Ship of Fools: dissin' teh gayz: sticks 'n stones...

Thread: dissin' teh gayz: sticks 'n stones... 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=028615

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

...may break my bones, but really, it does get rather tedious having to thole terms such as 'abomination' within a wider gathering of church folk such as at a presbytery meeting. Implicit in the public use of a phrase such as 'they are an abomination unto Lord' in a meeting is the assumption that none of 'them' are in the meeting. Plus it's just utterly bad manners (she said, primly).

So, this post is one searching for a way in which we can engage with each other using, if not the language of love, at least the language of civility in this most tedious of dead horse areas.

Two linked questions:
What are:
1/ effective strategies of dealing with thoughtless and/ or deliberate name-calling when engaged in public debate?

2/ helpful ways in which to remember to see the human behind the ideology? [and thus move away from potential dehumanising language in debate]?

and a third:
3/ how can we be a place that recognises the huge psychological damage we inflict upon one another when we enter into the behaviour noted above... and how do we not only recognise it, but acknowledge it and but move beyond it?

[ 06. November 2011, 13:49: Message edited by: joan knox ]

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

Sadly, as long as humans can couch their hurtful language in religious or scriptural terms (no matter which faith) there will always be those fail to see the human behind their ideology - referring to those they don't agree with as "abominations to God" and feel perfectly justified in doing so. Even without theological basis non believers have no problem calling people "mentally ill" or "perverted" because they feel the other person is "acting against nature". What saddens me even more is when I see it happen even when people know the person they are aiming the words at. Like family cutting off relationship with other family members who have come out as gay.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Speaking as an abomination, I don't feel much hope around your no.3, partly because my experience is that those who have called me such, don't see themselves as name-calling (no.1). Rather, they see themselves as boldly stating the truth. This means that the human (no.2) is totally invisible except as a target for righteousness.

Personally, I have tried to avoid finding ways to act this way, even under some pretty extreme provocation (General Assembly being most memorable). My favourite tool is my imaginary plastic mac of salvation, off which all slanders (otherwise known as "truth") slide. The only person I have control over is me, and the example I would like to hold up is one of civility. If I imagine the shit sliding off, I have some measure of control of myself.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Speaking as an abomination, I don't feel much hope around your no.3, partly because my experience is that those who have called me such, don't see themselves as name-calling (no.1). Rather, they see themselves as boldly stating the truth. This means that the human (no.2) is totally invisible except as a target for righteousness.

Personally, I have tried to avoid finding ways to act this way, even under some pretty extreme provocation (General Assembly being most memorable). My favourite tool is my imaginary plastic mac of salvation, off which all slanders (otherwise known as "truth") slide. The only person I have control over is me, and the example I would like to hold up is one of civility. If I imagine the shit sliding off, I have some measure of control of myself.

There is a perfect example of #3 in the "A New Christian Line on Gay Marriage thread here in DH. The individual almost quotes you verbatim. Your imaginary plastic mac of salvation is a great tool, but there needs to be a tool accompanying it to assist the individual in seeing the hurt they are causing others. There are too many damaged people with some committing suicide because of the damage caused by their "truth".

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
target for righteousness

Three words that speak volumes - thank you for introducing me to such a wonderful phrase!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Indeed. I quite like the idea of a T-shirt that says "I am a target of righteousness".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

FOR. Not OF. This is how tired I am. Can't read.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:

and a third:
3/ how can we be a place that recognises the huge psychological damage we inflict upon one another when we enter into the behaviour noted above... and how do we not only recognise it, but acknowledge it and but move beyond it?

Might a Queer Bible Commentary come in handy?

SCM Press is having a serious sale!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:

and a third:
3/ how can we be a place that recognises the huge psychological damage we inflict upon one another when we enter into the behaviour noted above... and how do we not only recognise it, but acknowledge it and but move beyond it?
Might a Queer Bible Commentary come in handy?

SCM Press is having a serious sale!

Many thanks - I have wanted that book for ages but not at the original price.

Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Your imaginary plastic mac of salvation is a great tool, but there needs to be a tool accompanying it to assist the individual in seeing the hurt they are causing others.

I'm guessing the mature Christ-like response wouldn't be to tweak that mac slightly so that the addendum, "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you," would apply.

I'm in a situation now where I find the words "evil" and "wicked" coming quickly to my tongue when I am dealing with people who are "dissin' teh gayz." I've found myself near to biting holes in my tongue as I desperately look for appropriate ways to respond. But Jesus used phrases like "brood of vipers," so why can't I? I mean if we're going to sling scripture at each other, let's really go for it! If only the sledgehammer of justice had been included in the armour of God, though some folks certainly seem to think it was.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I've had my moments of playground thinking, Flausa!

But, and this is a big but, what I have also met is people who changed their thinking because I stayed polite and friendly and answered every rude question honestly and openly. I think of it as turning the other cheek, and the result is, just occasionally a miracle, as promised by Jesus.

I can't claim a huge number of successes, but even a few is lovely.

Posted by Orwell (# 16615) on :

Here's my advice as a fellow abomination: Simply point out that shellfish, sharks, catfish, and anyone who eats them are abomination(Leviticus somewhere), as is anyone who cuts or trims their beard.(Levitcus 19:27) They cannot curse in any way(Ephesians 5:4), both divorce and remarriage are adultery(Luke 16:18)(Only use if relevant), if it is a woman, point out that they cannot have any authority over, nor teach, a man(Timothy 2:11), that if they ever look at a hot guy/gal and think "Whoa, that's hot" (s)he's committed adultery(Mathew 5:28)and point out that Mathew 25-27 says they should be busy with their families, as they're competing for god's love, and they are each other's enemies. IF they don't shut up, just laugh at them.

Oh, and Leviticus 26:27-30 says that if you break any of the above laws, you must eat you children.

Works like a charm for me. By the way, I'd be a nice enough person to recommend fried to them. Maybe a recipe or two. I mean, if you make their baby delicious enough, maybe they'll stop hating everyone(Leviticus 19:17-18)

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I like to think that in RL the most effective way of defusing homophobia is for us simply to be open and out, and that this especially applies to us happily coupled abominations. The idea, I think, is to - if nothing else - occasion cognitive dissonance in the homophobes and bigots. In the short term, such cognitive dissonance would likely lead them to be more tenacious in trying to defend their beliefs (internally, externally, or both), but over the longer term it is just possible that some reality might sink in and some attitudes might get changed. But I have to acknowledge that in RL my partner and I have had very few occasions to have to deal with homophobic bigotry at a personal level, especially couched in religious justifications. We don't make a practice of hanging with religious denominations or social milieux that are hotbeds of homophobic bigotry. My own view, is that teh gayz who persist in doing so are being somewhat masochistic and need to get over their addictions to such punishing religious and social environments.

Posted by cupbearer (# 16746) on :

Lietuvos, I agree with you for the most part. But regarding your final point-- I do think that some people are called to be signs of contradiction. It might not be about masochism for everyone (although, heh, I'm hardly one to criticize anyone on that count). I know that religious bigotry and condemnation takes a heavy personal toll on me; but I still end up putting myself in positions where I'll be a target for it somehow. I suppose it could be because of some sort of sublimated self-loathing, but I prefer to tell myself it's because somehow I'm better able than many to defend myself and my community, and to withstand the hurtful words and actions of those who profess to have my best interests at heart when they haven't a clue what those interests really are.

We all have our own paths to follow, however winding and mysterious they might be.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
happily coupled abominations.

That's the second time this thread has introduced me to an excellent phrase! [Big Grin]

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I've never found trying to use OT texts very helpful, mostly because I find it too much like tit for tat, and it becomes puerile rather quickly. On the odd occasion I have used text war, I've tended to focus on the strange inconsistency of every single male in Sodom apart from Lot being homosexual. Oh, and that homosexuality is nothing to do with it! I find that story so distasteful because of the offering up of his daughters that I prefer not to even think about it.

If I were to use a biblical text it would be Romans 8 - nothing can separate us from the love of God... (my favourite text in the entire bible). Not my actions, not yours - we are all under the shelter of God's love. This text is a fully thought out concept, rather than a blank statement of what is right or wrong. Because it is fully conceived, there is no doubt about its meaning, in any translation you choose to use, unlike the six supposedly anti-gay texts.

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

In the CofS debates on 'wot shall we do wit teh gayz' the term 'the gay lifestyle' repeatedly pops up.
I've often wondered why my love of cooking, gardening, and sitting by the fireplace drinking hot chocolate on cold winter days is quite so offensive...

Came across this in the Huff Post this morning - love it [Smile]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Surely, "the gay lifestyle" is code for gay genital sexuality, which is so very yucky that it must be cloaked in an obfuscatory euphamism. IOW, what they're really focussing on, without acknowledging it, is strictly the genital aspect of our sexuality, devoid of all the other aspects of our relationships and lives.

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

*gasps...looks shocked*
No? Do you think so?

Indeed, that is what I think too - I just wish folk using this 'lifestyle' euphemism would just say it how it *apparently* is:
'Here's the thing gay peeps: you all can't be trusted: all you do is have sex, sex, sex, and more sex... it's all just one big 24/7 frenzy of orgiastic promiscuous ecstasy. We're surprised that due to having so much sex, you've not all gone blind.' [Paranoid]

Ah well, I think the prosaic, more realistic answer to prurient question of 'what do LGBT folk do in bed... same as straight folks: read magazines, fight for the duvet, and try not to get toast crumbs on the sheets'
seems utterly inconceivable to some. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Yes it's code for gay sex, and it's the 'get out' phrase so that people who insist on anti-gay discrimination can claim they are not like racists, misogynists etc (scratch the surface however, especially on the subject of gay marriage and you soon find the old misogynist interpretations of Genesis)

Imagine a group who claimed not to be misogynist/sexist but who insisted on campaigning to keep women out of universities, fought to have any degree awarded to a woman regarded as null and void, and who might at best grudgingly allow women to have 'separate but equal' degrees like Lady Literate in Arts* and who loudly proclaimed they had nothing against women, just the 'intellectual woman lifestyle' and that they were only after 'practising' women intellectuals who went to uni, sat exams and got degrees, it was quite alright for female intellectuals to sit at home learning from their husbands and being housewives.

Once you take sex out of the equation it becomes really obvious what is going on, that on the grounds of prejudice a privileged group is dictating to a less privileged group what they may or may not do, and what options are or are not open to them, to the harm of the less privileged group.

Because of the general Christian hang-ups about sex, it's easier for the privileged and prejudiced group to obfuscate and blow smoke over the sexual issue: 'you don't need sex, only promiscuous people and sex maniacs think they need sex!', 'some of us don't get sex you know!' 'you're obsessed with sex because you object so much to us banning it for you ' 'yukky yukky bum sex! Ewwwww!' 'Sex is only for making babies - its all about the babies and you can't have babies!' (why is sex only for making babies? Because we, the privileged, say so!); 'We want sex to be only within marriage and you can't have marriage! Why? Because we say so!'

But when you come down to it, it's a more privileged group taking it upon themselves to set terms in society to a less privileged group, and putting off-limits to them options that the privileged group take forgranted for themselves.

So I wouldn't give them the pleasure, satisfaction and frisson of talking about sex, or let them away with the 'practicing' and 'lifestyle' weasel words. I would want to push them back to talking in terms of privilege and confronting them with the fact that there's no honestly escaping that this is of a piece with sexism and other prejudices.

I also think it's essential to get to the roots of this in people's hermeneutics - that it's so often a proxy issue for beliefs about Bible interpretation and church authority.

I think by moving into these areas it can be possible to get away from dehumanising language and to deny people the thrill of going on and on about sex and throwing around nasty denunciations about sex.

L.

* an actual degree cooked up for just those reasons in the 19th century

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

oops ! ...

[ 10. November 2011, 15:45: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

Louise... [Overused]

you rock - jus' sayin'

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The 'gay lifestyle' and the 'straight lifestyle' have one other thing in common - when your partner is spooning you, try to not to break wind.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Following on from Louise (I owe you another dinner if I ever make it to Scotland again)...

My experience of being among the privileged is that they really, really get off on talking about gay sex. So they can be righteous AND have a sexual experience in public. They are far more interested in it than I am. It used to make me feel ill.

I'm sure I've written this before, but when the NZ Parliament finally passed the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1983, its promoter, the wonderful Fran Wilde, remarked, "I'm going to miss sodomy in the House on Thursdays."

Posted by Gay Organ Grinder (# 11833) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The 'gay lifestyle' and the 'straight lifestyle' have one other thing in common - when your partner is spooning you, try to not to break wind.

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

When I visited my present parish before I was appointed I was asked if I thought I might be rejected because of my "lifestyle."
All this time I thought someoene objected to me growing roses and learning Italian!
Seriously I think I ignored the question, what I wish I had the guts to say was "When did Jesus ever reject someone because of their lifestyle?"

[ 14. November 2011, 02:22: Message edited by: Matariki ]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
magine a group who claimed not to be misogynist/sexist but who insisted on campaigning to keep women out of universities, fought to have any degree awarded to a woman regarded as null and void, and who might at best grudgingly allow women to have 'separate but equal' degrees like Lady Literate in Arts* and who loudly proclaimed they had nothing against women, just the 'intellectual woman lifestyle' and that they were only after 'practising' women intellectuals who went to uni, sat exams and got degrees, it was quite alright for female intellectuals to sit at home learning from their husbands and being housewives.

<Tangent alert>

What? You mean like Sydney Anglicans? Who have nothing against female theologians as long as they don't teach men and they learn in all submission at home.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Louise:

[Overused]

I hope you don't mind if I borrow parts of that post for another discussion.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Well said, Louise

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

The "lifestyle" thing has hit me recently. I'm thinking of starting a purg thread on Christian euphemisms when I have a moment. I'm getting really sick of seeing conservative Christians saying "homosexuals think that anything should be acceptable as a so-called 'lifestyle choice' " - particularly as I have never heard anyone use the expression "lifestyle choice" who didn't have a massive objection to homosexuality. It's just not a term that my side of the argument ever uses; I'm sick of hearing that apparently we insist upon it.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

'Cept I'm not sure that the custom of referring to a "lifestyle" originated with Christian homophobes. I thought it was a term first advanced by gay apologists in an attempt to downplay the sense of difference between gay people and straight people. But it backfired.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

When do I get the lifestyle then? Or indeed either element thereof?!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

^ When you get a job on a cruise ship as a go-go dancer.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Not sure that too many people would be lining up for my flannel nighty and a cup of tea at bedtime lifestyle! To say nothing of the large chunk of time every day taken to look after my aging mother.

When I was still a church goer, I used to say that the Christian lifestyle had more day-to-day impact on my life than any imagined lesbian lifestyle.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Another reason not to dis teh gayz is that you will eventually get a scathing and bitchy letter, like this one to anti-gay crusader Amy Koch "apologizing" for undermining her marriage by forcing her to have an affair with her staffer. A sample:

quote:
We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry. And we are doubly remorseful in knowing that many will see this as a form of sexual harassment of a subordinate.

It is now clear to us that if we were not so self-focused and myopic, we would have been able to see that the time you wasted diligently writing legislation that would forever seal the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, could have been more usefully spent reshaping the legal definition of “adultery.”

Ouch!

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

The thing is, the dissers will tell you that they're "speaking the truth in love" or engaging in "tough love" out of concern for the eternal fate of the people they're dissing. How would you answer that defense, fellow abominations?

Posted by Donne, Donne, Donne. (# 16761) on :

My only response to said defense is my suprise at the large amount of vitrolic, hateful rhetoric the love of God seems to fill man with.

That may be far too general a response though...

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

LC - could you "speak the truth in love" and tell them that they are hate filled maggots? And remind them that they cannot love God and hate their brother/sister?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I had one person tell me that Jesus' scathing characterizations of scribes/Pharisees/Herod/moneychangers gave Real Christians [tm] divine sanction to be [broadly paraphrasing] arrogant judgmental assholes.

I've had better luck telling Christian dissers outside my own general tradition (who tend to be more militantly homophobic anyway) that according to the witness of the New Testament moral exhortation/correction only legitimately happens within the faith community; and therefore, because I am someone who is considered to be de facto outside/excluded from the parameters of God's Reign, they have no business giving a reprobate like me unsolicited spiritual/moral instruction or imposing Real Christian[tm] rules of behavior on me and others who are likewise unsaved. I'm off the Jesus bus already, in other words, so they've got no business nagging me about the rules on the bus.

It's harder when it's all in the family theologically and you're having to argue with a fellow [insert denominational identifier here] who isn't quite willing to throw you off the Jesus bus altogether but who does find you and your kind icky and dangerous within the denomination, who for that reason clings strongly to biblical texts that seem to support that mindset and who doesn't want any of you assuming positions of responsibility, or in some cases even being comfortably visible as individual believers, within the faith community.

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

One day I swear I will say out loud what my inside voice often says, namely:

'Actually, I think you'll find I'm a beloved child of God created in God's image, so you can f*ck right off in Christian love[tm]'

I tend to edit it to the first half when using the outside voice...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0