Ship of Fools: homophobia towards my kids

Thread: homophobia towards my kids 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=028601

Posted by JohnWesleysHorse (# 14975) on :

hi all

My kids who don't live with me full time but spend their weeks with their mum in north wales have been on the end of extreme homophobia this week

My son who is nearly 15 went on a church sponsored walk in a rainbow flag and tutu.

He was photoshopped out of the church pictures for being gay ( i have no idea of what is sexuality is or may be in the future as this is pretty irrelevant)

When he challenged this the church said that they can not be seen as promoting homosexuality as it is an abomination. He then told them that his mum is gay and they said she is an abomination as well

He is no longer attending the " fucking bigot" church ( his words)

So there we have it - welsh church is homophobic to kids

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I'm sorry for the hurt that this church caused your child and all children with gay parents.

At this point it may be pointless to say anything to your son about the fact that there are affirming gay Christian churches and happy gay Christians...but just let him know that some of your Shippie friends are as appalled as he is.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

Seems he was looking to stir something up, and that is what happened.

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

"See the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

"Bloody Peasant!"

"Did you see that? Did you see that? I told you!"

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

And this is a Dead Horse. So off it goes.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by JohnWesleysHorse (# 14975) on :

this is not a dead horse.

this happened last sunday

yes he was pushing the boundaries - but the shear hate he gor back was not christ like

for fuck sake its the people who wont engage or send it to dead horses that are the problem

im pretty pissed off with you host

btw im bot gay neither is he or his sister who aslo got this hate , no that it would matter if they were - seems that there are too many fucking bigots in the church and ship of fools hosts

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Seems he was looking to stir something up, and that is what happened.

You have no idea what his motivations were. Regardless, what this kid is going to remember about church and possibly Christians in general is that they called him and his mother "an abomination". I'll wager there was a bit of smug satisfaction on the part of the person uttering those words. That is going to leave scars, not any hint of God's love or the gospel.

As to the pictures or just the walk in general, they should have instituted a dress code if they wanted one, not edit people they didn't like out of the pictures later. I've seen t-shirts that kids think nothing of wearing that might not have been appropriate either. Those concerns should have been clearly laid out.

I'm straight and I certainly wouldn't attend any church that treated someone, particularly in that age group so harshly.

[ 14. July 2011, 19:20: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Seems he was looking to stir something up, and that is what happened.
You have no idea what his motivations were. ...

and neither do you.

But, the facts as described - he went on a walk with a church group - he advertised his position on gay issues by his dress code - the church found that to be objectionable on religious grounds - he strenuously objected to their response of editing the photo (there is no evidence he was chastised in any way for wearing the clothes) - they responded.

Now, if this child went to his father's church (the one he wrote about two years ago) they seem to be gay-friendly, this would not have happened. So, my questions is, did he know the church's stance before? If so, my position stands - he went looking for a fight and found one. And he owes an apology to the church.

If he had no idea that this church held that stance on homosexuality, I offer an apology.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Seems he was looking to stir something up, and that is what happened.
You have no idea what his motivations were. ...
and neither do you.

But, the facts as described - he went on a walk with a church group - he advertised his position on gay issues by his dress code - the church found that to be objectionable on religious grounds - he strenuously objected to their response of editing the photo (there is no evidence he was chastised in any way for wearing the clothes) - they responded.

Now, if this child went to his father's church (the one he wrote about two years ago) they seem to be gay-friendly, this would not have happened. So, my questions is, did he know the church's stance before? If so, my position stands - he went looking for a fight and found one. And he owes an apology to the church.

If he had no idea that this church held that stance on homosexuality, I offer an apology.

I do have one question - why did no one talk to him about his clothing before the walk and why the use such hateful language towards him and his mother? This would have been a wonderful opportunity to show the love of Christ - even if the child were trying provoke a reaction, which I'm not convinced he did. All that happened is the love of Christ was nowhere near that church on that day, instead, this kid got a dose of hate aimed at him and his mother. Even if you disagree on the issue of homosexuality, there are ways to approach the issue in love. There was opportunity for dialogue and that door got slammed firmly shut with no evidence of Christ in sight.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

It appears to me the church's initial reaction was to ignore the kid on the day of the walk and hope that by editing his image out everyone, including the church, could just forget he'd been there. No evidence of Christ in that reaction either.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JohnWesleysHorse:
this is not a dead horse.

[...]

seems that there are too many fucking bigots in the church and ship of fools hosts

All "dead horse" means is that because this is a homosexuality-related thread, ship policy is to discuss it on this board. It doesn't mean that it isn't worth discussing, only that this is the place to discuss it. Barnabas62 is not being in the least bigotted in directing you to the right place to raise this issue. (Hint: you should apologise).

I'm sorry that your kids had to deal with this. Even if your son was stirring a little (I remember what it's like to be 15) he didn't make anyone homophobic - they were that already. I'd suggest that you congratulate him on having the courage to make a stand for what he believes, and tell him you're proud of him. You should be. Then work on teaching him a bit of tact and finding a church which will welcome and challenge him in his faith. Don't give the bigots a second thought. Christianity is far bigger than them.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, my questions is, did he know the church's stance before? If so, my position stands - he went looking for a fight and found one. And he owes an apology to the church.

Personally, I think that coping with sincere statements of strongly held opinion is part of the job description of the church. Whatever else this young man is saying, he is saying "I care about truth and justice on this issue". The church has a duty to engage with him on that, and to explain in love why they take whatever position they do.

And anyone, Christian or not, who cannot deal with a provacative display by 15 year old without saying that his mother is an abomination has, basically, no business dealing with teenagers at all. There's just no excuse for that. I know you want to defend the conservative position here, but that response wasn't biblical Christianity, it was just bloody rude. It's indefensible. This church could have handled the protest (if that's what it was) with ordinary human decency and not compromised their principles (if they have any) one iota.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

And anyone, Christian or not, who cannot deal with a provacative display by 15 year old without saying that his mother is an abomination has, basically, no business dealing with teenagers at all. There's just no excuse for that. I know you want to defend the conservative position here, but that response wasn't biblical Christianity, it was just bloody rude. It's indefensible. This church could have handled the protest (if that's what it was) with ordinary human decency and not compromised their principles (if they have any) one iota.

It is the church official who owes the young man an apology for not handling the issue properly. Perhaps that apology could be the start for new dialogue.

Posted by JohnWesleysHorse (# 14975) on :

ok sorry:)

im just pretty hacked off...

yes my church in leeds is gay friendly

yes my son was being provocative

but handling it like that is indefensible

if i was a con evo with a youth group and a lad did this id laugh it off with something like - he x love the rainbow flag are you wearing that to the next meeting etc etc not get into discussion about his or his mothers sexuality and then call it a abomination

but thanks for all the messages of support

pax

m

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
... This church could have handled the protest (if that's what it was) with ordinary human decency and not compromised their principles (if they have any) one iota.

They tried to quietly make it a non-issue - I think that is commendable.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

Ends and means, sharkshooter.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
... This church could have handled the protest (if that's what it was) with ordinary human decency and not compromised their principles (if they have any) one iota.
They tried to quietly make it a non-issue - I think that is commendable.

They tried to ignore him and erase any evidence of his time with them. That is not a Christian way of treating people or opening meaningful dialogue. Jesus rebuked his disciples who tried to do the same to some pesky social outcasts.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

I repeat - it was the 15 year old who first wore the costume which he likely knew was going to be an issue (and the church did nothing) and then reacted strongly when they simply removed what was offensive to them.

If you kick the bee nest, they will sting you, but most of the blame is on the one who kicks, especially if he kicks it a second time!

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I repeat - it was the 15 year old who first wore the costume which he likely knew was going to be an issue (and the church did nothing) and then reacted strongly when they simply removed what was offensive to them.

If you kick the bee nest, they will sting you, but most of the blame is on the one who kicks, especially if he kicks it a second time!

And I repeat: How would Jesus have treated the boy? That is our standard.

ETA: And how would he have addressed the boy's mother to him? The representative of the church was anything but representative of Jesus.

[ 14. July 2011, 21:39: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If you kick the bee nest, they will sting you, but most of the blame is on the one who kicks, especially if he kicks it a second time!

You're likening the church to a nest of bees? Refreshingly honest!

Posted by JohnWesleysHorse (# 14975) on :

no thats not issue - they run the only youth group in the village - theres isn't another one they didn't say anything on the walk, just photoshopped him out of the pictures

we did loads of daft things when i was in a church group back in the mis 80s - but never got left out even when one of my friend declared himself to be a satanist (he was joking )

and then to denounce your partner to your face infront of your friends is just so wrong

my son does try to engage them - they are creationists he is not - he very much a scientific bright kind - but they will not engage with him or debate a different interpretation of scripture with him

he is off to the quakers in the next town now

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I see our conservative friends saying, "Homosexuality is wrong, and anything a church does to condemn it is A-OK." No?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

And "He started it" -- the last refuge of the schoolyard bully.

Being photoshopped out of a group picture is about as graphic a metaphor for wishing someone out of existence as there can be.

And I assume that anyone here who thinks that's perfectly fine would also really like to erase all gay people, myself included, out of existence.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I repeat - it was the 15 year old who first wore the costume which he likely knew was going to be an issue (and the church did nothing) and then reacted strongly when they simply removed what was offensive to them.

If you kick the bee nest, they will sting you, but most of the blame is on the one who kicks, especially if he kicks it a second time!

Which might work perfectly well as an attitude to a mature adult, but that is not the way to deal with a 15 year old boy.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by JohnWesleysHorse:
this is not a dead horse.

[...]

seems that there are too many fucking bigots in the church and ship of fools hosts
All "dead horse" means is that because this is a homosexuality-related thread, ship policy is to discuss it on this board. It doesn't mean that it isn't worth discussing, only that this is the place to discuss it. Barnabas62 is not being in the least bigotted in directing you to the right place to raise this issue. (Hint: you should apologise).

I'm sorry that your kids had to deal with this. Even if your son was stirring a little (I remember what it's like to be 15) he didn't make anyone homophobic - they were that already. I'd suggest that you congratulate him on having the courage to make a stand for what he believes, and tell him you're proud of him. You should be. Then work on teaching him a bit of tact and finding a church which will welcome and challenge him in his faith. Don't give the bigots a second thought. Christianity is far bigger than them.

JohnWesleysHorse

You should have received a PM (Private Message) about the thread transfer. You can always send a PM to a Host or, if you are dissatisfied about a ruling, take it up in the Styx.

It's a very obvious ruling in accordance with the Dead Horse guidelines, which you can find by clicking onto the 10 Commandments link and following the link to the guidelines for individual boards. Eliab was quite right about my reasons for transferring the thread.

If you want to know my theological opinions, you can read them in several posts in this recent thread in Dead Horses. I hope they will satisfy you that I am not homophobic. On the treatment your children received, I agree with everything Eliab said.

On the treatment I received in your post, least said soonest mended. I appreciate both your annoyance and distress about what happened to your children.

[ 14. July 2011, 23:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the argument, it's not accurate to describe this as homophobia. Whilst that MAY be an element in the behaviour of the church, it is not legitimate to assume that it is, and the fact that the gay community indulges in labelling principled objections to their behaviour as 'homophobia' is a bad habit. [Mad]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Would you prefer "bigoted"?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the argument, it's not accurate to describe this as homophobia. Whilst that MAY be an element in the behaviour of the church, it is not legitimate to assume that it is, and the fact that the gay community indulges in labelling principled objections to their behaviour as 'homophobia' is a bad habit.

Um, the OP said that they told the boy his mother is an "abomination."

Whether it's technically "homophobia" is sort of beside the point. What it is, is "sickening." ("Principled objections," BTW, would be more on the order of, "We disagree with your stance on the issue.")

But, at least there's this: it's "sickening" in front of the whole world. And the "conservative" Christian Church just dug another big chunk out of its own grave as people get a close-up look at what it's really like.

Good!

[ 15. July 2011, 01:29: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

I guess the thread is in Dead Horses because it was thought the thread is about homosexuality, though it seems to be about the 15 year old boy at least as much. Okay.

I appreciate and fully support the OP and the poster's response to what is developmentally insensitive in the first instance. 15 year olds in my experience do all sorts of provocative things that may or may not be approveable. This church did not deal with its objections in a proper way with someone of this age. An adult might be dealt with differently.

Second, the 15 year old might have thought that he might effect change, if he knew the church's stance. It might be naive to think so, but that is the optimism of a 15 year old. God love him for that.

Third, and here I think there can be no compromises, and I guess this is where it is DH material. The church's handling of this, its values of ideals aside, places it outside of Christianity. To tell a 15 year old his mother is an abomination is wrong and evil. Were she Jewish would they have said this? I appreciate your discretion in not naming the church. In this day of computers and internet, it would receive a storm of abuse for such behaviour. Probably threats.

Finally, I have seen what proposing to a church vestry (council) and having accepted by a church, that we will be an affirming parish can do to open us fully to Christ's love. It was an 18 year old who put me up to it. We do not know the mind the God on all things and I grant others their reservations at the most, but we do know the example of Jesus. The rejection of a human being is a abomination. I suspect these people will come to answer for their intolerance.

--The big struggle for me has been to forgive the intolerant and uninsightful.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

It does appear that the church handled this really badly - my mind boggles at the thought of photoshopping someone out of photos without telling them.

Two queries strike me as I read the thread though:

1. In cutting a 15 year-old some slack for trying a stunt like this (that I agree we should - this is exactly the sort of thing I would have done when I was about 17) I would also take his reporting of what happened with a pinch of salt. Teenagers don't tend to report interactions with adults in authority very well.

2. How would we respond if this was about a 15 year old boy who turned up for a church walk, of a church known for its pro-gay stance, with a t-shirt saying, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" ?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Actually, that's quite a good question.

If the church had (figuratively) beat him about the head and told him what a bigot (mea culpa [Hot and Hormonal]

) he was, and to take off that damned tee-shirt, and removed the image by Photoshop, that would also be outrageous.

Thinking about what I believe my church would do, it would be to arrange a meeting to discuss beliefs. We tend to use the framework of one person at a time having their full say, no interruptions. The young person could present his beliefs and his reasons for them. Other church members could talk about their beliefs and how they came to them. Gay people could talk about the problems of facing discrimination. Everyone could have a couple rounds so that they could address ideas brought up in the first round. Then it's "Thank you" and everyone goes home to Ponder.

We never had a vitriolic incident that spurred such a meeting, but we did actually participate in several such discussions about ten years ago. Armageddon did not erupt and most of our more conservative members of the time stayed on.

Posted by Fradgan (# 16455) on :

My aversion is not to homosexuality. It is to politicking and intimidation against anyone who chooses not to lift homosexuality to most-favored status.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fradgan:
My aversion is not to homosexuality. It is to politicking and intimidation against anyone who chooses not to lift homosexuality to most-favored status.

Still blinking. Where in all of this is most favoured status claimed for homosexualilty? Or is anything other than an abomination equal to most-favoured status in your mind?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:

quote:
Originally posted by Fradgan:
My aversion is not to homosexuality. It is to politicking and intimidation against anyone who chooses not to lift homosexuality to most-favored status.
Still blinking. Where in all of this is most favoured status claimed for homosexualilty? Or is anything other than an abomination equal to most-favoured status in your mind?

The evidence for this was provided by the arrest of street preachers in England for stating the traditional Christian position. They were subsequently exonerated and the police forces involved paid significant damages, but the fact that the police had got the idea they could do this is an indicator that there is such a problem.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
]The evidence for this was provided by the arrest of street preachers in England for stating the traditional Christian position. They were subsequently exonerated and the police forces involved paid significant damages, but the fact that the police had got the idea they could do this is an indicator that there is such a problem.

Now I'm struggling to see the relevance. You've just, completely unilaterally, altered the frame of reference away from this particular incident. I suspect it's to "any useful incidents I can think of", but I may be wrong.

In any case, I would suggest that the police action you refer to is better seen in the context of their general reaction to anyone speaking above a polite whisper in gatherings of more than 4. The people in question are lucky they weren't kettled into oblivion.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

ISTM that a little common sense, all around, could've headed off the problem.

Ok, the kid was a) being 15; b) making a statement about beliefs; and c) maybe not taking the wisest approach. If anything has a chance of changing the church members' opinions/beliefs about LGBT folks for the better, a tutu and the rainbow flag, in public, during a church walk probably ain't gonna do it! [Biased]

The church group could have gently said his outfit wasn't appropriate; given him the option to change his clothes (if he had some with him), go home and change and catch up with them, wear a choir robe*, or go home.

Calling his mom an abomination was totally out of bounds. If they really believe that, they could start praying for her (whether or not they told him about it).

PhotoShop might make sense if he'd jumped into the pic at the last minute and another pic couldn't be taken, or if they couldn't figure out a way to talk to him directly. It would probably have been better to tell him face to face at the time that he couldn't be in the pic. If they had some diplomacy and a sense of humor, they could have made a joke that they didn't want all the little old ladies to keel over when they saw the pic on the bulletin board! [Biased]

*I read once of a situation in a church near a Southern California beach. A young woman came into the foyer, wearing a bikini. A quick-thinking person said, "oh, there you are! We need you in the choir!", and put her in a choir robe.
[Cool]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Being photoshopped out of a group picture is about as graphic a metaphor for wishing someone out of existence as there can be.

And I assume that anyone here who thinks that's perfectly fine would also really like to erase all gay people, myself included, out of existence.

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They tried to ignore him and erase any evidence of his time with them.

Woah! Hyperbole anyone?

I don't know if you too have some insight or hidden knwowledge of the situation that I don't but from what the OP states, all the church seems to have been trying to do was prevent their church from being seen to be promoting homosexuality. Like that magazine which chose not to run the pro-gay advert (see the thread in DH somewhere). For a conservative church, this is an obvious policy and I'm surprised it shocks anyone. "Conservative church doesn't promote homosexuality. In other news Pope doesn't promote protestantism! News at Ten."

Yes, they were pretty damaging later in their explanation of their policy to the boy, and they probably shouldn't have used 'that' particular biblical quote to prooftext their argument. But let's not claim they were trying to wipe people's memories of him or something. Next you'll be claiming some kind of Men In Black experience with the flashing memory pens.

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If the church had (figuratively) beat him about the head and told him what a bigot (mea culpa ) he was, and to take off that damned tee-shirt, and removed the image by Photoshop, that would also be outrageous.

That's not a comparative situation. No one told the boy to remove the flag and tutu, though privately many may have found it personally offensive they allowed him to join them and no one even said anything to him on the day. When someone's deliberately and provacatively opposing your deeply held beliefs that's pretty restrained and tolerant IMO.

It was only when the boy approached someone and demanded an explanation of the policy that he heard one of the biblical quotes generally used to justify such beliefs (and if he's aware of the church's conservative stance I doubt this was a shock to him - he must have heard this verse before). And I don't know which individual the boy spoke to about the photos, but his (or her) tactlessness in explaining the policy was their own personal failure. Perhaps the church body in general would be just as upset as the boy and JWH at this person's tactless behaviour.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Would you prefer "bigoted"?

Only if it can be used both ways [Biased]

. Otherwise we get into a 'talking past each other' of "I am principled, you are bigoted."

Posted by JohnWesleysHorse (# 14975) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Perhaps the church body in general would be just as upset as the boy and JWH at this person's tactless behaviour.

Sadly not it seems, the story gets worse

After taking this up with the church leadership, she was told that being gay was as bad as being a murderer.

I think this place has no pastoral skills whatsoever.

Unfortunately the place is independent so there is no where further up the chain to take this.

So that matter is being left, my two kids are no longer going there, and its a pretty small village where my ex wife and kids live where they are well liked in the community.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

What an unpleasant place! Isn't there another church they can go to even if it's in the next village/ town?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. How would we respond if this was about a 15 year old boy who turned up for a church walk, of a church known for its pro-gay stance, with a t-shirt saying, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" ?

Assuming that "we" here means someone with pastoral responsibility to say anything at all...

On the day itself, explain that the t-shirt can't feature in any external church publicity because that would misrepresent the church's official policy to welcome gay people. And explain that you do not think he should wear it at church events (not that he can't, but that you think he ought not to) because it is unkind: you have gay people in the congregation who may have had experiences of discrimination, and such a message is likely to be seen as a personal attack, whether he means it or not.

Then, use the fact that this is something that he (and very likely others in the church) really cares about. Make it the focus of the next youth group meeting.

How about this: do a ‘moral maze' format discussion: print out 4 to 6 testimonies of a paragraph or two long, and assign them to kids to take the role of witnesses - a partnered gay Christian, a celibate gay Christian, a conservative straight Christian, a liberal straight Christian, a Christian with a gay son or daughter, a gay person outside the church who has experienced homophobia... (there are plenty of posts on the Ship which you could, with permission, use for the purpose). Have each witness read their testimony (1 minute) then answer questions in their assumed persona from the panel (everyone else). Then move to a general discussion involving everyone putting their personal views.

Play it fair: prepare about the same number of broadly pro- and anti- testimonies, give them to kids who are comfortable representing those particular witnesses, and make clear that what they say as a witness doesn't have to be what they personally believe (this is an exercise in empathy as much as it is in persuasion). Don't stack the deck by, say, drafting in a real bible scholar or gay believer to argue your preferred case - keep the playing field level and let everyone have their say. At the end, help the group to draft a short consensus finding of the panel in favour of keeping or amending your church policy (whatever that might be) and one or more dissenting opinions to summarise the other views argued. Put the number (not the names) of those who endorsed each of these conclusions, and submit them to your vicar/elders' meeting/parish magazine/web-site or whatever for the edification of the wider church.

That works for both conservative and liberal churches, doesn't it? And there's no need to say anything mean about anybody's mother.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

[Overused]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That works for both conservative and liberal churches, doesn't it? And there's no need to say anything mean about anybody's mother.

Yes it does, and I agree that there was never any need to say anything about his mother in the first place.

I think that this would be the ideal but I also think that it would be very hard to do in a manner that wouldn't look as if the attention of the entire church community was turning on the teenager. And teenagers don't tend to react well to that kind of spotlight.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Although from the OP, it does seem at first blush at least that this particular teenager shone something of a spotlight on himself...

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JohnWesleysHorse:

After taking this up with the church leadership, she was told that being gay was as bad as being a murderer.

I think this place has no pastoral skills whatsoever.

Unfortunately the place is independent so there is no where further up the chain to take this.

So that matter is being left, my two kids are no longer going there, and its a pretty small village where my ex wife and kids live where they are well liked in the community.

I'm hugely sorry to hear that, wish I could do something more supportive than just post and say that's an awful thing to happen.

cheers,
L

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I don't understand why a rainbow flag and a tutu = gay. Any more than people who think that a choir robe = gay.

I suppose a girl I saw in the choir stalls wearing a t-shirt proclaiming 'I am a Lesbian' was rather more blatant, but why should some clothes be considered more gay than others?

Posted by Gay Organ Grinder (# 11833) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Although from the OP, it does seem at first blush at least that this particular teenager shone something of a spotlight on himself...

Here, here...

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gay Organ Grinder:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Although from the OP, it does seem at first blush at least that this particular teenager shone something of a spotlight on himself...
Here, here...

Imagine that - a 15-year-old doing something a bit loopy (but essentially harmless). Who would have thought it?

(And what are the adults' excuses again....?)

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I don't understand why a rainbow flag and a tutu = gay.

The rainbow flag is easy enough to understand, surely? As for the tutu, I think that the logic would be that, for boys, effeminate equals gay.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

Maybe he was showing his Peruvian civic pride! Cusco city flag [Biased]

OliviaG

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
As for the tutu, I think that the logic would be that, for boys, effeminate equals gay.

Boy I could take them to a few places that would quickly disabuse them of THAT notion.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

Well for sure. But bigotry and logic mix like oil and water, right?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Well for sure. But bigotry and logic mix like oil and water, right?

Touché.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I don't understand why a rainbow flag and a tutu = gay.
The rainbow flag is easy enough to understand, surely? As for the tutu, I think that the logic would be that, for boys, effeminate equals gay.

Well, I'm guessing you mean it's related to diversity, which is probably correct. But I suspect, and wikipedia would seem to back me up, that it's possibly related also to Judy Garland and The Wizard Of Oz, which was culturally iconic for a lot of gay men in the pre-Stonewall era(in fact, the Stonewall riots occured the day of Judy Garland's death).

Wiki also mentions that it might be descended from a peace flag used at college rallies in the 60s. Quite possible, though I'm sure that a lot people would still attach Wizard Of Oz connotations to it, if only as an after-the-fact interpretation.

Sorry, can't post that particular wiki link. The article is called "Rainbow flag LGBT movement".

[ 16. July 2011, 06:43: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Was the church sponsored walk in fancy dress? Because if everyone, or a number of people attending, were dressed up, this might well be the dressing up gear your son has for walks. And your son really didn't deserve what he got, because he was, from his position, just entering into the spirit of the occasion.

If he was the only person dressed up he may well have been trying to make a point, and although there is no way the church should have been so judgemental as to label him gay from being supportive of gay rights, or described his mother as an abomination, maybe he was picking a fight. Maybe to prove to himself where the church stood.

Teenagers, well, the ones I've worked with, do come full of ire and righteous indignation when they feel as if they've been hard done by, and it takes a while of trying to unpick what they're saying to find out what did happen and to try and put it in a wider context. Sometimes it's worth asking if they are just letting off steam or want something resolved - and if so what.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Here's the "Rainbow Flag (LGBT Movement)" Wikipedia link, with the help of TinyURL.com.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Thanks, Gold Key!

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
the fact that the gay community indulges in labelling principled objections to their behaviour as 'homophobia' is a bad habit.

As long as homophobes mount campaigns with titles like
"Defense of Marriage Act," and drum gays out of the military
because someone is afraid that they will compromise group
cohesion, then I submit that they are clearly motivated by fear,
which is in the etymology and literal meaning of the term. I'll
take them at their word can call a spade a spade, thank you.
Besides, fear is less despicable than any other motive I can imagine.

Pedant that I am, I seem to be the first to note that a
boy about the same age in Genesis was also known for wearing
a coat of many colors. And whatdayaknow, his brothers gave
him a hard time as well, and even tried to erase him from the
picture. What is it about wearing all those colors, every one
of them a gift of God, that so inexorably screams "gay"?

Of course, the sentiment behind the rainbow flag is inclusiveness.
It seems to me that Christ gave the apostles "rainbow" orders when
he sent them out preaching the gospel to all nations. I
missed where he said preach to the heterosexuals and be
sure to keep the homos out. You don't get to steal Jesus
and keep Him for yourself.

Nor do you get to deny facts. Leave unpersoning to Orwell's 1984. We have no details about what this walk-- what it
was for, how hard it was, how much investment of time and
energy-- but anyone who completed it deserves to demonstrate
that he did with his picture along with the others who did.
Good heavens, atheists accuse Christians of denying facts
all the time. Must one so eagerly prove them right?

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

Alogon,

Homosexuals aren't relevant here, as we don't know what gender/s of person the boy concerned finds himself attracted to.

Rather, he was a "gay campaigner", in effect, and this is a different thing.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Invictus_88 points out:
Homosexuals aren't relevant here, as we don't know what gender/s of person the boy concerned finds himself attracted to.

Rather, he was a "gay campaigner", in effect, and this is a different thing.

True, but I repeat my question: what about rainbow clothing screams "gay"? If he was a gay campaigner, in so doing he was observing the commandment "Honor thy father and thy mother". We used to commend a child for that, not slap him. The issue wasn't like a random bee in his bonnet. He was concerned enough to be taken for gay. That, too, should be admirable. It reminds me of the American diplomat in Wallenberg shepherding a group of visitors on a train in pre-war Nazi Germany. A conductor appeared in the car announcing that any Jew would have to move to a car for Jews. "Who is a Jew here?" The diplomat replied, "In that case, we are all Jews." Sometimes an impudent adolescent gives me more faith in the future of the human race than anyone else in sight.

quote:
Golden Key writes:
PhotoShop might make sense if he'd jumped into the pic at the last minute and another pic couldn't be taken, or if they couldn't figure out a way to talk to him directly. It would probably have been better to tell him face to face at the time that he couldn't be in the pic. If they had some diplomacy and a sense of humor, they could have made a joke that they didn't want all the little old ladies to keel over when they saw the pic on the bulletin board!

I have to think that who appears in a picture is a very insignificant matter compared with how the boy might have embarrassed the church with all the onlookers during the walk itself. Yet he apparently got away with that with no objection either before or during the event. Since it is a picture we are talking about, and the problem is one person being too colorful, why didn't anyone think of simply issuing the photograph in black-and-white (if they really must do anything at all about it)?

quote:
Johnny asks:
2. How would we respond if this was about a 15 year old boy who turned up for a church walk,
of a church known for its pro-gay stance, with a t-shirt saying, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" ?

I'd want to be exasperatingly pedantic again: it's in our creed that God the Father created everything seen and unseen. Therefore God did create Adam and Steve. Hence the
statement on the T shirt is not only scientifically moot, but by our lights heretical and false. It is inconsistent with a basic (and I do mean basic) teaching of the church
and will misrepresent us. Furthermore, it will deliberately offend people; and as a statement
meant to exclude, any offense taken is much more justifiabe than any symbolic gesture intended to include.

Then I hope I'd count to ten and let it all pass,
taking the situation as an opportunity to minister to a kid who is angry and insecure about something, and to show him over
time the power of love. If our reputation as an affirming church were so fragile as to be threatened by a single youth looking a little wayward, I wouldn't feel very entitled to object.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Yes, but the boy's church is NOT an affirming church.

Did you read the article about the rainbow flag? In the US, anyway, flags and clothing that display a prominent rainbow are apt to be interpreted as gay-related.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

If it were the boy's church, all the more right he would have to protest something to which he objects. It was not, but I gather that he attended (1) at the invitation of one or more peers, who may or may not have been aware of his family situation (2) in a village where there weren't a lot of alternatives.

I submit that, to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a rainbow can be just a rainbow. There is ancient biblical precedent (if nothing else) for a boy's wearing many colors. If someone in Wales infers that a rainbow-wearer is ipso facto a gay activist because people infer it in the U.S., mightn't it be a problem for the inferrer rather than the wearer? You said earlier that homosexuality is irrelevant, but now you insist that this it is what it is about.

We also have the term "rainbow coalition", which celebrates many different kinds of people coming together. This sounds like a healthy thing to me (quite aside from the fact that God created rainbows and all the colors therein). I would think that if someone objects to this imagery, and the value behind it, on the grounds that gay people must be an exception to an otherwise general invitation, then this, too, is a problem for the objector. Why it isn't an embarrassing problem as well is beyond my comprehension. At any rate, set against the meaning of the symbol, it is arguably the objector who is picking a fight.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Alogon,

Homosexuals aren't relevant here, as we don't know what gender/s of person the boy concerned finds himself attracted to.

Rather, he was a "gay campaigner", in effect, and this is a different thing.

I don't see why only gays should care about the way that gays are treated, any more that only blacks should have cared how blacks were treated in the 1960s civil rights movement.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't see why only gays should care about the way that gays are treated, any more that only blacks should have cared how blacks were treated in the 1960s civil rights movement.

Totally agree. There's no obligation to belong to a particular minority or group to compaign for its rights.

I'm sure at least part of the boy's motivations must be supporting his mother who I think the OP said is a lesbian. I think he was very brave and I hope he can find a church where he'll be welcomed.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

We're currently planning our parish youth weekend away, the theme is Noah's Ark. Rainbows are going to feature quite strongly. There may even be children wearing rainbows or carrying rainbow flags- should I edit them out of the photos in the parish magazine for fear of offending our more conservative brethren?

I am finding this thread saddening. The church members whose actions are described in the OP seem to have over-reacted appallingly to a very mild act of rebellion by a teenager. Perhaps the tutu was more of a challenge than the flag, but even so, insulting him and his mother was a dreadful response. Bad manners and, more importantly, bad witness to the God of love - the God who, incidentally, gave us the rainbow as a sign of his promise to all of his people.

anne

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Alogon--

--Reading the OPer's various posts, it seems that the boy and his brother had been going there for a while.

--I realize that symbolism varies among countries...but the combination of a rainbow flag and a boy wearing a tutu (female ballet gear) is most likely meant to refer to LGBT issues.

--*I* never said that homosexuality was irrelevant to the situation, nor the discussion. You've got me mixed up with someone else.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
He was photoshopped out of the church pictures for being gay

For some reason, I thought of this thread this morning. I found myself wondering whether anyone else was photoshopped out of the picture because they looked like they might be sinful.

For example, were there any fat people on the walk? If so, were they photoshopped out of the picture to avoid giving the impression that the church was not sufficiently opposed to gluttony?

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

In case anyone reading this thread would find it helpful, here's a blog on raising a (possibly) gay child:

Pink is for boys

It's not my own blog, but I do know the blogger, who wishes to remain anonymous for the sake of the kids.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

^ Wow. Thanks for the link because at the very least it will be interesting reading.

There's some possibility that that child is transgender rather than gay, which is an even trickier road. But either way the author is doing an amazing job.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0