Prop 8 had I been a Californian voter. That was my opinion yesterday and remains so today. It was the (as I perceived it) jumping on Duchess that got my goat.

...which brings me to my final point, and this kind of is behind my hyperbolic bleat about 'censorship' yesterday: in what way, if at all, is it possible to be a conservative Christian on this issue and express one's opinion accordingly on the Ship without being painted as a Bad Bigoted Person™? Or would you have it that you would only accept me and my thoughts if I change my mind and agree with you 100% on this point? Because it seems to me that that's the way the conversation is going... and I would be delighted to be disabused of that notion.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
People who voted for it did something more harmful than going up to a couple who want to get married and punching them.

Interesting. At the moment I'm unconvinced and would side with Matt Black on this one. I read your link above and while the hospital was entirely inhuman, the court ruling was that

quote:
the hospital has neither an obligation to allow their patients' visitors nor any obligation whatsoever to provide their patients' families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit.

This means, IIUC the hospital didn't have any obligation to allow the patient's family to visit. If the hospital recognised the visitor as family she would have had no right to visit just as much as if the hospital recognised her only as a 'friend'. The link doesn't have any quote from the hospital to say why the vistor was refused access to the dying woman's bedside and there is no evidence that this was because she was considered unmarried by the hospital. I'm unconvinced this is an example of how gay partners are treated by hospitals or that this would change if they had been legally recognised as married. Perhaps the bigotry of the hospital was the cause of this refusal, but this bigotry would have remained even if the visitor had been legally married. The culpability for the inhumananity of the people refusing access is totally and solely on the individuals who refused access.

In any case, trying to link physical violence with ticking a ballot box is a strange and unbalanced equation to make IMO. First you have to prove that not being lawfully married is somehow as wounding for gay partners as being physically attacked. I am unconvinced of this and your link is poor at convincing me. If you have better examples I would willingly read them though.

Second you would have to explain how one person's vote is as directly responsible for that wounding as if they directly attacked that couple. Surely it takes many votes to defeat or make a law and therefore the responsibility for its effects is shared.

The most important point though is the first. Please explain how not being allowed to marry is the same (or as you argue, worse) as being physically wounded.

[cross-posted with Matt Black]

[ 07. October 2009, 09:55: Message edited by: Hawk ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There is some research that shows that every time some bishop rants on homophobically, there is a rise in the number of attacks on LGBTs.

In the UK or the US?

I'm sure there is if you say so but a reference might convince me even more.

[ 07. October 2009, 13:10: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...is it possible to be a conservative Christian on this issue and express one's opinion accordingly on the Ship without being painted as a Bad Bigoted Person™

No, it's not. This thread seems to have morphed into something all about prop 8.
[quote code.]

[ 07. October 2009, 14:41: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There is some research that shows that every time some bishop rants on homophobically, there is a rise in the number of attacks on LGBTs.
In the UK or the US?

I'm sure there is if you say so but a reference might convince me even more.

I have read about it in newspapers but I don't keep a list of every article I read in case I need it to justify something I have said.

I am getting quite suspicious of people who say, in effect, 'Prove it.' when they read something that upsets their prejudices. The Ship seems particularly full of them. It shows a lack of trust and a desire to remain prejudiced.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

quote:
People who voted for it did something more harmful than going up to a couple who want to get married and punching them.

No, I have to agree with Louise. I've been punched in the face (during the course of my job, by a patron), and I've had the validity of my marriage questioned (by my husband, anyone who's been reading the prayer thread knows about this so I'm not letting out anything secret... we're going to counseling) and believe me, the punch in the face was much, much less hurtful.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There is some research that shows that every time some bishop rants on homophobically, there is a rise in the number of attacks on LGBTs.
In the UK or the US?

I'm sure there is if you say so but a reference might convince me even more.
I have read about it in newspapers but I don't keep a list of every article I read in case I need it to justify something I have said.

I am getting quite suspicious of people who say, in effect, 'Prove it.' when they read something that upsets their prejudices. The Ship seems particularly full of them. It shows a lack of trust and a desire to remain prejudiced.

So Ken asks a legitimate question and you attack him as prejudiced? IMO that's more suspicious in a debate. If someone says something controversial that I haven't heard of before am I not allowed to ask for more information? Especially if they are quoting 'research'.

If you said it was just something you thought, or heard of down the pub then fair enough and we're entitled to take you at your word or not depending on what we think of you. But claiming higher authority needs to be backed up. Usually it can't be and we all make a mental note and 'downgrade' the evidence to just 'what some anonymous poster said that one time'. But if that higher authority is actually presented then that has additional weight in a debate. And requesting that research is a sign of someone actively looking for more knowledge, certainly not someone trying to remain ignorant in their prejudices, as you are trying to paint them.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
However, the title of the thread was about whether conservatives oppose violence against gays and lesbians and, having answered unequivocally 'yes' to that, to then be told that that's not enough, that effectively you can't have or express a conservative Christian opinion on the issue, and the conflation of anti-gay violence with Duchess' vote did, I'm afraid raise my hackles.

Ok, back to the OP.

What does 'yes' look like?

Are conservatives supporting anti-bullying measures in the schools?
Are conservative supportive of legal measures that protect the minority that violence is being committed against?
Are conservatives supportive of steps to ensure that members of an acknowledged persecuted minority are receiving equal treatment under the law?

I'm not seeing it.

Morphed, hell. Institutionalization of discrimination about something as fundamental as state recognition of a committed relationship is simply another form of violence. "Meaning it in Christian Love" is no defense.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have read about it in newspapers but I don't keep a list of every article I read in case I need it to justify something I have said.

I am getting quite suspicious of people who say, in effect, 'Prove it.' when they read something that upsets their prejudices.

If you make your point by claiming "there is some research", it's not unreasonable for someone else to ask you what it is. Getting shirty about it is a sign of Really Bad Shit Man, according to some research.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:

What does 'yes' look like?
Are conservatives supporting anti-bullying measures in the schools?
Are conservative supportive of legal measures that protect the minority that violence is being committed against?
Are conservatives supportive of steps to ensure that members of an acknowledged persecuted minority are receiving equal treatment under the law?

I'm not seeing it.

Possibly because you're not looking. Even in Louise's link above, the Catholic priest helped the couple, being the only one who arranged a visit. I would have thought a Catholic would be quite conservative and probably disagreed with their sexual preference. Yet he was the only good guy in the story.

The problem is that conservative supporters aren't the most vocal, often good Christians don't advertise their works of aid and support, usually only the vocally violent do. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist, just because you don't see them.

Just because a person disagrees with someone's private affairs doesn't automatically mean they are active or passive persecutors of them. Trying to conflate the two is poor argument and seems to be trying to stir up trouble where none exists.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

One of the most difficult things that used to happen in NZ before legal same-sex civil unions were brought into law occurred around death. The body of the deceased could not be released to anyone except the next-of-kin. One's queer partner was not regarded as next-of-kin. This resulted in some truly hideous situations in which estranged family members prevented long time partners from being allowed to bury their beloved.

It has to be said that the coroners were mostly very sympathetic and polite about it, but "the law is the law" and they were required to follow it. When a friend's partner committed suicide, the coroner actually spent time with him and waited with him until the partner's sister arrived (fortunately a sympathetic sister).

Now, I don't really care whether you think a relationship is immoral. I do care whether you think it is OK for someone to be buried by people who have treated that person like garbage. I know that if my partner had died of the heart problem that required emergency treatment, at that time, her parents would have cut me completely out of the funeral. We had powers of attorney and all sorts of legal arrangements, but they stop at the point of death.

Fortunately, the law changed. And so have my parents-in-law.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Part of the problem with this debate, ISTM, is the current system of western politics - based around special interest groups.

Things get done in politics today by coalitions around key issues. Human nature being what it is, it is really hard to get people to agree on anything these days - therefore the 'voice' put out by various groups is usually black and white, without any nuance.

Generally conservatives (politically and theologically) are opposed to gay marriage and feel they can impact public policy if they put up a united front. As soon as nuance is added to the debate coalitions get scared that they will lose the majority vote they think they need.

I want to be clear, I'm not at all trying to justify this. I too am appalled that conservatives do not publicly speak out against violence to homosexuals. I'm just saying that our whole political process makes that hard to do. The bigger issue is the need to change how we do politics. (Indeed, I would argue that films like Milk protray how the gay rights movement only started to make ground when they started to adopt this style of politics themselves too - it is the only way to get things done at the moment but it actively encourages division and factionism, them and us mentality.)

Now, before I'm jumped upon for such a weak defense of the conservative position, let me put it the other way round for a moment ...

Around the globe many Christians are treated terribly for their faith - terrible violence is done to them. Frequently they are in areas of the world where Christian faith tends to be quite conservative. As a whole you don't tend to hear representatives of the gay lobby protesting against that specifically. I've certainly never encountered it in any of the public arenas that have been cited on this thread. I'm not at all surprised or angered by this though. Personally I wouldn't expect they'd be able to considering the (probably deserved) antipathy that parts of the gay community feel towards conservative Christianity.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I suspect that's because the conservative Christians who make it difficult for us live in the same country as us. Personally, the circle of gay friends I spend time with have a lot of concern about anyone who is persecuted for whatever reason - including Christians. We all donate money to causes promoted by Christian World Service or Caritas.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

The hospital did discriminate against the wife in a way they didn't against the biological family with no connection to the marriage. They treated the dying woman's sister completely differently.

quote:
Ms. Langbehn says she was repeatedly told to keep waiting. Then, at 11:30 p.m., Ms. Pond’s sister arrived at the unit. According to the lawsuit, the hospital workers immediately told her that Ms. Pond had been moved an hour earlier to the intensive care unit and provided her room number.

They then, when the lawsuit hit the fan, hid behind the broad powers they have to deny anyone access, despite the fact that in practice they were using those powers to discriminate against gay people.

Now you can argue that they'd be able to do this and weasel out anyway if the couple were legally married in that state, but it would be a lot less likely to happen. If you know people's relationships are not legally recognised in your state, it's far easier to treat people like shit and to assume that you're in the right and that the law will cover your arse in due course. Give legal status to relationships and you change the balance of power and presumptions, the wannabe anti-gay jobsworth has to think about whether they will get away with it in court. They're more likely to back off. It's also how you start to make this kind of discrimination unacceptable.

It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in some states in America. The case which finally broke that came in 1967. I'm sure there must have been hospitals where racists tried this kind of thing on too, but you don't hear about that now. Giving groups who are discriminated against the same legal rights as ourselves is one of the biggest steps we can take to stop this sort of thing happening, even if it wont work in every single case to begin with.

I personally think that to say 'we oppose violence' while voting for violations of people's lives is empty. If you vote to ban Catholic marriages, you might preen yourself on being superior to the 'Loyal Lodge of Pissed Up Proddies' who thump the occasional Celtic fan in the Gallowgate, but if you and your chums carry the vote, you've helped harm far more people - thousands of people, who could find themselves in problems when their partner is sick or dying or vulnerable.

I go through the roof when the response to this is along the lines of 'How dare the people whose relationships are penalised and undermined for our religious sensibilities say we're being nasty to them!' It's so oppressive to tell us we've damaged their lives when er... we have.

I can easily understand Prop 8 as a wound. I only have to look at my engagement ring and imagine how I'd feel if a bunch of religious conservatives got together to outlaw my ever getting married, to put me in a position where at my most vulnerable I might find people empowered to discriminate against me because of what they'd done, where I might not be able to protect my partner because of what they'd voted for.

I don't find that hard to understand.

L.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I suspect that's because the conservative Christians who make it difficult for us live in the same country as us. Personally, the circle of gay friends I spend time with have a lot of concern about anyone who is persecuted for whatever reason - including Christians. We all donate money to causes promoted by Christian World Service or Caritas.

Sure. I think that is quite likely to be true over most of the western world.

Although your response is no different from several posts previously on this thread from conservatives who abhor violence against homosexuals but just don't have a public voice to express that.

The fact that there is no public voice from the gay community loudly condemning violence against Christians across the globe does not lead me to assume that homosexuals condone it. Far from it, I assume that persecuted minorities are more likely to be sensitive to this issue. Why can't the reverse be true?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Because there is no country in the world where gays have the votes to enact legislation negatively impinging on the lives of Christians? Because there is nowhere in the world where gays are in the majority and subsets thereof go out picking fights with Christians or attack them in gangs. Because there is nowhere in the world where large numbers of gays denounce Christians from the pulpit, joining in with the voices of thousands of gay radio talk show hosts who speak out against the damage that Christians are doing to our country, founded on the principles of fag sex and democracy.

In fact nowhere outside your cranium are the roles anything like on a par, between Christians and gays.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because there is no country in the world where gays have the votes to enact legislation negatively impinging on the lives of Christians?

MT, I think your vision is coloured heavily by the fact you live in (just about) the only country in the world where conservatives do have the votes to carry that kind of power.

This thread has become about Prop 8. It wasn't originally.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because there is nowhere in the world where gays are in the majority and subsets thereof go out picking fights with Christians or attack them in gangs.

You know the sexual orientation of everyone who commits hate crimes around the world?

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because there is nowhere in the world where large numbers of gays denounce Christians from the pulpit, joining in with the voices of thousands of gay radio talk show hosts who speak out against the damage that Christians are doing to our country, founded on the principles of fag sex and democracy.

Now we're just counting numbers. I'm not crying 'victim' here. As I have said previously it is certainly not true that Christians face more persecution than gays in the western world. However, I've heard all of the above happen. Gays denouncing Christianity publicly. Gays saying that it is (conservative) Christianity that is at the root of what is wrong with our society. All the way back in the 80s Jimmy Somerville, the lead singer from Bronsky Beat, famously said, “As long as there are Christians, there will always be homophobia.” I'm not saying that is as bad as what some conservatives say, just that gays too can use the media to attack Christianity.

Now, again, this doesn't bother me. I don't feel oppressed by such views. If they want to say that then fine, I just disagree.

Once more I think the problem you see is actually with western democracy. What you seem to be saying is that we only expect grace and magnanimity from those with the loudest voice. What that means in practice is that no one has ever learnt how to be gracious before they are in the majority, and by then it is too late.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The fact that there is no public voice from the gay community loudly condemning violence against Christians across the globe does not lead me to assume that homosexuals condone it. Far from it, I assume that persecuted minorities are more likely to be sensitive to this issue. Why can't the reverse be true?

How much relevance would the comments of gay people have to Christians who abhor their very existence? I know from my own experience that I couldn't comment on anything in church circles without being shouted down for having the temerity to speak at all. So I make my donations and speak to those who will listen.

And really, we're not talking apples and apples here - the people who have a go at us for not speaking out against violence against Christians are not usually the Christians who are in danger. Christians aren't usually in any danger from gay people, either.

My local community includes a large Assyrian population with whom we have had a lot of contact. That particular community is very supportive of the gay people it knows because the gay people have been instrumental in helping them settle and learn NZ culture away from the brutal persecutions of Saddam Hussein. My partner set up an English class for the mothers at her school, for instance. Two other lesbian couples I can think of provided complete houselots of furniture for several refugee families by going round the neighbourhood soliciting donations.

For myself, neither gay people nor Christians are the main focus of my speaking out - I have far more concern for the children in our ordinary NZ families who are being beaten to death or serious injury on an alarmingly regular basis.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

No people don't get off the hook because they found a few anti-gay texts in the Bible - the Bible is not there for us to look for textual loopholes which allow us to hurt and damage our neighbours in defiance of all we've been told about loving them. If you're applying the Bible and the end result is destroying relationships where people love, honour and protect each other while harming no-one, then you're doing it wrong.

L.

Just wanted to pick up on this part of what you said: it implies at least the assumption that we (ie conservative Christians) are zealously searching the Scriptures desperate to find passages which can support our rampant homophobia so that we can with a clear conscience stand and jeer on the picket lines with mad bad Fred Phelps and his inbred hillbilly family. So, no, to set the record straight on behalf of myself and I think most conservatice Christians (or at least the ones I know), we're not looking for 'textual loopholes' in that way. I for one would much rather that those passages weren't there at all (along with quite a few others in the Bible, some of which have made it onto the Chapter and Worse board). But they are there and, short of a massive sea-change in the extremely liberal direction of my view of Scripture (which I'm presently unable to do, much as I'm sure you would demand this of me), I can't glibly dismiss them as mere 'textual loopholes'.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:

And really, we're not talking apples and apples here - the people who have a go at us for not speaking out against violence against Christians are not usually the Christians who are in danger.

I don't think you took it that way, but just to make it clear - I wasn't 'having a go at you' at all. Your response seems perfectly normal to me.

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
For myself, neither gay people nor Christians are the main focus of my speaking out - I have far more concern for the children in our ordinary NZ families who are being beaten to death or serious injury on an alarmingly regular basis.

Absolutely. That was my main point above - i.e. that it cuts both ways. Despite this thread most Christians I know are just looking to help those who need help in our local community whatever sexual orientation or religious background. In my conservative ghetto I don't know anyone who would ever condone violence to homosexuals.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
I'm not seeing it.
Possibly because you're not looking.

Right.

An excerpt:

quote:
Most Democrats voted for the measure, as did more than 40 Republicans.

Republicans who opposed the measure said Democrats were essentially forcing through contentious social policy by tying it to a highly popular measure that authorizes military pay, benefits, weapons programs and other essentials for the armed forces. Even some Republican members of the Armed Services Committee who helped write the underlying legislation said they would oppose it solely because of the hate-crimes provision.

“We believe this is a poison pill, poisonous enough that we refuse to be blackmailed into voting for a piece of social agenda that has no place in this bill,” said Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a senior Republican member of the committee.

Republicans also criticized the substance of the legislation as an effort to prosecute “thought crimes” in which the motivation of the attacker has to be discerned.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, called it radical social policy. “The idea that we’re going to pass a law that’s going to add further charges to someone based on what they may have been thinking, I think is wrong,” he said.

Good on them 40+ Republicans, btw.

But as for the others, I fail to see how it is a "radical social policy" to define a few groups who are consistently at the receiving end of violence, in numerous emotional and physical forms, because of innate characteristics of those groups. Why is it any more radical for folks who are on the receiving end because of gender presentation or sexual orientation viz a viz ethnicity or gender?

What I read clearly between the lines is:
"We don't want those faggots, dykes and trannies to get recognition as a protected class." I can only guess as to their motives to that end.

I'm looking. I'm still not seeing.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
I'm looking. I'm still not seeing.

Ok, you've lost me now. Perhaps you're talking about something different but I was responding to what I thought was your argument that conservatives don't oppose anti-gay persecution.

You posted:

quote:
What does 'yes' look like?

...Are conservative supportive of legal measures that protect the minority that violence is being committed against?
Are conservatives supportive of steps to ensure that members of an acknowledged persecuted minority are receiving equal treatment under the law?

I'm not seeing it.

Then I pointed out that yes, sometimes conservatives do support gay rights.

Then in response, you say that more than 40 Republicans voted for gay rights protection in a controversial hate crimes bill.

Then you say you still can't see any conservative support of equal rights.

[Confused]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:

What I read clearly between the lines is:
"We don't want those faggots, dykes and trannies to get recognition as a protected class." I can only guess as to their motives to that end.

I'm looking. I'm still not seeing. [/QB]

What I read between the lines is: "We don't actually care that much about gays one way or the other, but we know that people who actively or passively approve of (or actively enjoy) beating them up mostly vote Republican, and we aren't going to risk alienating a significant chunk of our base when we're in the minority."

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Then I pointed out that yes, sometimes conservatives do support gay rights.

Then in response, you say that more than 40 Republicans voted for gay rights protection in a controversial hate crimes bill.

Then you say you still can't see any conservative support of equal rights.

Fair point. "any" is wrong.

It is noteworthy that 40 Republicans voted for the bill because it's unexpected and rare.

So -- what were their reasons for doing so?

Did they vote for the bill because they wanted to support the hate crimes attachment or because they wanted to pass the bill in spite of the hate crimes attachment?

That latter seems more plausible to me than the former.

(fixed code)

[ 19. October 2009, 19:44: Message edited by: iGeek ]

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Its a fair point - the Homosexual Law Reform Act passed in NZ because of conservative support (and a bit of finagling to keep one particular liberal out of the House that night). The Human Rights Amendment Act was introduced to the House by a member of the more conservative party.

The Civil Unions Bill was debated across party lines, with some personally supportive conservatives twisting themselves in knots to stay within their party line. Not a pretty sight, particularly the Leader saying some fairly strange things about gay lifestyles and then having to weather a barrage of questions about his own less than savoury marriage breakup and affair. He sank himself, rather.

And no parliamentarian actively supported the Nazi style rally by the Destiny Church against civil unions.

[ 20. October 2009, 03:10: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
It is noteworthy that 40 Republicans voted for the bill because it's unexpected and rare.

I don't see it as that unexpected and rare. I'm not completely au fait with Republican politics so if you want to make that point you'll have to back it up with evidence. AFAIK at the moment (especially after Arabella's post) It's only noteworthy because you've made it noteworthy. It's your personal opinion that republicans, by their very nature, don't support gay rights. That makes any evidence that opposes your viewpoint noteworthy. OTOH if we reject your pre-existing opinion then it's not particularly noteworthy, it's just another day of politics.

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
So -- what were their reasons for doing so?

Did they vote for the bill because they wanted to support the hate crimes attachment or because they wanted to pass the bill in spite of the hate crimes attachment?

That latter seems more plausible to me than the former.

That seems to me, from just reading your post, as only a guess based on your pre-existing prejudice against conservatives. If you have a reason for your choice of plausibility though please share. As I said, I'm not very knowledgable about gay rights in US politics so you'll have to help me with a bit of information, not just opinion.

IMHO, from reading the article, I understood that the attachment wasn't a sticking point for the conservatives, just the method the Democrats used of sticking it onto a popular bill in a stealth tactic, which is a bit of a dirty trick in my opinion, whatever bill or attachment is being talked about.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
It is noteworthy that 40 Republicans voted for the bill because it's unexpected and rare.
I don't see it as that unexpected and rare. I'm not completely au fait with Republican politics so if you want to make that point you'll have to back it up with evidence. AFAIK at the moment (especially after Arabella's post) It's only noteworthy because you've made it noteworthy. It's your personal opinion that republicans, by their very nature, don't support gay rights. That makes any evidence that opposes your viewpoint noteworthy. OTOH if we reject your pre-existing opinion then it's not particularly noteworthy, it's just another day of politics.

The U.S. Republican party has an electoral strategy referred to domestically as "the Three G's", God, Guns, and (rhetorical) Gay-bashing. The 2008 Republican national platform explicitly calls for an amendment to the federal constitution banning same-sex marriage nationally and implicitly opposes adoptions by gays (p. 53-54). Running against what they call "the gay agenda" is a staple of most Republican political campaigns. Let's not forget that this is the party where Pat Robertson was able to get over a million votes in his 1988 presidential primary run. The idea that the Republican party has a strong anti-gay institutional bent is fairly uncontroversial within the U.S.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

And to be fair again, NZ is most definitely NOT the USA! We don't have anything like the degree of religious politicking here, which is why the Destiny Church rally went down like a lead balloon - lesbian and gay people came out of that one looking like a Sunday School picnic in comparison.

The local "Christian" political parties have never gained much traction, mainly because they are so out of touch with reality, and overtly Christian members of other parties don't generally emphasise their faith. There has been at least one instance of a rich church group trying to swing things their way (the Exclusive Brethren paid a substantial amount of money to the National Party) but it all ended in tears.

There is some anti-gay crime here, and certainly plenty of anti-gay bullying in schools, but government and the public service deal with it reasonably well (well, apart from the Police, where it really depends on location as to the response).

I don't expect any public comment from church leaders on social issues - I look to non-government organisations for that.

Posted by sandushinka (# 13021) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Firstly, you have the disgraceful conduct and disregard by both the hospital and the court (the judge should be shot for misadvising himself so badly) of the Power of Attorney document which, certainly under English and Welsh law, would have given the partner access to her dying loved one and also some say over treatment in certain circumstances.

While the power of attorney does give you the right to make decisions, it doesn't guarantee access, that's just for family members. One of my friends had a heart attack about 10 years ago. His partner wasn't allowed to be with him even though he had a POA doc. They told him he could make decisions but not be with him. They finally relented when the friend with the heart attack started pulling out his IVs and told them he was going to walk out and die on the hospital doorstep (and knowing him, I believe he meant it). Powers of attorney give you the right to act for a person. They do not guarantee access to the person.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

For a conservative Christian group or church or leader, who teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong, to take a public stand against violence against LGBT persons would be a very ideal, saintly thing to do, and I would LOVE to see it. It probably does happen in private (e.g., as part of a sermon) or on really local levels that just don't make the news. But I'm not sure we can require anyone to do something that would be ideal and saintly.

There are lots of other good causes all of us should be involved with and aren't.

Obviously, a big part of this is making the case that such conservative groups are actually implicated in the violence and therefore do have some obligation to do something in this particular cause.

Which is hard to do, because we're dealing in generalities. Most of us liberals (myself included) have some fuzzy sense that the message put out there by conservative Christians that homosexuality is wrong, sinful, inherently disordered, etc., really does contribute to the violence; but you can't very often lay the blame on any one individual or group. So every individual or group can, rightly, say, "I don't condone violence against LGBT people."

On top of that, in an age where we don't even go to the trouble of doing the grammar necessary to construct slogans, but rely on buzz-words and sound-bytes, for any conservative group to participate in a public event denouncing homophobia or violence against LGBT people is a huge risk - it would likely sever some relationships they have with otherwise like-minded groups, and would lead to them being associated with non-like-minded groups in people's minds. That's not a very good excuse, of course, but it is a very human one. Would very many liberals want to be photographed with Dick Cheney, e.g., if they were at an event about the one thing they both happened to agree on?

So I think it's understandable - the fear that speaking out against anti-LGBT violence might dilute their message/threaten their financial resources (so they can't do other good work they normally do)/get them labeled as liberals or liberal-sympathizers, etc. But I also think that identifying that as a fear should carry with it its own challenge to overcome that fear for the sake of the Gospel.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sandushinka:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Firstly, you have the disgraceful conduct and disregard by both the hospital and the court (the judge should be shot for misadvising himself so badly) of the Power of Attorney document which, certainly under English and Welsh law, would have given the partner access to her dying loved one and also some say over treatment in certain circumstances.
While the power of attorney does give you the right to make decisions, it doesn't guarantee access, that's just for family members. One of my friends had a heart attack about 10 years ago. His partner wasn't allowed to be with him even though he had a POA doc. They told him he could make decisions but not be with him. They finally relented when the friend with the heart attack started pulling out his IVs and told them he was going to walk out and die on the hospital doorstep (and knowing him, I believe he meant it). Powers of attorney give you the right to act for a person. They do not guarantee access to the person.

I'll have to defer to your knowledge of US law here, but over here a Lasting Power of Attorney (Personal Welfare) would, I think, guarantee access, since it gives the Attorney legal power to consent or refuse to treatment and also, by extension, allows the Attorney to act in that context as if s/he were the Donor, including controlling access to the hospital bed of the Donor (unless of course there were pressing medical reasons eg: the medics were in the middle of trying to resuscitate the patient).

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
For a conservative Christian group or church or leader, who teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong, to take a public stand against violence against LGBT persons would be a very ideal, saintly thing to do, and I would LOVE to see it....
Obviously, a big part of this is making the case that such conservative groups are actually implicated in the violence and therefore do have some obligation to do something in this particular cause.

And right there is where you lose your audience. I don’t think your second point is an obvious condition of the first and I don’t think it is necessary to prove the second in order to encourage the first. If you could try and put aside this attitude of hostility towards the people you are trying to encourage then the message would be listened to and the sense could be seen. It is an ideal, saintly act for someone to stand up for people they do not agree with. It is a very Christian message. This message would be very powerful and could change minds, if only it could be separated it from this counter-productive obsession with trying to implicate people in violence who have taken no part in it.

I do not believe that someone who disagrees with homosexual marriage or homosexuality as compatible with Christian living, is obviously or necessarily implicit in violence against homosexuals. Obviously you disagree but I would argue that your attempts to prove your argument are damaging the very cause you are fighting for. It would be a powerful and important thing for conservative preachers to speak against the violence, but with this link of implication in place they would be loath to do it as they would see it as admitting culpability, which they do not accept. If this link can be broken down then they would be free to oppose violence, without admitting guilt in a crime they see themselves as innocent of.

The more that people argue that conservatives are guilty and are ‘obliged’ to defend homosexuals, the less likely this is to happen. If you want conservative support then it would be nice if you could work with the conservatives rather than oppose and attack them.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Hear hear!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Attack on a Gay man in Liverpool. [Votive]

An opportunity here for genuinely conservative Christians to show some "love for the sinner", beyond a few words.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Hope the swines get caught and go away for a long long stretch. [Votive]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Thanks Matt.

The assult on James Parkes, an openly gay police trainee, is hardly isolated. Homophobic assaults in the Metrolitan Police area.

What I am really waiting for is something from one of the big Con/Evo churches, the Christian Legal Centre or even Christian Voice on this. Wait: Christian Voice does have something in that ballpark: homosexuality in the Police. Helpful as ever.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

It would indeed be nice to have con-evo churches and organisations speak out against such hate crimes, but bloody annoyingly they don't seem to, possibly for the reasons suggested by churchgeek (although I'm not convinced totally by that explanation; I think it's mainly just plain bloody insensitivity, not registering on the radar etc). Here's to the day when they do...

Posted by uncletoby (# 13067) on :

In other news, draconian anti-gay laws are being proposed in Uganda. I agree that it is important to make a distinction between those who hold the view that homosexual sex is wrong on the one hand, and those who incite or perpetrate anti-gay violence on the other. However, it is difficult for conservatives in the US and Europe to defend this distinction when their allies in Africa are backing this sort of thing.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Part of the problem is that those who commit hate crimes usually sincerely believe that what they're doing is tacitly supported by their community. They believe that while they're the ones with the 'courage' to take direct action, everyone else (or at least everyone who counts) approves what they're doing. A stern denunciation every so often from anti-gay authority figures could go a long way to counter this.

For example, this statement by evangelical leader and Republican Presidential candidate Pat Robertson claims that homosexuals don't really want to get married, but are deceptively claiming so in order to "destroy marriage and some of the other things that we have in our society." Pat follows up by reinforcing the notion that everyone dislikes gays and his co-host advocates a more directly confrontational approach. While not overtly calling for violence, this seems deliberately geared towards reinforcing prejudices that deceptive, conniving homosexuals are secretly at work to undermine all that is good and that someone should do something more than just pray about it (wink, nudge).

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Thanks Matt.

The assult on James Parkes, an openly gay police trainee, is hardly isolated. Homophobic assaults in the Metrolitan Police area.

What I am really waiting for is something from one of the big Con/Evo churches, the Christian Legal Centre or even Christian Voice on this. Wait: Christian Voice does have something in that ballpark: homosexuality in the Police. Helpful as ever.

It's amazing that Stephen Green actually posted the replies from the various Cheif Constables on his site. True, some of them were anodyne politspeak, but others ranged from pithy (North Wales Police), to the pointed (North Yorkshire), the "get off my team" angry (Dyfed/Powys) and the imperious put-down (Lincolnshire). Not sure what it does for Green, but it has certainly heartened me!

By the way, Mr Green, in what universe does encouraging people to report violentoffences to the police equal "promoting homosexuality? Wingnut!

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There is some research that shows that every time some bishop rants on homophobically, there is a rise in the number of attacks on LGBTs.
In the UK or the US?

I'm sure there is if you say so but a reference might convince me even more.
I have read about it in newspapers but I don't keep a list of every article I read in case I need it to justify something I have said.

I am getting quite suspicious of people who say, in effect, 'Prove it.' when they read something that upsets their prejudices. The Ship seems particularly full of them. It shows a lack of trust and a desire to remain prejudiced.

Actually I think its pretty sensible, and I'm pro-LGBT inclusion etc etc. Why should I trust something posted by a stranger on an online forum 'just because'? I can't quite imagine your average low-life knowing or caring what some unfashionable old God-botherer in a funny dress said about gays in yesterday's Times. They certainly aren't taking much notice of them when they call for love or justice or a return to Christianity.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

People do have selective hearing. If somebody says something you want to hear, you might well listen, even if you wouldn't listen to that person if they said something you're not willing to hear. I find that's true for myself here on the ship; I can't believe it's not also true for people out in the real world hearing condemnations of GLBT's.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Mousethief,
I'm not sure. It think Christian leaders are considered so irrelevant here in the UK that its hard to imagine them having any influence on non-Christians below a certain age. And the things conservatives over here say about LGBTs are very, very mild compared to what you'll hear in the US (at least in public, although I haven't heard anyone say anything very strong in private either). Stephen Green is striking precisely because he's so incredibly OTT by UK standards.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Certainly things are different w.r.t. religion on this side of the pond than on the other side. There are a lot more people over here (percentagewise) who self-identify as Christian -- whether or not they beat up gays. I'm not as sure as some of the posters on this thread seem to be that all the people who physically abuse GLBT's are non-churchgoers. ISTM that churchgoers are far more likely to do so.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

I would be interested to see the numbers on this, if there are any.

Posted by babelinterpreter (# 15234) on :

I've been trying to get my Episcopalian brothers & sisters to realize one thing: the crisis of the orthodytes is THEIR crisis, not ours. Really, there is very little about their bibliolatry that need concern us, little in their theology worth a damn, almost nothing outside their diocesse that their fat faces can evoke! Why are they so FAT?!

I pray constantly, almost without interruption, for Fathers Iker, Duncan, et al. Can they hold up when the bottom and the money fall out? I think not. Very little of this in America will turn out well.

But then, they are leaving us for Africa, land of enlightenment, hope of the persecuters, continent of failed states. Or Southern Cone, perhaps a more serious involvement. What shall we Episcopalians do but dwindle in numbers?!

Well, I drift a bit here. One cannot prescribe mental health for entire continents. But they might look at the anthropology of what they are doing. They might look at Girard on scapegoating. Hell, they might even look at the Bible for edifying passages on that! As if they could. . . .

One aspect of crisis--Girardian mimetic crisis-- is that noone can easily release him/herself from it: one is caught up in the urge to kill or eject the offender, who often has no relation to the community except to be present when the crisis hits. Or the relationship may be present but not causative--too beautiful, too ugly, too old, you name it.

I really believe this is what Jesus saves us from--the urge to kill the exceptional in a crisis. You only have to read Thucydides on the plague to realize to what lengths adults, presumably rational, will go to eliminate a threat to community. Or Oedipus Rex.

It's not only that, but it is also the case that we cannot eliminate it--the scapegoating--by wishing it away (a common Episcopalian response) but only by standing up to it and assuming the mantle of justice. That works once. The deeper problem is making justice part of everything we do. Being Christians. Being human.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Hi, babelinterpreter, and welcome to the Ship.
I'm sure that a Host will be along in short order to do the formals, but in the meantime, I wish you bon voyage!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I think I need a babelinterpreter [Frown]

Perhaps its just my circadian tea deficiency but I have to say I ha e very little idea what this means, though it looks very abusive. I can't even tell what side of the argument its meant to be on:

quote:
Originally posted by babelinterpreter:
I've been trying to get my Episcopalian brothers & sisters to realize one thing: the crisis of the orthodytes is THEIR crisis, not ours. Really, there is very little about their bibliolatry that need concern us, little in their theology worth a damn, almost nothing outside their diocesse that their fat faces can evoke! Why are they so FAT?!

Though I think I know what this means:

quote:

But then, they are leaving us for Africa, land of enlightenment, hope of the persecuters, continent of failed states.

And it doesn't sound at all pretty coming from the keyboard of someone I assume is a white American.

quote:

Well, I drift a bit here. One cannot prescribe mental health for entire continents.

You don't have to. Your belief that Africa is the home of mental illness tells us where you are coming from already.

Well, it might, except that:

quote:

But they might look at the anthropology of what they are doing. They might look at Girard on scapegoating. Hell, they might even look at the Bible for edifying passages on that! As if they could. . . .

One aspect of crisis--Girardian mimetic crisis-- is that noone can easily release him/herself from it: one is caught up in the urge to kill or eject the offender, who often has no relation to the community except to be present when the crisis hits.

and the rest of your post looks like incoherent off-topic waffle to me.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
I'm not as sure as some of the posters on this thread seem to be that all the people who physically abuse GLBT's are non-churchgoers. ISTM that churchgoers are far more likely to do so.

Not in the UK apparently. I don't recall hearing of a single incident of LGBTs being physically attacked by practising Christians. And I think I would have heard about it, simply because I read liberal papers, which are very quick to publish anything that makes Christianity look bad. At least judging by media reports of specific incidents, most attackers in the UK seem to be either young thugs picking on anyone who stands out or unstable people on the margins of society. As a small minority in a secular society most UK conservatives meet gay people in their day to day lives - LGBTs can't be reduced to some kind of abstract dehumanised Other quite as easily. Demonising all UK conservative Catholics or evangelicals are knuckle-dragging homophobes one step away from a queer-bashing incident isn't going to move the cause of LGBT inclusion even one inch forward.

PS If someone can dig up some reliable stats on attacks I'm happy to change my mind.

[ 29. October 2009, 10:15: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
I'm not as sure as some of the posters on this thread seem to be that all the people who physically abuse GLBT's are non-churchgoers. ISTM that churchgoers are far more likely to do so.
Not in the UK apparently. I don't recall hearing of a single incident of LGBTs being physically attacked by practising Christians. And I think I would have heard about it, simply because I read liberal papers, which are very quick to publish anything that makes Christianity look bad.

Hmm. There are a lot of factors to consider here. First, there's the difference in sample sizes. In the UK, churchgoers are massively outnumbered by non-churchgoers, which isn't true in the US, so you'd expect a much smaller percentage of attacks to be committed by professed Christians. There's also a very obviously different culture among those churchgoers, and a different demographic makeup. If attacks are committed overwhelmingly by, say, working-class males aged 21-40, and they're proportionally under-represented within the church, that reduces the expected incidence of attacks by Christians still further. And of course, there's the matter of how cases are reported.

The problem of "churnalism" has been well-documented, and it may make it harder to get at the truth. Reports of attacks are easy to come by, usually via local papers in the first instance, and will be used from time to time if the attack is serious and the paper needs to fill some space, but at that stage, there will be no indication of the motivation of any attack beyond gay-bashing. That information is only likely to come out if the attackers are caught and tried, and maybe not even then. To identify an attack as specifically Christian would therefore require a lot of research and a close interest in the case, all on a massive fishing expedition, as I'm fairly sure that statistics on the church attendance habits of different sorts of attackers aren't generally collected. Even if a link was demonstrated, it would only be a big story, rather than a small column at the bottom of page 17, if it became a pattern. I doubt any media organisation would sanction that kind of speculative investment of time and money these days.

In any case, leo's original vague claim, which was rightly challenged, was that attacks went up whenever "some bishop rants on homophobically". That spares us the difficulty of divining the motivation for a given attack to prove the link, but it raises further questions. What is the timeframe for this effect? Does it matter where and when the bishop "rants"? How is the difference determined between a "rant" and considered opposition to certain practices, while endorsing tolerance and respect? How did the study control for other anti-gay "noise" in the media?

Without that information, there's no way of telling whether the study's conclusions are valid, or even what they are, seeing that all leo said was that:

quote:
There is some research that shows that every time some bishop rants on homophobically, there is a rise in the number of attacks on LGBTs

I very much doubt that the study's conclusion was presented in those terms, and Google's turned up nothing around the obvious keywords, so until and unless some sort of link is presented, I'll regard it as unproven assertion.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not as sure as some of the posters on this thread seem to be that all the people who physically abuse GLBT's are non-churchgoers. ISTM that churchgoers are far more likely to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not in the UK apparently. I don't recall hearing of a single incident of LGBTs being physically attacked by practising Christians. And I think I would have heard about it, simply because I read liberal papers, which are very quick to publish anything that makes Christianity look bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm. There are a lot of factors to consider here. First, there's the difference in sample sizes. In the UK, churchgoers are massively outnumbered by non-churchgoers, which isn't true in the US, so you'd expect a much smaller percentage of attacks to be committed by professed Christians. There's also a very obviously different culture among those churchgoers, and a different demographic makeup. If attacks are committed overwhelmingly by, say, working-class males aged 21-40, and they're proportionally under-represented within the church, that reduces the expected incidence of attacks by Christians still further. And of course, there's the matter of how cases are reported.

Thats all fair, but one facet of that "obviously different culture" is that UK churchgoers also do hear alot of teaching about loving others. I'm not sure why by one sermon telling an evangelical that certain forms of sexual activity are wrong should outweigh the numerous sermons that same evangelical will hear pretty effectively implying that attacking other people physically is not exactly the Christian way.

I guess given how little influence the UK church now has I'm not convinced that it can have much impact on attitudes to LGBT people either way. If it could then why have LGBT rights already made huge strides despite widespread Christian opposition or ambivalance? IMO we Christians sometimes find it hard to admit how insignificant we actually are. Both sides seem to think that if the church only threw its weight behind one side or the other society as a whole would see the light. This isn't really true.

[ 29. October 2009, 14:28: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Thats all fair, but one facet of that "obviously different culture" is that UK churchgoers also do hear alot of teaching about loving others.

That surely depends on the church in question. More so than in the US? I don't have first-hand experience of church across the pond, but they don't all fit the raving, Bible-thumping, fag-hating, Fundy Baptist stereotype, and our churches don't all fit the nice, polite, middle-class, St Irrelevant-on-the-Wold stereotype.

I'm not offering any answers, although I'd tentatively agree with your assessment of Christian gay-bashing in the UK, just pointing out how difficult it is to reach a sound conclusion.

Posted by uncletoby (# 13067) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I don't recall hearing of a single incident of LGBTs being physically attacked by practising Christians. And I think I would have heard about it, simply because I read liberal papers, which are very quick to publish anything that makes Christianity look bad.

I would be inclined to agree with this. I would guess that the people who beat up gays are often the same people who vandalise churches. Attacks - such as the recent one in Liverpool - are often carried out by teenagers, and I think in such cases their identities are not made known. The homophobic lyrics sometimes found in hip hop and reggae songs would be likely to have far more influence on this demographic than the statements of Church of England Bishops. And if attacks are religiously-motivated, there is no reason to assume that the religion is Christianity. But it may not be possible to find out if there is a connection between religion and homophobic attacks, given that information about teenage attackers may not be in the public domain.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I agree that it would be well-nigh impossible to demonstrate either which way, but I would be very surprised it it was Christians perpertrating the violence; somehow I can't see the average con-evo place saying, "And after the final hymn, we'll go out for a bit of gay-bashing and come back here for coffee and biscuits at half eleven". At least not in this country; I can't speak for the States.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I agree that it would be well-nigh impossible to demonstrate either which way, but I would be very surprised it it was Christians perpertrating the violence; somehow I can't see the average con-evo place saying, "And after the final hymn, we'll go out for a bit of gay-bashing and come back here for coffee and biscuits at half eleven". At least not in this country; I can't speak for the States.

Nobody is suggesting it's the churches themselves that are inviting the violence (directly) -- I'm saying it's individual (or small-grouped) members taking matters into their own hands, extrapolating on the lessons in gay-hating that they have heard from the pulpit.

Also I'd guess it's not the con-evos but the hyperfundamentalists further down the food chain.

[ 29. October 2009, 15:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody is suggesting it's the churches themselves that are inviting the violence (directly) -- I'm saying it's individual (or small-grouped) members taking matters into their own hands, extrapolating on the lessons in gay-hating that they have heard from the pulpit.

Also I'd guess it's not the con-evos but the hyperfundamentalists further down the food chain.

Sometimes it is the church that's inviting the violence.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

We don't really have much in the way of hyperfundies in England; those that are tend to keep themselves to themselves, like the Exclusive Brethren.

[ETA - Also, I've been in various varieties of con-evo congos for over 20 years and I don't think I've ever heard an 'anti-gay' (for want of a better term) sermon; such homophobic rhetoric as I have heard from con-evos has been on an individual, private basis. As I say, that may be just a UK thing.]

[ 29. October 2009, 16:10: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Thank you for posting that, Croesos. That's revolting. Such hate in the name of Christ. You wonder if there weren't homosexuals in this world, who these people would turn their hate on. Because clearly the bottom line is hate.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Reminds me of Niemoller's words. Chilling.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uncletoby:

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I don't recall hearing of a single incident of LGBTs being physically attacked by practising Christians. And I think I would have heard about it, simply because I read liberal papers, which are very quick to publish anything that makes Christianity look bad.
I would be inclined to agree with this. I would guess that the people who beat up gays are often the same people who vandalise churches. Attacks - such as the recent one in Liverpool - are often carried out by teenagers, and I think in such cases their identities are not made known. The homophobic lyrics sometimes found in hip hop and reggae songs would be likely to have far more influence on this demographic than the statements of Church of England Bishops. And if attacks are religiously-motivated, there is no reason to assume that the religion is Christianity. But it may not be possible to find out if there is a connection between religion and homophobic attacks, given that information about teenage attackers may not be in the public domain.

I do not store up every piece of information that comes my way just in case I need to quote it to back up an argument.

However, I have dealt, in my teaching career, with a group of black teenagers who harassed and spat upon a boy who was perceived as being gay. They used 'battyman;. Then 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.' Also, 'If you don't change you're going to Hell.'

If it wasn't open to litigation, I could tell you their names and the church they all attended.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
We don't really have much in the way of hyperfundies in England; those that are tend to keep themselves to themselves, like the Exclusive Brethren.

[ETA - Also, I've been in various varieties of con-evo congos for over 20 years and I don't think I've ever heard an 'anti-gay' (for want of a better term) sermon; such homophobic rhetoric as I have heard from con-evos has been on an individual, private basis. As I say, that may be just a UK thing.]

I haven't heard an 'anti-gay' sermon, but I have heard a few that condemn homosexual acts in amongst a lot of other stuff. At least the sermons only describe certain acts as sin, so people are thinking.

What I haven't heard much of is outright condemnation of violence against Lesbians and Gays.

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

Just as it is not necessary to always balance a condemnation of anti-gay violence with a condemnation of sodomy to satisfy anti-gay activists, it is not necessary for conservative Christians to condemn violence against gays in the same breath as a condemnation of homosexual sex. It is a tedious and tiresome exercise in political correctness. Nevertheless, sometimes such exercises are warranted and helpful, such as this letter to gays from Archbishop Donald Wuerl in connection with the proposed same-sex "marriage" legislation in the District of Columbia. While not explicitly condemning violence as such, that is readily implicit in the letter.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If it prevents some conservative "Christian" yob from beating up a gay person then it's a little more than "political correctness" -- which is itself a meaningless term used by conservatives to justify not acting charitably.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I've quoted J.K.Galbraith once before:

quote:
"the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."- John Kenneth Galbraith on modern conservatism

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
Just as it is not necessary to always balance a condemnation of anti-gay violence with a condemnation of sodomy to satisfy anti-gay activists, it is not necessary for conservative Christians to condemn violence against gays in the same breath as a condemnation of homosexual sex. It is a tedious and tiresome exercise in political correctness. Nevertheless, sometimes such exercises are warranted and helpful, such as this letter to gays from Archbishop Donald Wuerl in connection with the proposed same-sex "marriage" legislation in the District of Columbia. While not explicitly condemning violence as such, that is readily implicit in the letter.

It is a sensitive and positive guide while maintaining the position of the RCC (in my opinion, and I am British, heterosexual and only by baptism a Roman Catholic) but, and I may be a little dim this morning, I can't see anything in it resembling condemnation of anything, implicit or otherwise. Somebody point the words out to me please!

The explicit statement of pastoral care and support of the local church is welcome, but surely more than that is needed to counter anti-gay violence and the lunatic fringe exemplified by the "Watchmen" on your side of the Pond and "Christian Voice" over here.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I do not store up every piece of information that comes my way just in case I need to quote it to back up an argument.

That's fine, but in that case, you can't quote it to back up your argument.

quote:
However, I have dealt, in my teaching career, with a group of black teenagers who harassed and spat upon a boy who was perceived as being gay. They used 'battyman;. Then 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.' Also, 'If you don't change you're going to Hell.'

If it wasn't open to litigation, I could tell you their names and the church they all attended.

Ah, argument by anecdote! It doesn't prove anything, but it prompts some thoughts. There are masses of unknowns, but I wonder to what extent such behaviour is caused by anti-gay preaching, and to what extent such preaching constitutes a handy taunt to justify bullying that would happen anyway. I could name a couple of boys at my school who were remorselessly bullied by most of the school for acting gay - I doubt they'd all been listening to hellfire sermons each week, but I have no doubt that a catchy slogan like "Adam and Steve", however crass, would have been used with relish.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I thought that quote came from Little Richard, not the Bible, anyway?

Posted by uncletoby (# 13067) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, I have dealt, in my teaching career, with a group of black teenagers who harassed and spat upon a boy who was perceived as being gay. They used 'battyman;. Then 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.' Also, 'If you don't change you're going to Hell.'

If it wasn't open to litigation, I could tell you their names and the church they all attended.

In a way this parellels some of the discussions on the Christianity and Democracy thread in Purgatory. I think it is possible to argue that, the ancient Greek roots of democracy notwithstanding, it is impossible to disentangle western democracy from its Christian heritage. Sadly, the same is probably true of western homophobia.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uncletoby:
Sadly, the same is probably true of western homophobia.

As most European and African cultures suppressed male homosexuality very nastily before they were Christian, that can't be true.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I thought that quote came from Little Richard, not the Bible, anyway?

"Adam and Steve" is from Anita Bryant.

Posted by uncletoby (# 13067) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by uncletoby:
Sadly, the same is probably true of western homophobia.
As most European and African cultures suppressed male homosexuality very nastily before they were Christian, that can't be true.

I'm not sure that that follows. The fact that democracy existed in ancient Greece does not, to my mind, undermine the theory that the actual development of democracy in Europe and America owes a lot to its Christian heritage.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by uncletoby:
Sadly, the same is probably true of western homophobia.
As most European and African cultures suppressed male homosexuality very nastily before they were Christian, that can't be true.

What's your evidence for this?

There is a book written by a priest/historian who argues completely against this.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uncletoby:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by uncletoby:
Sadly, the same is probably true of western homophobia.
As most European and African cultures suppressed male homosexuality very nastily before they were Christian, that can't be true.
I'm not sure that that follows. The fact that democracy existed in ancient Greece does not, to my mind, undermine the theory that the actual development of democracy in Europe and America owes a lot to its Christian heritage.

I don't want to get dogpiled by economic historians on this*, but I would suggest that the growth of democracy from 12th century had more to do with the increasing importance of trade and the merchant classes, than with Christianity.

*But if they want to put me straight, please go ahead.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There is a book written by a priest/historian who argues completely against this.

Special pleading I'm afraid, as well as transporting our ideas of "sexuality" anachronistically into culture where it hadn't yet been invented.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There is a book written by a priest/historian who argues completely against this.
Special pleading I'm afraid, as well as transporting our ideas of "sexuality" anachronistically into culture where it hadn't yet been invented.

I agree that the notion hadn't been invented but the 'practice' most certainly had.

From my notes on William Naphy's book: Many ancient cultures actively promoted same-sex relationships as an integral part of adolescence or even worship. The rise of Judeo-Christian views forced homosexuality "underground, " leading to Henry VIII's 1533 ban on homosexuals and Oscar Wilde's imprisonment for sodomy.

When the Roman Empire officially became Christian, Constantine abolished recognition of gay marriages. Now that we are no longer Christian but multi-cultural, why should Christians continue to impose their morality on everyone else?

It was still necessary, in the C14, for Pierre de la Palude to write a compelling justification as to why priests should STOP blessing gay relationships

Many Africans say that homosexuality is an import from Western colonialism. If that is so, why are there records of woman/woman marriages, including bride-prices in these African cultures: Sotho, Koni, Tawana, Hurutshe, Pedi, Venda, Lovedu, Phalaborwa and Nareve Zulu, Kuria, iregi, Kenye, Suba, Simbiti, Ngoreme, Gusii, Kipsigis, Nandi, Kikuyu, Luo, Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk, Dahomean, Fon, Yoruba, Ibo, Ekiti, Bunu, Akoko, Yagba, Nupe, Ijaw, Nzemaa, Ganagana/Dibo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
When the Roman Empire officially became Christian, Constantine abolished recognition of gay marriages.

Whoa, whoa, hold up. What evidence do we have that gay marriages were recognized before that?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The evidence is in the book that I quoted from.

I cannot breach copyright and quote vast swathes - get a copy.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

No possibility of saying where he got this evidence from? Marriage rolls? Ancient historians? Letters? Diaries? It's easy to say "it's all in a book, buy the book". I don't give quite enough of a fuck to go out and buy every book that might contain something that might interest me. I've not time enough nor money to read all the books that would require. I was hoping you'd have something more to say than "it's in a book, buy the book." If not, I will just disbelieve you, not that it makes any difference to either of us.

[ 30. October 2009, 19:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Bill is not a priest to my knowledge but he is a first rate historian in his specialist sphere - the Genevan republic of the 16th century. This is a bit out of his usual Early Modern sphere, though, but I would still assume a high standard of research, since I know his other work. But for heaven's sake would it kill you to cite a book correctly? I assume you are drawing on this book.

quote:
WG Naphy 'Born to be Gay: A History of Homosexuality' (Tempus: Stroud, 2004). ISBN:0-7524-2917-5 (hardback); 288pp.

If Bill says there were gay marriages in Roman culture, then it shouldn't be difficult to quote the relevant sentences, snipping anything extraneous, and saying what he's footnoted as his sources. It's perfectly possible to do things like this without breaching copyright - other people manage it all the time.

I sometimes can't be bothered to go to the extent of getting a book down off the shelf and fighting things out quote by quote and footnote by footnote with someone who's never going to agree with me, but I understand that by vaguely citing a book and then failing to show how it's backing up its claims, that I'm losing the argument.

L.

[ 31. October 2009, 03:40: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

For info, here is an appendix specifically on the question of marriage between males in the Roman Empire from Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. OUP, 1999. It's on google books but with only one page missing. It's not an uncomplicated subject.

L.

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
For info, here is an appendix specifically on the question of marriage between males in the Roman Empire from Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. OUP, 1999. It's on google books but with only one page missing. It's not an uncomplicated subject.

L.

Thanks Louise, interesting book. Doesn't exactly accord with what Leo was saying about it though. It seems that although there are incidences of same-sex marriage, these are anomalous, irregular and frowned upon by trad. Roman society.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

That's more or less what I'd make of it too. As far as I know, same-sex marriage happened occasionally but didn't fit well with their traditional ideas of masculinity and the citizen (unless there's something I'm missing). Outside of marriage there might be a lot more going on, and it would probably be a far easier society to be gay in than say, 16th century Geneva, but it's not a paradise.

Also people cant just go lumping ancient cultures together - the Romans and Greeks for example were very different societies and even within both cultures there's a lot of variation and change.

L.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
As far as I know, same-sex marriage happened occasionally but didn't fit well with their traditional ideas of masculinity and the citizen (unless there's something I'm missing).

What strikes me is that the grounds of their objection aren't that there's same-sex marriage going on. The author notes that the objection is particularly to the one partner acting as a woman.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I'd also be curious to find out whether these marriages were monogamous, lifelong (in intent at least), egalitarian relationships, or whether these were relationships that co-existed with heterosexual marital relationships and/or were expected to be temporary.

It seems difficult to sustain a long term monogamous gay relationship in a labour intensive economy where having children was necessary to ensure family prosperity and economic security. I suppose than in urban areas it could be pulled off, but I have to wonder how common it was.

[ 01. November 2009, 23:08: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
As far as I know, same-sex marriage happened occasionally but didn't fit well with their traditional ideas of masculinity and the citizen (unless there's something I'm missing).
What strikes me is that the grounds of their objection aren't that there's same-sex marriage going on. The author notes that the objection is particularly to the one partner acting as a woman.

Yes it's good reminder that we can't just map what was done in the ancient world onto our own.

L.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
For info, here is an appendix specifically on the question of marriage between males in the Roman Empire from Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. OUP, 1999. It's on google books but with only one page missing. It's not an uncomplicated subject.

L.

Thanks a lot for that article Louise - very interesting.

It made me think about the debate over the translation of malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6: 9.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What strikes me is that the grounds of their objection aren't that there's same-sex marriage going on. The author notes that the objection is particularly to the one partner acting as a woman.

Yes. It was absolutely fine for male citizens to have sex with a male slave, provided that the slave was penetrated. The fear of being seen as effeminate seems to have been the real issue. I also thought it was interesting that lesbianism was heavily frowned on.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Yes it's good reminder that we can't just map what was done in the ancient world onto our own.

True, although I'm not sure how different our current attitudes are deep down. My guess is that a large part of homophobia boils down to concerns about the role and status of men.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Yes. It was absolutely fine for male citizens to have sex with a male slave, provided that the slave was penetrated. The fear of being seen as effeminate seems to have been the real issue.

Yes. In some places and some times, probably not everywhere. Certainly not everywhere. And in some places (famously fifth-century BC Athens) you could add older men using younger for sexual pleasure as borderline socially acceptable, but not vice versa.

And condemnation of all male homosexuality isn't a Christian thing. It has existed in lots of pre-Christian societies.

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I also thought it was interesting that lesbianism was heavily frowned on.

In some places and some times. In others it was invisible and unnamed and in a sense didn't exist because had not been invented. There have been societies in which the idea that women would get pleasure from physical contact with each other was as unremarkable as the idea that a cat would enjoy being stroked. It might have been pleasure, but it wasn't sex. It would simply have no bearing on marriage or on relations between men and women. (Well, biologically homosexuality isn't sex of course - its only "sex" to us because our society defines it as such - but the business of erection and ejaculation makes that definition more likely to emerge for relations between men than between women) Some societies today probably have similar ideas (or lack of ideas) of "sexuality" (like gender, a social construct, not a biological reality). Especially I think in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Where in many places behaviour that we would construct as "lesbiansim" would not be considered sexual, and not attract the kind of condemnation that male homosexuality would.

Another example of confused categories is the practice of women becoming legally men and sometimes marrying other women. It seems to have cropped up in all sorts of times and places. No doubt it has often had a sexual component (or perhaps sometimes one we would think of as sexual even if the people doing it don't) but it often doesn't. It often has to do with inheritance or property rights or being allowed to participate in specifically male social activities such as warfare. In some times and places women who count as legally men take vows of chastity or celibacy (which in Albania at any rate allowed them to spend time in the company of men rather than women). In other places (some north American peoples I think, I can't remember exactly) women were able to "marry" each other, one being legally declared a man for the purpose, but both continue to have sexual relations with men - but those men have no rights over their children or homes.

But its barely possible to find out what people did (or do). Let alone how they thought about what they did, or categorised it, or whether their categories had any particular relationship with our ideas of "sexuality".

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Yes it's good reminder that we can't just map what was done in the ancient world onto our own.

Well, yes. Or even different parts of the ancient world onto each other. Or the modern world.

There's those nastily weird (by our standards) Athenians where it was just about socially acceptable for a forty-year-old man to pleasure himself by buggering a fourteen-year-old boy (just about, it would be frowned upon rather the way we might frown upon someone who got stoned or drunk a lot). But the behaviour would become unacceptable if the boy enjoyed it. Or if the boy was fully grown.

Or those nastily weird (by our standards) ancient Hebrews whose law states that a slaveowner who refuses to sleep with his slave girl, or else give her to his son to sleep with, has abused her and has to let her go free. To us, that slaveowners have sex with their slaves (presumably a universal practice in slaving societies) aggravates the horrors of slavery. To the ancient Hebrews it ameliorated slavery. The female slave had a legal right to be fucked. (Really. Its in Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 21)

Or those nastily weird (by our standards) ancient Rus funeral practices described by ibn Fadlan (I wouldn't want to write here what he claimed they got up to). But those same Vikings would have treated their most of their prisoners pf war slaves rather better than the Hebrews in the previous paragraph would have (and probably much better than many Romans or Greeks did or than early modern Americans were to later). But if they had got their hands on some of the Greek pederasts of the paragraph before they would have probably split them open and left their bodies for the crows. Or maybe not because most of our sources for that are later and Christian, perhaps written to deliberatly make their pagan ancestors look bad. So perhaps we don't really know. Utterly different construction of morality anyway.

I think there is a lot of over-generalisation going on. Over-generalising myself, about half of everything written about ancient sexual practices comes from one city, Athens, in one period of about 150 years. And about half the rest comes from the doings of Roman Emperors, mostly in the form of scurrilous rumours. And most of the rest looks like stuff written by Christian preachers who know the Bible inside out but know nothing about anyone else but those rumours and the Athenian stuff.

Imagine someone two thousand years in the future trying to write a history of sexual behaviour in twentieth-century America using sources consisting entirely of fragments of the plays of Shakespeare, a few dozen volumes of 17th-century Spanish novels and poetry, British tabloid press accounts of the lives of American, Italian and French Presidents, and the personal diaries of some Pakistani fundamentalist Muslim students studying electrical engineering in Detroit. And that these writers conflated all that information together because from their point of view all those people were part of the same culture (as indeed they are on a large scale)

I think that's about the level of most popular or semi-popular writing on ancient sexual practices we see today. Including, I am afraid, Leo's gay-friendly histories by gay-friendly priests. Clutching at anachronistic straws. Little glimpses of behaviour then and there that if they were happening here and now might mean one thing but in context may well have meant something else. And we probably have little idea what they did mean.

[small code fix - L]

[ 02. November 2009, 18:30: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Kudos to Ken for such an excellent post on the dangers of generalising and the problems with the sources.

I dug out the review by classicist James Davidson in English Historical Review (vol. CXXII, number 497, pp. 725-727) on Bill Naphy's book and it appears to be an uncharacteristic turkey from someone who's well known as an excellent Early Modern academic - the perils of stepping out of your specialist period. Use of sources comes in for particular criticism.

quote:
The omission of references makes it hard to check Naphy against his secondary (often tertiary or quaternary, it emerges) sources. Did Walther of Châtillon really write ‘Ganymedier than Ganymede’ (p. 88)? John Boswell gave both the author and the quote on one page, but did not, in fact, make the one responsible for the other. More seriously, it makes it hard to see how much of Naphy's work is his own. Significant parts of the text of pages 16–18, at least, are slightly adapted from an article not in Naphy's bibliography, but widely available on the internet (www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml), by Dennis Prager, an American radio-talk-show-host, including ‘Naphy’s’ quotes from ‘the historian Nussbaum’ (herself reporting the results of Dover, Winkler etc.), and ‘the historian Sussman’.

Tangent/
Those Rus accounts are fascinating - I came across them years ago at uni but then went back to them for a project on slavery in Norse society. Slavery is a fascinating part of ancient sexual mores, and because it's so commonplace, it can paradoxically sometimes be hard to see because writers assume their audience are factoring it in. I was genuinely surprised to find out how long keeping slaves and using them sexually went on in early medieval Christian societies, long before the well known and more modern chattel slavery of the plantations. It seemed to take the church a long time to get to grips with it. I wonder how many people in the New Testament are sexually using/abusing their slaves because they just wouldn't count it under 'sexual immorality'? (Genuine question - has anyone ever looked at that?)

/back to subject

I don't think 1st century people really conceived of homosexuality (except perhaps for odd exceptions) in the same way that we do, even though there may be some relationships which look like modern ones, and occasional radical attempts at theory which can be read in modern ways.

It strikes me that the modern pattern of gay relationships is very modern and much influenced by recent ideals of marriage: the historically-shocking idea of marital partners as equals chosen for romantic reasons who don't have set-in-stone gender roles. I think that was probably a rara avis before modern times.

L.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Well, biologically homosexuality isn't sex of course - its only "sex" to us because our society defines it as such - but the business of erection and ejaculation makes that definition more likely to emerge for relations between men than between women.

Apparently Clinton was right. Blowjobs aren't "sex"!

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
AFAIK at the moment (especially after Arabella's post) It's only noteworthy because you've made it noteworthy. It's your personal opinion that republicans, by their very nature, don't support gay rights.

We operate in different worlds. Your conservatives aren't the same as our conservatives.

In this part of the world, the "conservatives" are overwhelmingly anti-gay and anti- any legislation that recognizes rights for GLBT people.

I cite California, Maine and the uphill slog in the federal legislature as evidence.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It seems that it is not only conservatives who see nothing to argue about in proposing the death penalty for gays.

'The proposed legislation has been condemned by a large number of NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) and Changing Attitude.

However, the Archbishop of York's office said on Friday (13 November) that he would not be commenting on the issue. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is under increasing pressure to condemn the bill, but has yet to make a statement. See here.

The Archbishop of York, who grew up in rural Uganda, has said that he intends to stay silent about proposed legislation in the country which would introduce the death penalty for certain consensual homosexual acts.
And here.

[Edited to handle URLs correctly - would've thought you knew how to do this, Leo [Smile]

]

[ 16. November 2009, 18:47: Message edited by: TonyK ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

According to Ecclesia, the US group Exodus International, which believes that homosexuality is ‘not what God intended’, sent a letter to Uganda's president on 16th November saying: "The Christian church…must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out."

The letter is signed by Alan Chambers, president of the Orlando-based Exodus International; Randy Thomas, the group's executive vice president; Christopher Yuan, professor at Moody Bible Institute; and Warren Throckmorton, a member of the Clinical Advisory Board of the American Association of Christian Counselors.

A report by an Anglican priest called Kaoma argues that the US Right – once isolated in Africa for supporting pro-apartheid, white supremacist regimes – has successfully reinvented itself as the mainstream of US evangelicalism. Through their extensive communications networks in Africa, social welfare projects, Bible schools, and educational materials, US religious conservatives warn of the dangers of homosexuals and present themselves as the true representatives of US evangelicalism, so helping to marginalise Africans’ relationships with mainline Protestant churches.

"We need to stand up against the US Christian Right peddling homophobia in Africa," said Kaoma, who in recent weeks asked the US evangelist, Rick Warren, to denounce the Ugandan bill and distance himself from its supporters. "I heard church people in Uganda say they would go door to door to root out LGBT people and now our brothers and sisters are being further targeted by proposed legislation criminalising them and threatening them with death. The scapegoating must stop."

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

The FBI has released their report on hate crimes in the U.S. for 2008. According to an AP write-up:

quote:
Reports of hate crimes against gays and religious groups increased sharply in 2008, according to new FBI data released Monday.

Overall, the number of reported hate crimes increased about 2 percent. These same figures show a nearly 11 percent increase in hate crimes based on sexual orientation, and a nearly 9 percent increase in hate crimes based on religion.

Of course this usually sparks debate as to whether the increase represents greater actual incidence of such crimes or if it just represents a increase in the reporting of such offenses. As with most crimes like this, underreporting is usually quite substantial.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:
I was genuinely surprised to find out how long keeping slaves and using them sexually went on in early medieval Christian societies, long before the well known and more modern chattel slavery of the plantations. It seemed to take the church a long time to get to grips with it. I wonder how many people in the New Testament are sexually using/abusing their slaves because they just wouldn't count it under 'sexual immorality'? (Genuine question - has anyone ever looked at that?)

IIRC, there's a fairly robust tradition of cheerfully ignoring the church's strictures on sex during the medieval period so the case may be that it was not so much that the church didn't regard it as wrong as that the church didn't pick fights it couldn't win, much akin - I suppose - to the way that modern Catholic bishops don't go round instructing the clergy to deny the sacrament to couples who avail themselves of the contraceptive pill. There is a passage in Peter Brown's biography of Augustine which indicates, at least, that Augustine would have regarded such relationships as a mortal sin on the part of the master.

I've always wanted to know what advice one was given if one was the favourite concubine or one's owners boy-toy and one converted to Christianity? Did that fall under the rubric of 'slaves, obey your masters?'

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

I've always wanted to know what advice one was given if one was the favourite concubine or one's owners boy-toy and one converted to Christianity? Did that fall under the rubric of 'slaves, obey your masters?'

That happened in Uganda in the 19th century. Some of the "page boys" (euphemism used by the Brits at the time) of the Kabaka of Buganda were among the first converts to Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic) in Uganda. Some of them decided to resist their boss and refuse to let him have hi way with them. These were not of course consensual relationships - from their point of view they were standing up against abuse. One of the "ringleaders" was killed, which led to a general persecution of the new religion and more martyrs - probably abut sixty of them.

The Kabaka also had an Anglican Bishop assassinated (James Hannington), with a number of European and African companions - this was outside the country, he called in a few favours.

Of course, as these things go, that more or less ensured that Buganda bacame a mostly Christian place pretty quickly. The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church.

That's the founding event of the Christian Church in Uganda. Many Ugandans will remember the names of the Martyrs.

[ 26. November 2009, 13:45: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Or those nastily weird (by our standards) ancient Hebrews whose law states that a slaveowner who refuses to sleep with his slave girl, or else give her to his son to sleep with, has abused her and has to let her go free. To us, that slaveowners have sex with their slaves (presumably a universal practice in slaving societies) aggravates the horrors of slavery. To the ancient Hebrews it ameliorated slavery. The female slave had a legal right to be fucked. (Really. Its in Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 21)

Because I can't resist the bait--

You've got it a bit wrong. What the Torah is describing is a case where a man has ALREADY taken a slave to be a wife or concubine, or arranged the same for his son--and THEN tries to back out of the arrangement by shoving her back into slave status and selling her down the river. The Torah forbids this. Essentially, it says that once you have established such a relationship with a slave, she is no longer a slave but a wife (/daughter-in-law) and MUST BE GIVEN all the rights of such. And no fair divorcing her to get out of the situation. If you DO divorce her, she is a freewoman, and all the more so because you (generic) abused your power to get her into the situation in the first place.

If anything, the Torah would serve to discourage sexual relationships between masters and slaves, because if it doesn't work out, she's manumitted already.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

At last some good news. Our diocese is linked with Uganda and our bishop has condemned the proposed laws there as 'pernicious' - and he is on the conservative side of the 'debate.'

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

In our CofE diocese (not the same as leo's) the Diocesan is also of 'conservative' opinions. The diocese also has historic ties of affection with the AC in Uganda.

The Diocesan let it be known last night that one of our Area (Suffragan) bps will be visiting Uganda next week. Sounds like a good and brave move. I would be fairly certain that +Rowan approves.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am glad to see that Fulcrum is opposing the Uganda bill. Christian Institute and Christian Concern For Our Nation are not.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

3 cheers also to Rick Warren: First, the potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring the death penalty in some cases......Second, the law would force pastors to report their pastoral conversations with homosexuals to authorities.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Until recently I didn't care much for Warren but I'm warming to him more and more.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
3 cheers also to Rick Warren: First, the potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring the death penalty in some cases......Second, the law would force pastors to report their pastoral conversations with homosexuals to authorities.

At most I can muster one cheer. He certainly could have made an objection any time over the past month. He was certainly asked repeatedly, like a week and a half ago when he responded by saying "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides." Now suddenly he's willing to take sides? But only apparently after it's become a huge media embarassment to him. While I don't object to his change of heart, he could at least explain why he changed his mind that an open hunting season on gay people might be worthy of some sort of comment or condemnation.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Not wishing to sound heartless or cynical in any way but it's distinctly possible that someone based in or near a large white building in Washington dropped a hint that he might not be invited to the next inauguration...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Not wishing to sound heartless or cynical in any way but it's distinctly possible that someone based in or near a large white building in Washington dropped a hint that he might not be invited to the next inauguration...

If that were the case one would have expected the Obama administration to have issued some sort of denunciation as well. So far they haven't.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Everyone seems to be assuming that denunciation is the independent nuclear deterrent of diplomacy. It isn't. It's what you do when you have no arrows left in your quiver. The world and his wife denounced the Soviet invasion of Czecho back in '68 because there was naff all else they could do. The British government have been discreetly leaning on Museveni behind the scenes and I see no reason to imagine that the US haven't as well. Getting Uncle Rick to do his bit could well be part of that.

Of course, it could be the case that the US government have no interest in human rights in sub-Saharan Africa and that Warren chipped in solely because he was getting flack from the liberal media. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Everyone seems to be assuming that denunciation is the independent nuclear deterrent of diplomacy. It isn't. It's what you do when you have no arrows left in your quiver. The world and his wife denounced the Soviet invasion of Czecho back in '68 because there was naff all else they could do. The British government have been discreetly leaning on Museveni behind the scenes and I see no reason to imagine that the US haven't as well. Getting Uncle Rick to do his bit could well be part of that.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. While there are certain cases (Iran comes to mind) where anything advocated by the American government will automatically generate popular support for the opposite position, Uganda is not one of those cases. Obama is immensely popular in Africa and a word or two from him would carry immense weight.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Of course, it could be the case that the US government have no interest in human rights in sub-Saharan Africa and that Warren chipped in solely because he was getting flack from the liberal media. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Why not? That's been Warren's modus operandi since he first went into the megachurch biz. His whole schtick is trying to be the "nice guy fundamentalist". During the Proposition 8 debate he compared homosexuality to incest and bestiality. He also explicitly told his followers to vote in favor of the referrendum. Then he lied and said he didn't do either of those things, despite the fact that there's video of him doing both. (Do these people forget that what they say is often recorded?) Rick Warren's primary motive is to promote his own popularity and image as the "reasonable fundamentalist". As such he'll tailor his statements to whatever audience he thinks he's addressing. One of his least favorite things is commenting on a truly divisive issue since no matter what he'll end up alienating someone. That's why he was silent for so long.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

I have no problem with the argument that Warren wants to have his cake and eat it.

I'm just mindful of the arguments at the inauguration that Obama was being excessively conciliatory to the other lot (which I had some sympathy with) and it occurs to me that if you let a raving self-publicist like Rick Warren publicise himself on an occasion like that there has to be a quid pro quo, Clarice. That possibly Obama saw advantages in having his own house fundamentalist in his back pocket for occasions such as these.

Perhaps I've been watching too many re-runs of the House of Cards trilogy, recently!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I have no problem with the argument that Warren wants to have his cake and eat it.

I'm just mindful of the arguments at the inauguration that Obama was being excessively conciliatory to the other lot (which I had some sympathy with) and it occurs to me that if you let a raving self-publicist like Rick Warren publicise himself on an occasion like that there has to be a quid pro quo, Clarice. That possibly Obama saw advantages in having his own house fundamentalist in his back pocket for occasions such as these.

Perhaps I've been watching too many re-runs of the House of Cards trilogy, recently!

If that's the case then the Obama administration isn't getting its invitation's worth out of Warren. Dodging the question and making "I'm neutral on killing gays" statements for a month and then issuing a 'condemnation' which devotes more text to plugging Warren and his projects than to actually condemning anything has a definite feel of "I'm doing this but I don't really want to".

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Gideon Byamugisha, an Anglican minister in Uganda, took a gamble by speaking out openly against the bill, calling it "genocide."

Scott Lively, who presides over Abiding Truth Ministries, told the Guardian that the bill was "far too harsh and punitive."

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

Says the man who helped loose the jinni from the bottle.

He will likely have some blood on his hands to account for.

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

To keep myself informed of Evangelical opinion (or its American variety anyhow) I often check out the Christianity Today website. Strange territory for a woolly liberal but quite interesting at times.
In a thread generated by discussion on the Ugandan legislation a few (by no means all) contributers have used really unpleasant and vitriolic language about Gays and Lesbians. Hate speech really.
Its almost as if its queer bashing by proxy.In the U.S. the cause is lost. The advances GLBT people have made cannot be rolled back so why not cheer on measures to make life unbearable for them in Gays and Lesbians in Uganda?

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

Sorry, last sentence should end with "for them in Uganda." It's 06.30 here and I am still drinking my first coffee.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0