quote:

---

MEDIA STATEMENT
THE MOST REVEREND ROGER HERFT AM
ARCHBISHOP OF PERTH

SYNOD MOTION – HUMAN SEXUALITY

Gay, lesbian and people of other sexual orientations are welcome in parishes in this diocese. In fact, there are gay and lesbian clergy serving in the priesthood. They are licensed by me and are honoured and respected as priests who serve as others do with integrity and holiness.

Lay people who identify as gay and lesbian are welcome in our churches. Some of them bring their children for baptism and are warmly welcomed into our parishes. There are particular parishes in which special services are held for gay/lesbian/transsexual persons, their partners, parents, siblings and supporters.

I have promised to stand firm against any discrimination or phobia exhibited against persons who identify as gay and lesbian.

The church is like parliament in that it has checks and balances at various levels with clergy, laity and bishops having input into a final decision. The Synod is but one level, and as the governing body of the Diocese of Perth, it must exercise due care in the resolutions that are passed. That is why when the motion came before the Synod in 2012 I dissented from this resolution giving reasons for this. It has been raised again, but what does the resolution actually say:

“That this Synod:

1 recognises diversity within the Diocese of Perth, both in our sexual identities and in our theologies of human sexuality;

2 note the support from many within the Anglican Church for committed same-sex couples being able to register their relationships as ‘civil unions’ in Australia; and

3 acknowledges that legal recognition of committed same-sex relationships may coexist with legal recognition of marriage between a man and a woman.”

I believe the first part is theologically flawed and has serious consequences in terms of the message it proclaims.

Our primary identity and place before God is not sexual. We are sexual beings but this is not the sum total of who we are.

There is a further difficulty with the open-ended recognition of diverse theologies and sexual identities. The Royal Commission has made us more aware of how careful we must be with our actions, our words, and our legislative language.
There are priests who have used the concept of diversity to justify their abuse of another person. It is ordinarily inappropriate for a governing body to be so general in its wording in this way.

The second part of the motion notes support for civil unions for same-sex couples. An in-principle support for civil unions might be recognised as an important step for gay and lesbian people. However, the difficulty in Western Australia is that this legislation has not been passed by parliament. For synod to endorse legislation it has not seen is fraught with difficulty.

The third part of the motion claims that the legal recognition of committed same-sex relationships may co-exist with the legal recognition of marriage between a man and a woman. We have no legislation that has been passed at a federal and state level to know what the legislation looks like, but the words “legal recognition of committed same-sex relationships” may be seen to include the recognition of same-sex marriage.

This part of the motion, in the context of the motion as a whole, is likely to have unintended consequences in terms of the Fundamental Declarations of our church regarding the Sacrament of Marriage.

These matters require further consideration and I will inform the synod within the next 30 days of my decision.

---

What do youse think?
 

---

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :
 
The archbishop makes good sense when he says:

"I believe the first part is theologically flawed and has serious consequences in terms of the message it proclaims.

Our primary identity and place before God is not sexual. We are sexual beings but this is not the sum total of who we are."
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Bet it won't influence the diocese of Sydney!
 

---

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :
 
The only thing it might influence is a schism.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Wow...

LOL.

Thanks for sharing that. I dug up the link to the official release ( http://www.perth.anglican.org/news/1/?id=238 ) so I could save the archbishop's reply to my computer and reread it any time I need a good chuckle.

"The archbishop makes good sense"


So, um, let me get this straight... the synod passed a resolution that, to paraphrase, basically says "some people in the diocese support LBGT rights". Wow, a resolution stating an obvious fact. Well, if Anglicans can agree on nothing else these days, best stick to agreeing on obvious facts. That way it at least looks like the synod is in agreement, and has a general air of getting things done.

But to those obvious facts, the archbishop responds (my paraphrase):
"I'm not at all homophobic! Really! And I promise I have some gay friends. But...

I'm seeing an inkling of support for LBGT people in your resolution, so of course I'm going to veto it.

Reasons? Wait, you want reasons? Um, yeah, got some of those somewhere... ~searches around~. Oh, um, yeah, let's start with a made-up theological reason. They're good because they always sound theologicalish and can say whatever I want because they don't have to actually make any sense. So, it's therefore my considered theological opinion that human sexuality needs a theology. Or something. That's a reason, right? I'm pretty sure a Royal commission said something about that at some point.

Oh, and a second reason: How can people support legislation that hasn't been passed yet? Hah! You civil unions supporters can't support civil unions, because it hasn't been passed! And we all know that legislation needs to be passed before it can be supported. Hmm, wait, do I have that backwards? I dunno. I get confused sometimes. Hmm, where was I. Oh yes, you can't support legislation that hasn't been passed! So, obviously you can't support gay marriage either, because that hasn't been passed. Gosh, you'd think all those gay marriage supporters would realise that they can't support bills until after they've passed!

And what would a gay marriage bill even look like anyway? It would be so totally unprecedented in world history that I have no idea what one would even be like... the imagination boggles. It's a pity no other country in the world has ever introduced a gay marriage bill, otherwise we might know what to expect. Sorry, gay marriage supporters, tough luck.

Although I'm not actually sorry, if that makes you feel any better."

I am left in awe of his mental gymnastics.

 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Our primary identity and place before God is not sexual. We are sexual beings but this is not the sum total of who we are."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Our primary identity and place before God is not sexual. We are sexual beings but this is not the sum total of who we are."

---

You know something? Most lesbian and gay people would agree with you. Its not us who keeps on bringing it up, however, its the church. I'd have loved it if the church had looked past my sex life to the person and treated me like any other person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
The church isn't bringing up same-sex marriage. But it is necessary that it provides a response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
The Church needs to stand publicly in support of same-sex marriage in order to remain true to the message of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Looks liks the Church in Australia is becoming as preoccupied with sex as the Church of England.

Personally, I'm shocked that all these clergy should spend so much time speculating on the sex lives of others - its nothing but smut.

Someone try to get them to lift their minds above the waist for a change - please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Our primary identity and place before God is not sexual. We are sexual beings but this is not the sum total of who we are."

---

You know something? Most lesbian and gay people would agree with you. Its not us who keeps on bringing it up, however, its the church. I'd have loved it if the church had looked past my sex life to the person and treated me like any other person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
The Church needs to stand publicly in support of same-sex marriage in order to remain true to the message of Jesus.

---

What compels you to believe that?

---

Throughout his ministry Jesus sought out those who were shunned by the religious leaders of his society. He associated particularly with people who were being rejected by society. Those particularly included the poor, the 'unclean', prostitutes, the sick, etc. Repeatedly he challenged the social order and the idea that these people should really be outcasts, saying "the last shall be first and the first shall be last". In line with this, he appears to have treated woman as equals to men, despite his society's social roles. The gospels make clear that what drove his ministry was love. He really loved and cared about these people, and could see their suffering, much of which was unnecessary suffering inflicted by society shunning them. So Jesus created a group in which they were welcome, an alternate society for them in which they could live and help each other, which later became the Church.

The religious authorities condemned him for associating with the people they deemed unclean, and that their religion told them were 'bad'. They felt God had clearly told them that these people were sinners who needed to be condemned, excluded, and outcast. Jesus called the religious authorities all sorts of named for their stubborn foolishness. Looking more carefully at the difference, we can see in the gospels two competing notions of morality. The Pharisees looked for commands of God to follow, looked for things that God had said were 'wrong', and condemned and excluded on behalf of God anyone who was doing 'wrong'. Jesus loved people, and cared about them. He saw those who were suffering and he wanted to help them.

Today the situation repeats itself with the LBGT community. Social stigmatization, driven largely by religious authorities has been strong against them over the last century. Yet over the last decade, almost every single professional scientific organisation in the Western world has issued statements in support of LBGT rights, saying that scientific research shows no negative consequences of being gay or gay marriage, but that plenty of negative consequences result from society stigmatizing this group of people and rejecting them.

And yet the modern day Pharisees continue to insist on rejecting and oppressing these people - they campaign to have homosexuality be a criminal offence, or to have their relationships not be recognized by law, or that their relationships be officially stigmatized as something less than marriage. And their continued attempts at oppression have real consequences - the effects of social stigma against gay people are well documented, but one of the most tragic results to my mind is the massively increased rate of suicide among gay people. That group is 4 times as likely to commit suicide than straight people, due to the stress of social rejection they face. The statistics of it are difficult to obtain precisely, but approximately 1000 gay people in the US commit suicide per year who wouldn't otherwise have done so had they not faced social rejection (that could be out by up to a factor of two either way). So the modern Pharisees don't simply have hands that are red with the blood of those their rejection and hatred has killed, they're pretty much wading in it.

The Church, following Jesus, has an obligation to side with those being needlessly oppressed and rejected by society. The Church itself was created for those people in the first place.
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Starlight -

I would say more - but I try very hard to stay overtly neutral on this Board...
 

---

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :
 
You have no question from me that Jesus ministry was based on love.

He sought out the lost, the sinner, the sick, and the outcast, not to wallow in the muck with them, but to liberate them from it.

Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but he told her to 'sin no more'.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
He sought out the lost, the sinner, the sick, and the outcast, not to wallow in the muck with them, but to liberate them from it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
You have no question from me that Jesus ministry was based on love.

He sought out the lost, the sinner, the sick, and the outcast, not to wallow in the muck with them, but to liberate them from it.

Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but he told her to 'sin no more'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Homosexual and other sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded as being sinful, as is adultery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Does love = license to you? If it doesn't, where do you draw the line and why?

How do we discern which types of 'love' should be celebrated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So if homosexual love should be affirmed, what about other kinds of love?
...
How do we discern which types of 'love' should be celebrated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
However, homosexual and other sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded as being sinful, as is adultery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
I agree that homosexuality is not an equivalent to adultery.

However, homosexual and other sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded as being sinful, as is adultery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
The problem is that by definition, marriage requires that it is between a man and a woman.

Calling the relationship between two men or two women 'marriage' doesn't make it so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
The problem is that by definition, marriage requires that it is between a man and a woman.

Calling the relationship between two men or two women 'marriage' doesn't make it so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Catch 22.

---

Well, Catch 22 in the clothes of the Book of Catches, Chapter 22, beginning to read at the 3rd verse.
 

---

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :
 
Not at all. Marriage isn't between a man and a woman because I say it is so. I am simply affirming that fact.

Indeed the bible does give us examples of polygamous marriages. The thing is - they all involve at least one man and one woman
 

---

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Not at all. Marriage isn't between a man and a woman because I say it is so. I am simply affirming that fact.

Indeed the bible does give us examples of polygamous marriages. The thing is - they all involve at least one man and one woman

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Not at all. Marriage isn't between a man and a woman because I say it is so. I am simply affirming that fact.

Indeed the bible does give us examples of polygamous marriages. The thing is - they all involve at least one man and one woman

---

quote:

---

Jesus condemned the religious establishment because they were hypocrites.

---

So unlike the church of today...
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Pommie Mick: Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but he told her to 'sin no more'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
I agree that homosexuality is not an equivalent to adultery.

However, homosexual and other sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded as being sinful, as is adultery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Does love = license to you? If it doesn't, where do you draw the line and why?

How do we discern which types of 'love' should be celebrated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So if homosexual love should be affirmed, what about other kinds of love?

Does love = license to you? If it doesn't, where do you draw the line and why?

How do we discern which types of 'love' should be celebrated?

Perhaps we should remove discrimination against other kinds of love, too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Perhaps we should remove discrimination against other kinds of love, too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
On the contrary there are considerable risks experienced by those living homosexual lifestyles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Perhaps we should remove discrimination against other kinds of love, too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
On the contrary there are considerable risks experienced by those living homosexual lifestyles. Exposure and prevalence of STDs, high rates of domestic violence, risk of mental illness, promiscuity.

---

quote:

---

It concerns me that monogamy is a relative rarity for same-sex couples – particularly males, where their own research concedes that less than 50% of those in committed relationships are monogamous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
On the contrary there are considerable risks experienced by those living homosexual lifestyles. Exposure and prevalence of STDs,

---

quote:

---

high rates of domestic violence,

---

quote:

---

risk of mental illness

---

quote:

---

promiscuity.

---

quote:

---

It concerns me that monogamy is a relative rarity for same-sex couples – particularly males, where their own research concedes that less than 50% of those in committed relationships are monogamous. That rings alarm bells for me, although I am aware that not all heterosexual couples are monogamous, it appears that the ideal of monogamy does not even seem to be desired. Any definition of marriage that dispenses with monogamy is quite different to the one that we have traditionally aspired to.

---

quote:

---

So Starlight, just want to check this with you - I must be 'evil' and 'wicked' because I oppose same-sex marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
On the contrary - the slippery slope has been confirmed. Marriage is in an extremely poor state that many heteros don't even want get married. The institution has little value in my generation (other than for homosexuals, oddly). Half of those who do marry get divorced, and now homosexuals want a piece of the action, for what? So they can get divorced like heterosexual couples?

---

What you are saying here is that the people who hitherto have had a monopoly on marriage - heterosexuals - have made a mess of it. Your solution? Take it out on the homos.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The obvious solution was to ban marriage, then none of this slippery slope business would have occurred. Why didn't they think of this?
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick
Surely Christianity is about being conformed into the image of God, rather than being a therapy of self-justification and self-aggrandizement? Self-emptying, dying to self and all that?

---

Absolutely, and one of the ways that we can progress in the direction of that conformation is by living together as a committed, faithful, self giving and loving marriage. Not for everyone, but for most people. It's in learning to put each other first that we not only learn to put God first, but we actually do put God first. The Orthodox, I believe, have a word for it; "povdig". I believe it carries with it the implicit assumption that this sort of transformation is hard work - certainly not for the self indulgent. Of course, some heteros fail in the process, and I'm sure that some gay folk will, too. But if you think that it's worth the try for straights, I don't see why you would want to deny the same to LGBT folk. Isn't it the job of the church to bless the good and overcome the bad. And on the list of things that God thinks are "good", it strikes me that love and commitment figure very highly.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Jolly Jape

Great post. Yes, it's in the contemplation of another, that I can learn to burn away the dross in my own soul, and learn not vomit over others, and to maintain a glad heart, and an open heart. But as you say, this is very very hard work, with much faltering. But why should it be denied to gays and lesbians? Completely absurd and of course, not with a glad and open heart.
 

---

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :
 
Queer theory has traditionally seen itself opposed to societal norms like marriage, family and monogamy.

And now all of a sudden they've changed their mind?
 

---

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :
 
Are mental illness and suicide rates increasing amongst homosexuals?

If they are, it cannot be because of any supposed discrimination, because there is much greater acceptance and celebration of homosexuality now than there was even in the recent past.
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 


If you're concerned about the "high" rates of STD and domestic violence amongst LGBT people, wouldn't the solution be to create structures like marriage that encourage monogamy and relationship stability? Surely that would do more to prevent transmission of STDs and reduce domestic violence than the having nothing in place, which sends a message to this community that intimacy and companionship doesn't matter.

The fact that many conservatives seem unwilling to admit is withholding legal and social recognition isn't going to make LGBT people, who wouldn't otherwise, choose celibacy. LGBT people will still form relationships. LGBT people will form households. LGBT people will still raise children, either adopted, IVF, foster or from a previous heterosexual marriage. Marriage merely makes these more secure and stable for all involved.

Beside, a cause of higher rates of drug abuse, suicide, depression and promiscuity amongst LGBT is what is called "minority stress". It's also a reason that Native Americans and aboriginals in Canada and Australia have higher rates of alcoholism and domestic violence, and African Americans have higher rates of gang violence and marriage breakdown. Minority stress occurs when a community is ostracized and stigmatized. This leads to substance abuse and other unhealthy behaviours.

Studies show that 90% of LGBT youth have experienced verbal and physical abuse due to their sexual orientation and most LGBT experience significant pressure to keep their orientation private and pretend to be heterosexual to please family and friends. And while LGBT people may make up 2-8% of the population, 40% of homeless youth are LGBT - kicked out by their own parents.

It's no surprise that rates of social dysfunction are higher. There's nothing about LGBT itself that leads to this, though. But the stigma, prejudice and double lives many have to live take their toll, just like with other minority groups.

Now I know that most conservative Christians really don't care whether gay people suffer, because their opposition isn't about what's best for LGBT (and they certainly don't want our input) but their opposition is more about preserving entitlement and their sense of who's in and who's out, but making marriage open to LGBT, on the same basis as straight people, would reduce minority stress and help create a healthier community.
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Queer theory has traditionally seen itself opposed to societal norms like marriage, family and monogamy.

And now all of a sudden they've changed their mind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Are mental illness and suicide rates increasing amongst homosexuals?

If they are, it cannot be because of any supposed discrimination, because there is much greater acceptance and celebration of homosexuality now than there was even in the recent past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
On the polygamy/polyarmory issue, I think you might find that it isn't Muslims pushing for it in the West, but nice middle-class white people. In fact, I have several peers who are or have been in poly relationships. And guess what, they're using exactly the same arguments for the case of affirming their kind of love that same-sex marriage activists have. What do you say to them?

---

quote:

---

On the contrary - the slippery slope has been confirmed. Marriage is in an extremely poor state that many heteros don't even want get married. The institution has little value in my generation (other than for homosexuals, oddly). Half of those who do marry get divorced, and now homosexuals want a piece of the action, for what? So they can get divorced like heterosexual couples? And now we have the poly community champing at the bit and demanding that discrimination be ended against them. Slippery slope? We're more than half-way down the slide.

---

quote:

---

Queer theory has traditionally seen itself opposed to societal norms like marriage, family and monogamy.

---

Who cares what those particular people thought? Philosophers come up with stupid rubbish all the time. (One of my majors was Philosophy, so I'm qualified to say that )

quote:

---

And now all of a sudden they've changed their mind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So Starlight, do you think I'm 'evil' and 'wicked' for not supporting same-sex marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
How is it that minority stress leads to high rates of mental illness and suicide, but it doesn't seem to prevent homosexuals having higher incomes than the population at large in Western nations? That seems strange. Perhaps there's a reason?

Whilst minority stress and discrimination is said to account for the relative poverty and poor health of certain minorities such as the black and indigenous communities, it is odd that other minorities (such as Jews and Chinese) whilst historically being heavily discriminated against were not as significantly impacted. Despite quite widespread discrimination, Jews have at times throughout history been wealthier than the predominant ethnic group in the West. It seems 'minority stress' works sometimes, for some groups, on some things.

Of course not all homosexuals do embrace 'queer theory'. I never said they did. However, it must be acknowledged that queer theorists, activists et al have been at the forefront of defining and leading the social movement. There has been a significant change over over the last 10-20 years. No longer do we hear terms of derision such as 'breeders', referring to heterosexual couples. It's strange than only a few years ago, homosexual and feminists activists condemned marriage as an oppressive and patriarchal institution, but now they seem to be the biggest supporters of it. What is it that has brought about this change in philosophy?

---

For a start, not all people who are LGBTQ are homosexual - I am bisexual but still under the LGBTQ flag, it would be nice if people could remember that LGBTQ =/= homosexual. Cheers. Aside from that, what on earth is wrong with using gay instead of homosexual? Homosexual is a bit clinical and unfriendly, unless of course being unfriendly is what you're aiming for (as it seems to be).

Re income, it is only white middle-class cisgendered gay men who tend to have higher incomes - a black lesbian earns on average less than a white heterosexual woman. This is because men earn more than women still, whether the man is gay or straight. As for minority stress, uh yeah, different minority groups differ. News at 11.

Has it not occured to you that maybe feminist and LGBTQ activists used to decry marriage because it WAS oppressive then, and is not any more (or is less so)? Shockingly enough, philosophy changes as circumstances do.

Why is the concept of risky behaviours being more common in LGBTQ people (still an oppressed group despite improvements in the West) due to bad treatment such a surprise to you? I mean, risky behaviours in oppressed racial groups are presumably not a surprise to you, unless you think Native Americans have high alcoholism rates because God doesn't approve of them. Success =/= God's approval anyway surely? What a twisted approach to the Gospel.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
What Boogie said

The thing is, PM, you have a choice to make. Do you go with what you assume to be Jesus' attitude to gay relationships,even though you have no direct evidence to support that assumption, or do you go with what you know to be a priority in Jesus ministry, support for the outcast, a passion for justice, the primacy of love, the importance of fidelity, and many other supporting evidences? So I would add to Boogie's list "unscriptural"
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
On marriage, it's interesting that women used to be non-persons within it in legal terms (in English law). Thus the 'feme sole' had certain rights, e.g. to form contracts; but the 'feme covert' (i.e. married woman) had no such rights, and her identity was subsumed into her husband's.

It's not surprising therefore that feminists and others have campaigned long and hard to reduce this absurd degree of invalidation of women, culminating in the various Married Women's Property Acts of the late 19th century.

But I think that marital rape was not illegalized until much later.

So marriage was indeed an oppressive place for women.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Marital rape was criminalised IIRC correctly by the House of Lords' judicial committee (God Bless the old farts!) in the early 1990s.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Of course not all homosexuals do embrace 'queer theory'. I never said they did. However, it must be acknowledged that queer theorists, activists et al have been at the forefront of defining and leading the social movement. There has been a significant change over over the last 10-20 years. No longer do we hear terms of derision such as 'breeders', referring to heterosexual couples. It's strange than only a few years ago, homosexual and feminists activists condemned marriage as an oppressive and patriarchal institution, but now they seem to be the biggest supporters of it. What is it that has brought about this change in philosophy?

---

quote:

---

So Starlight, do you think I'm 'evil' and 'wicked' for not supporting same-sex marriage?

---

quote:

---

"One of the consequences of [social stigma] is that gay adolescents have, among other things, a materially greater suicide attempt rate than their peers. This results from the pain of being stigmatized and, ironically, the self-hatred associated with internalizing the social values that led to the stigmatization in the first place. By perpetuating the stigma through its segregation of gay couples into a separate form of legal relationship, the State contributes materially to these harmful, and sometimes tragic, outcomes."

---

quote:

---

Another useful analogy is that some people are left-handed, and some aren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I think that in the past there was a tendency to view gay people as fundamentally different from straight people.

---

quote:

---

But the group of people who are publicly 'out' as gay is going to be a very skewed sample of the total gay population. They are going to be the tail end of the normal distribution, the people who are most blatently and strongly gay, whose sexual urges and drives are just so strong that they can't be controlled and who are just so obvious about it that they can't hide it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
And I think that's where conservative Christians have become so divorced for the rest of society on this issue. Because outside the church, people encounter a friend who admits they are gay, or a family member who does so, and the people realise that their friend is normal and just happens to be attracted to the same gender. Whereas, for many conservative Christians, they don't know any gay people (and any gay members of their congregation would never admit to it), and in their imaginations, gay people are some sort of strongly stereotyped group of abnormal people who have some sort of fundamental disorder that affects everything about them, and even contaminates people around them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
[qb] I think that in the past there was a tendency to view gay people as fundamentally different from straight people.

---

This really only happens in the nineteenth century, when homosexuality becomes classified as a potentially treatable medical condition.

---

quote:

---

I believe what happened was that a subculture formed with markers by which people could identify each other as members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Exposure and prevalence of STDs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
How is it that minority stress leads to high rates of mental illness and suicide, but it doesn't seem to prevent homosexuals having higher incomes than the population at large in Western nations? That seems strange. Perhaps there's a reason?

---

quote:

---

Whilst minority stress and discrimination is said to account for the relative poverty and poor health of certain minorities such as the black and indigenous communities, it is odd that other minorities (such as Jews and Chinese) whilst historically being heavily discriminated against were not as significantly impacted. Despite quite widespread discrimination, Jews have at times throughout history been wealthier than the predominant ethnic group in the West. It seems 'minority stress' works sometimes, for some groups, on some things.

---

quote:

---

Of course not all homosexuals do embrace 'queer theory'. I never said they did. However, it must be acknowledged that queer theorists, activists et al have been at the forefront of defining and leading the social movement. There has been a significant change over over the last 10-20 years. No longer do we hear terms of derision such as 'breeders', referring to heterosexual couples. It's strange than only a few years ago, homosexual and feminists activists condemned marriage as an oppressive and patriarchal institution, but now they seem to be the biggest supporters of it. What is it that has brought about this change in philosophy? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
On the polygamy/polyarmory issue, I think you might find that it isn't Muslims pushing for it in the West, but nice middle-class white people. In fact, I have several peers who are or have been in poly relationships. And guess what, they're using exactly the same arguments for the case of affirming their kind of love that same-sex marriage activists have. What do you say to them?

---

I support them and their right to marry. I do worry, however, that historically in Mormon fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism the practice of polygamy was closely tied to the oppression of women. I am all ears if someone has a sensible view of how polygamy could be legalised without causing harm to women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Just to add: although the Bible talks about marriage, it never defines it. So don't try to pull "the Bible's" definition on the discussion -- there isn't one.

Societies contemporary with "the Bible" -- that is to some part of its 1,000 year period of composition and acceptance -- had a wide variety of definitions of marriage. Roman society for example defined different kinds of marriage depending on whether the participants were patrician or not -- if so, and if they wanted their children to be eligible for certain priestly offices, then the marriage was indissoluble. But if, not. Marriages where no property was involved could amount to a couple saying in front of witnesses "we're married" -- and divorce was just as easy in such a case. Small examples.

The Bible's comments undoubtedly assume a man and at least one woman, plus possibly some (female) concubines in the background -- but then the Bible also assumes things that are demonstrably false. At best some of these assumptions are choices...none are compulsory. I'm free to assume that, as in roughly parallel societies (pastoral, mid-eastern) today or until recently, despite specific prohibitions in sacred writings, men were free to make love to sheep, camels or to their close male friends without any particular censure, so long as they married one or several women as well... and just imagine where we might go with that assumption.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
When Jesus spoke on the subject of ending a marriage, his presumption was based on one man, one woman. I doubt that this could be regarded as 'demonstrably false'.
Angus

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0