|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Homophobia: the meaning and use of the word
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
But, Leprechaun, the people who are making accusations of homophobia are generally using it to mean "prejudiced", not "frightened". Maybe you don't run away screaming when you meet gay people in the street. But neither do racists/sexists run away screaming when they meet black people/women in the street.
BTW, for those who have been asking for examples of everyday usage of the word "homophobia", there are at least two on this completely unrelated thread, one by IbP and one by Hel. Both use it to suggest prejudice rather than fear.
[ 27. January 2004, 15:28: Message edited by: Talitha ]
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
But, Leprechaun, the people who are making accusations of homophobia are generally using it to mean "prejudiced", not "frightened". Maybe you don't run away screaming when you meet gay people in the street. But neither do racists/sexists run away screaming when they meet black people/women in the street.
But they do avoid them, not want to mix with them, think they are evil. As I said in my last post, while some people who take the so-called conservative position on this issue do treat gay people in this way, it does not necessarily mean that it follows that all who reach this position are homophobic, even in the prejudicial way. I know plenty, including myself, who do not.
I'm sorry for those who have been mistreated by the church, but that doesn't mean homphobic can be applied as a blanket term to people you don't like. In fact, that in itself is evidence of phobic behaviour.
[Edited for UBB.]
[ 27. January 2004, 15:43: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liam
Shipmate
# 4961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
But, Leprechaun, the people who are making accusations of homophobia are generally using it to mean "prejudiced", not "frightened". Maybe you don't run away screaming when you meet gay people in the street. But neither do racists/sexists run away screaming when they meet black people/women in the street.
But they do avoid them, not want to mix with them, think they are evil.
Sexism is just a case of thinking women are evil and avoiding them? So things like women receiving lower pay in many professions, being treated like idiots by mechanics, or expected to stay in the home, for example, are nothing to do with sexism or prejudice?
Just as all those things ARE generally acknowledged as being to do with prejudice, it seems to me that the anti-gay conservative position IS prejudiced. Anyone who argues that another class of people - who are members of that class by birth not choice - should be denied full expression of their sexuality in a loving relationship, or barred from an office, IS discriminating and practising prejudice.
'Homophobe' seems to be understood by most of the people who use it to mean 'prejudiced against gay people', so I think the label sticks.
Whatever you think the Bible says, however much you claim to 'love the sinner', if you condemn homosexual practice you are denying others the opportunity to live life in all its fullness. And that deserves a nasty word.
Posts: 138 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Whatever you think the Bible says, however much you claim to 'love the sinner', if you condemn homosexual practice you are denying others the opportunity to live life in all its fullness.
Yes, because everyone has to be part of my church, whether they like it or not. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Just as all those things ARE generally acknowledged as being to do with prejudice, it seems to me that the anti-gay conservative position IS prejudiced. Anyone who argues that another class of people - who are members of that class by birth not choice - should be denied full expression of their sexuality in a loving relationship, or barred from an office, IS discriminating and practising prejudice.
But we can't take that position consistently with all people of all sexualities can we? There has to be boundaries of what is an acceptable sexual expression and what is not. I've been slated for (allegedly) equating homosexual sex with beastiality of paedaphilia. I definately was not equating them. However, what I was trying to show is that we don't treat all expressions of sexuality in an equally liberal fashion. (The reasons whyare obviously for another thread)
So,
quote:
Whatever you think the Bible says, however much you claim to 'love the sinner', if you condemn homosexual practice you are denying others the opportunity to live life in all its fullness.
I could use the same sentence but replace "homosexual" with a different, universally disliked practice - and it would become a sentance universally acceptable to this thread. And disagreeing with these practices would not be condemned as a phobia.
And, as I keep returning to, there are perhaps two groups of "conservatives". Some, who are hateful and unloving and homophobic (perhaps including this Phelps person - who I know nothing about). But there are others, including plenty of gay people ("by birth not choice") who believe gay sex is wrong. If gay people are concluding this, it must by definition be possible to take this possition and not be homophobic? No one has answered this yet!
[Edited quote bold UBB]
[ 27. January 2004, 22:44: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liam
Shipmate
# 4961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Whatever you think the Bible says, however much you claim to 'love the sinner', if you condemn homosexual practice you are denying others the opportunity to live life in all its fullness.
Yes, because everyone has to be part of my church, whether they like it or not.
So it's OK for them to be gay somewhere else? It's either fine to be gay or it's not, surely.
To put it another way: would it be OK for you to bar black people from joining your church? No, because that would be prejudiced. So, in practical terms, how is this any different?
Posts: 138 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think that Arabella (or many other people here, for that matter) would consider the people in TFT "self-accepting".
Can you elaborate that please?
I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick, but I got the impression from the few pages I checked out that this was an organisation that helped people out of homosexual lifestyles, right?
If this is the case (and if it isn't, I'm really sorry for being an idiot), then it's the precise opposite of what those of us who don't see a prohibition against being gay being in scripture would consider as "self-accepting".
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think that Arabella (or many other people here, for that matter) would consider the people in TFT "self-accepting".
Can you elaborate that please?
I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick, but I got the impression from the few pages I checked out that this was an organisation that helped people out of homosexual lifestyles, right?
If this is the case (and if it isn't, I'm really sorry for being an idiot), then it's the precise opposite of what those of us who don't see a prohibition against being gay being in scripture would consider as "self-accepting".
If they believe that there are emotional issues in their past which have contributed to their sexual identity, and wish to think through those issues, then I would say they are very "self accepting."
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If they believe that there are emotional issues in their past which have contributed to their sexual identity, and wish to think through those issues, then I would say they are very "self accepting."
I see your point, but (and I apologise if I'm speaking out of turn, Arabella) I'd wager a great deal that it's not what Arabella meant.
[ 27. January 2004, 16:55: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Louise said:
I don't have time at the moment to get into this so I will simply add:
From the Oxford English Dictionary (online edition)
Louise, thank you for posting the online OED definitions and citations. The online OED is a subscription-only service, so I did not have access to it when doing my earlier research. Here is the promised linguistic and semantic analysis:
quote:
1969 Time 31 Oct. 61/3 Such homophobia is based on understandable instincts among straight people, but it also involves innumerable misconceptions and oversimplifications.
This citation implies that homophobia is not necessarily irrational, since its occurrence is understandable. It may arise automatically in straight people due to inadequate knowledge and a lack of understanding. It can be corrected by education.
quote:
1975 Globe & Mail (Toronto) 4 Sept. 7/3 There is no such thing as the homosexual problem any more than there is a black problem the problems are racism and homophobia.
This citation once again gives us the semantic parallel between racism and homophobia. In this regard, it is important to stress the differentiation between racism as a global prejudice based simply on race – who people are, regardless of behaviour – and a just discrimination based on what people are doing, regardless of race.
It is not racism if I protest loudly about the thief who has just stolen my car, and who happens to be from an ethnic minority. However, it may be racism if I presume automatically without evidence that the car thief is from an ethnic minority.
quote:
1980 Times Lit. Suppl. 19 Dec. 1440/5 Homosexuality does indeed pose serious problems: chief among them is widespread homophobia.
This citation tells us that homophobia is a widespread emerging phenomenon associated with homosexuality. Once again, the context is pejorative: homophobia is one of the chief problems associated with homosexuality.
quote:
1988 P. MONETTE Borrowed Time vii. 171 It would be harder and harder to be openly gay. For once we would not internalize the homophobia.
Homophobia makes it difficult for people to be openly gay. Homophobia also has two modes of operation – internal and external. This could correspond to the inward emotional reactions and the outward behaviour. Homophobia once again causes problems for gay people.
quote:
1971 Psychol. Rep. XXIX. 1091 The 21 highest and 21 lowest scores were designated the Homophobic Group...and Non-homophobic Group...respectively. Ibid. 1092 Homophobics said ‘yes’ significantly more often than Non-homophobic to the following statements: [etc.].
This citation would be more revealing if we had the questions in the survey. As it is, it implies one can be homophobic simply on the basis of opinions that can be gauged by yes/no answers, regardless of one’s actual words and behaviour. Its presence in a psychological report suggests that homophobia was once a word with a clinical usage.
quote:
1975 Citizen (Ottawa) 5 Sept. 2/3 The prime concern of homosexuals...is...in curing the public's widespread disdain toward gays, dubbed homophobia... A member of Gays of Ottawa called the Christian ethic the most homophobic in history.
So homophobia is a “disdain for gay people” – a reference to the “contempt” identified at dictionary.com. But is this disdain for who they are? Or disdain for what they do?
This citation also suggests that homophobia is also curable, which would suggest that homophobia may be some kind of illness or psychological condition.
Homophobic is also a word that can qualify the word “ethic”. I’m still thinking about the implications of that. Given the uniformly pejorative use of the word homophobic, this appears to be an oxymoron, like homophobic blessing.
quote:
1981 Observer 3 May 29/5 Rat-packs of homophobic punks, white or Latino, prowled gay neighbourhoods. 1986 City Limits 15.
Homophobia is associated with violent and predatory behaviour by groups of thugs quite independent of their ethnic origins.
quote:
Jan. 7 A parents' rights group…began...leafletting the area with crude, homophobic literature.
This would suggest that homophobia is associated with an attempt to assert civil rights, but little more about civil rights can be discerned from this citation. Maybe the reference is really to a denial of civil rights for others.
Homophobia can be expressed in a literary form, but this citation leaves it unclear whether one could have a sophisticated and well thought-out homophobia, as well as a crude one.
quote:
1991 Outrage (Austral.) Feb. 3/1 Remembered for his frankness about his sexuality in homophobic Hollywood, Mineo was acclaimed for his roles in Rebel Without a Cause, Giant and Exodus.
Homophobia does not like people to be frank about their homosexuality. Homophobia is also a quality particularly associated with Hollywood.
So the word homophobia, “Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality”, has overtones of ignorance, misunderstanding, a lack of education, “the black problem”, racism, other emerging social problems, incorrect thinking, inter-personal disdain, a psychiatric illness, predatory gang violence, questionable assertions of civil rights, literary crudity, and opposition in Hollywood.
That’s one mightily negative and pejorative word. Used correctly, as Louise did in respect of David Copland, it is very powerful. Used in the weakened sense of “any disagreement with homosexuality at all”, the sheer overkill is such as to render the word unusable for any serious purposes.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Whatever you think the Bible says, however much you claim to 'love the sinner', if you condemn homosexual practice you are denying others the opportunity to live life in all its fullness.
Yes, because everyone has to be part of my church, whether they like it or not.
So it's OK for them to be gay somewhere else? It's either fine to be gay or it's not, surely.
To put it another way: would it be OK for you to bar black people from joining your church? No, because that would be prejudiced. So, in practical terms, how is this any different?
If you really want to talk about this, you're in the wrong thread. And I think you know what I'm going to say anyway, so why bother?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Someone please do correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but as I read this thread it appears that the principle difference between homophobes, strictly defined, and those who have "principled opposition to homosexual activity in the light of scripture" is that the former are glad I'm going to burn in Hell, while the latter are sorry that I will.
Somehow I find little comfort in that distinction.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Someone please do correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but as I read this thread it appears that the principle difference between homophobes, strictly defined, and those who have "principled opposition to homosexual activity in the light of scripture" is that the former are glad I'm going to burn in Hell, while the latter are sorry that I will.
Nonsense. A lot of people in both groups haven't even met you, Sine. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Sine Nomine:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Wood, you are indeed correct. I am a sexually active, self-affirming, loved by God, lesbian.
I'm signing off this thread now because what I'm hearing is people justifying their right to exclude me from eternal life. I believe that is up to God, and quite honestly, I think the rest of you should leave it up to God and try loving your neighbour in his or her wholeness, accepting us as part of God's wonderful creation.
Sine
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I'm signing off this thread now because what I'm hearing is people justifying their right to exclude me from eternal life. I believe that is up to God, and quite honestly, I think the rest of you should leave it up to God and try loving your neighbour in his or her wholeness, accepting us as part of God's wonderful creation.
I don't hear anyone excluding you from eternal life, and I agree its up to God. I wouldn't dare step on his toes.
But if he's given guidelines on how he's like us to behave then I'm going to apply them to myself, live accordingly, and happily debate with those who disagree!
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
So what have we established? Homophobia, despite its origins, is widely taken to mean: "prejudice against homosexuals". This is a strong negative word, which can be overused, but at times is entirely appropriate. Did it really take 4 pages to establish this? Didn't we all know that right at the start?
The question then arises: can you have a principled, rational/spiritual objection to homosexuality without being prejudiced? It seems to me that the answer to this question is, "Yes," in theory, but in practise this is extremely rare. Those of you who wish to take such a line should be aware that - however principled your stand is - those on whom you are passing judgement may well percieve you as being homophobic, due to the extreme prejudice they often encounter form other, less principled, people. If you find it hurtful to be perceived as homophobic stop making judgements on others, or keep those judgements to yourself. (If you want to keep clean, don't play with the other children in the mud.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
I have found this thread fascinating and illuminating. It's made me go back and really read the Bible.
As a result I'm rethinking my acceptance of women's ordination. It really wasn't scripturally based.
Live and learn. That's what I always say.
...and I'm throwing out my porn. But keeping the Mapplethorpe book.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I've decided to use "homophile" for all those who hate the sin but love the sinner.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
I've met some of them. Mostly in the nap room of the YMCA.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Faithful Sheepdog - what a very comprehensive trawl through the literature. The definition involving 'disdain' is one that rings true with me. You asked whether one might have: quote:
a sophisticated and well thought-out homophobia
Indeed one can. Just as one can be a sophisticated and thoughtful racist or sexist. Doesn't make one any less racist, sexist, or homophobic. It does make one more despicable, since one doesn't even then have the 'excuse' of ignorance.
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Faithful Sheepdog - what a very comprehensive trawl through the literature. The definition involving 'disdain' is one that rings true with me. You asked whether one might have: quote:
a sophisticated and well thought-out homophobia
Indeed one can. Just as one can be a sophisticated and thoughtful racist or sexist. Doesn't make one any less racist, sexist, or homophobic. It does make one more despicable, since one doesn't even then have the 'excuse' of ignorance.
So let me get this right.
I am trying to apply the teaching of the Bible to my own life (being single, and not wanting to be a hypocrite) and also to draw attention to its teaching, and am attempting to do so in a loving way. But this is dispicable.
Others can call me dispicable and bigotted and throw other such stones. Is this an example of the loving response you seek in others? Interesting.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
FF the only despicable thing I have seen about you so far is that you refuse to consider that "the teaching of the bible" you are taking on is both accurate and complete. By the same token you are implying that your "teaching" is of a greater stature that Adeodatus's. Do you think he does not try and live a life in which the Gospel is vital?
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Faithful Sheepdog - what a very comprehensive trawl through the literature. The definition involving 'disdain' is one that rings true with me. You asked whether one might have: quote:
a sophisticated and well thought-out homophobia
Indeed one can. Just as one can be a sophisticated and thoughtful racist or sexist. Doesn't make one any less racist, sexist, or homophobic. It does make one more despicable, since one doesn't even then have the 'excuse' of ignorance.
So let me get this right.
I am trying to apply the teaching of the Bible to my own life (being single, and not wanting to be a hypocrite) and also to draw attention to its teaching, and am attempting to do so in a loving way. But this is dispicable.
Others can call me dispicable and bigotted and throw other such stones. Is this an example of the loving response you seek in others? Interesting.
Let's sharpen this up; for those of us who believe that the passage in I Cor 6 means what it is usually taken to mean - that the person in a gay relationship 'will not inherit the kingdom of God' - it is deeply unloving of us to fail to make this clear. It may be nice not to offend. It may be politically correct not to challenge. But it isn't loving; it's to fail to preach the whole gospel - it's to propound a false God. However if we've done that - in such a way as to show that we really care about the person (I'm not suggesting it's the something I've GOT to say, but I've got to be willing to make my viewpoint clear when appropriate and not duck the issue) - then hopefully we can develop the friendship with the person as with any other human being.
I've only two ongoing friendships where I've achieved that, and a third where I've lost contact for other reasons. And I admit they are not close - but they are not destroyed by our disagreement on the subject. I regret that noone has taken the risk of 'coming out' to me - the other people were known to me as gay by other means - and I hope that it is not because they fear my rejection of them.
Thank you Callan for your excellent summary of the situation and I regret that the reality is that the conservative backlash to Gene Robinson is probably more powered by 'homophobia' in the worst sense than 'principled' opposition. BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE OPPOSITION WRONG - because that is to succumb to the concept that an argument's validity is demonstrated by the people who propound it..... as on that logic the existance of the crusades and the inquistion prove that Christianity can't be true.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
FF the only despicable thing I have seen about you so far is that you refuse to consider that "the teaching of the bible" you are taking on is both accurate and complete.
Thanks for that, Pyx_e.
I would argue that I am absolutely flexible. Basing my morality and life on the teaching of the Bible, I am seeking its teaching and not at all to impose my own on it. So I read it seeking to know what it says on any issue. I have had to be flexible and change my mind on any number of issues since I became a Christian as I have become more clear on what it is teaching. So if I understand it differently I will change.
It is for this reason I have changed from being totally accepting of almost any sexual relationship 10 yrs ago, to today where I am more convinced the Bible is teaching abstinance for all people outside marriage.
If someone can convince me the Bible teaches gay sex, or any sex outside marriage is fine, then please believe me, I'll be more than happy to change my beliefs. It would make life a lot easier for me so I wouldn't raise the wrath of some gay people, or those singles sleeping around etc! And, being single, it would let me dip my toe in that lifestyle as well. But all the reading, listening, and debating has done nothing to convine me that the Bible is consistent in its teaching.
Now I can't invite you to convince me otherwise as thats beyond this thread. But I can invite you to believe me that many of us "conservatives" are not biggotted or filled with prejudice or hate or preconceptiosn - we just are subbmitting to the Bible as we read it - and are open to reading it differently if there is good reason to do so.
Can I also suggest, the more biggotted, thick headed, insensative, casting-the-gay-deamon-out-of-you Christians may in aprt be struggling to come to terms with our new world. 30-40 yrs ago you could be imprisioned for being gay - so the pendulum has shifted wildly in some people's life times - and it must be difficult to accept that change. They would have been brought up being taught words such as "ABONINATION" and "DETESTIBLE" and not have realised the distinction between a (God loved wonderful) person and their (God disaproving sinful) actions.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
That should read "But all the reading, listening, and debating has done nothing to convine me that the Bible is NOT (!) consistent in its teaching."
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
If you take the simple view that sex outside male-female marriage is wrong then that applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals. So I do not see how that is that homophobic. (It may well be incorrect to believe that, and discussion of that point belongs in DH.)
Can anyone give an example of a conservative church leader saying that for example adultery is ok but same sex relationships are wrong - that would clearly be homophobia.
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
BL, it does sort of beg the question about the meaning and use of the word "marriage."
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
If you take the simple view that sex outside male-female marriage is wrong then that applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals
I'm sorry, but this saying this "applies equally" when marriage is only available to heterosexuals is just face-gapingly ludicrous. You might as well say that men and women are equally capable of fathering children, assuming they've got testicles.
It makes no sense! It's an empty statement! It boggles me that anybody can even say it with a straight face, let alone believe it.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I don't quite think that's an empty statement. We're not talking about civil society here. The church has held that the sacrament of marriage is the union of a man and woman. BL seems to just be stating what the church has traditionally taught.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Ender's Shadow has pointed out that being nice to one another is of secondary importance here - an excellent reinterpretation, ES, of the old gay maxim, 'It Isn't Mean If It's True'. I quite agree. And by that very token, those of you whose religion shows disdain for, prejudice against, or oppression of, homosexuals - or any of the other definitions we've seen of 'homophobia' - are just going to have to get used to the plain fact that your religion is homophobic .
It's not nice. But it's true.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...are just going to have to get used to the plain fact that your religion is homophobic .
No, because our religion does not pick on one group of people, but is consistant in applying God's standards to all people.
And we who hold this possition apply it to ourselves first. Where is the discrimination or phobia in that?
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liam
Shipmate
# 4961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...are just going to have to get used to the plain fact that your religion is homophobic .
No, because our religion does not pick on one group of people, but is consistant in applying God's standards to all people.
And we who hold this possition apply it to ourselves first. Where is the discrimination or phobia in that?
Oh, come on! You are saying that for a whole class of people, who are members of that class by birth not choice, the option of lifelong sexual union with one partner (something the church is supposed to value very highly) should not be available under any circumstances. You insist they should remain celibate (and saying it applies for straight singles too doesn't wash, because they have the option of marriage).
You may claim that it's God's law, loving the sinner, or whatever else you like, but there's no way you can deny that it's discrimination. That's what the word 'discrimination' means, you know. Or are conservatives going to start getting upset about having that applied to them too?
Posts: 138 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
You insist they should remain celibate (and saying it applies for straight singles too doesn't wash, because they have the option of marriage).
I am single. I do not have the option of marriage. It's not a lot of help to me to say to me "One day you may marry" because the temptations and frustrations are today. I have no option of marriage today. I have no chance of sex today. I may never get that opportunity. I may desperately want to be married and never find someone.
However, God has said that single people should be celebate, and so I'm going to accept that's what he says, and I'm going to lean on him, and trust his promise to help me day by day.
And all of us can argue till we're blue in the face. But I am simply saying what the Bible clearly says. I'm taking that as my authority because I've found none better. The alternative is to take my own (sinful) reasoning as authoritative - and, as I have said before, if we do that, someone is going to have to give me a good reason why we don't have to accept everyone's reasoning as equally valid - and some people's reasoning of acceptable behaviour is totally evil.
So I'll stick with what God says in the Bible. And if I have a problem with that (when I'm feeling frustrated and single), rather than argue that its unfair and arrogantly demand my rights from God (who am I to demand anything off God?), I'll thank him life, his many blessings to me other than sex, and ask his help to live as he wants me to. And God bless everyone who does likewise!!!
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Ender’s Shadow said:
I've only two ongoing friendships where I've achieved that, and a third where I've lost contact for other reasons. And I admit they are not close - but they are not destroyed by our disagreement on the subject. I regret that no-one has taken the risk of 'coming out' to me - the other people were known to me as gay by other means - and I hope that it is not because they fear my rejection of them.
ES, this is a good point. I have a longstanding straight friend who has frequently wandered far from the “paths of righteousness”, despite an ostensible Christian commitment. She has never hidden her occasionally wild behaviour from me, nor have I hidden from her my views on Christian morality.
Despite some trying moments, I am grateful that our friendship is sufficiently strong that it continues to this day with an open and honest dialogue. As a personal value, I actually hold honesty in my friendships higher than whether someone else is squeaky clean in terms of their personal relationships and sexual morality.
Up to a point, their private life is none of my business, until either they start asking for my approval (either personally, or in terms of Christian morality), or start telling me untruths. Who wants a friendship involving dishonesty?
So, coming back to the meaning and use of homophobia, being open and honest with my straight friend about my views on Christian morality has not been to show disdain, demonstrate prejudice, or exercise oppression. It has actually helped to keep a relationship strong over a period of 20 years. Why should it be any different when I am equally up-front and honest with gay people?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Oh, come on! You are saying that for a whole class of people, who are members of that class by birth not choice, the option of lifelong sexual union with one partner (something the church is supposed to value very highly) should not be available under any circumstances. You insist they should remain celibate (and saying it applies for straight singles too doesn't wash, because they have the option of marriage).
You may claim that it's God's law, loving the sinner, or whatever else you like, but there's no way you can deny that it's discrimination. That's what the word 'discrimination' means, you know. Or are conservatives going to start getting upset about having that applied to them too? [/QB]
Clearly this principle is applied to paedophiles - for lots of good reasons. (No, I'm not trying to equate the two - just point out that the principle is applied to one group). So clearly this is not a generally applicable line of logic.....
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
ES it can not be my turn to call you to Hell again, but if no one else does soon, I will. You just can't stop yourself can you?
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liam
Shipmate
# 4961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
You insist they should remain celibate (and saying it applies for straight singles too doesn't wash, because they have the option of marriage).
I am single. I do not have the option of marriage. (and so on...)
Look, this is getting derailed again. I was just making the point that, whether or not you believe it's instructed by the Bible, if you deny certain people opportunities that are available to others, it is called discrimination. You may think it's acceptable discrimination, but you really start to appear sadly self-deluding when you deny that it's discrimination at all.
(Which kind of brings us back to the homophobia thing, IMHO...)
The example of your current singledom is entirely irrelevant, I'm afraid. There's an enormous difference between you being unable to get a date, and you telling other people that they can never go on one just because of the way they were born.
Posts: 138 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
The example of your current singledom is entirely irrelevant, I'm afraid. There's an enormous difference between you being unable to get a date, and you telling other people that they can never go on one just because of the way they were born.
No one is objecting to anyone having close, intimate friendships. We all need that sort of love. However, I would strongly question the assumption that we all need sexual relationships. Our creator seems to be saying we don't. And so, if the object of going on a date is a sexual encounter, then I'll rule that out for me as I would suggest anyone rules out for them as well.
I'm trying to be consistant.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I don't quite think that's an empty statement. We're not talking about civil society here. The church has held that the sacrament of marriage is the union of a man and woman. BL seems to just be stating what the church has traditionally taught.
Fine. But as long as that paradigm of marriage is the prevailing one, don't go claiming that the requirement to celibacy for the unmarried "applies equally", because it's self-evident rubbish. If you [and that's a generic "you", not a "you, Alt Wally"] are going to discriminate because you think it's right, then at least have the honesty to admit to it.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Fish Fish,
quote:
"...(who am I to demand anything of God?), I'll thank him life, his many blessings to me other than sex, and ask his help to live as he wants me to. And God bless anyone who does likewise!!!
I agree with the line in bold. I too have been trying to do just that my whole life.....
--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
whether or not you believe it's instructed by the Bible, if you deny certain people opportunities that are available to others, it is called discrimination. You may think it's acceptable discrimination, but you really start to appear sadly self-deluding when you deny that it's discrimination at all.
How about denying people the opportunity to eat pork (Judaism, Islam) or beef (Hinduism)? Does that count as discrimination?
How about Jehova's Witnesses being denied blood transfusions?
If not, why not?
The fact that more people care about having sex than eating pork is irrelevant to my question.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liam
Shipmate
# 4961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
whether or not you believe it's instructed by the Bible, if you deny certain people opportunities that are available to others, it is called discrimination. You may think it's acceptable discrimination, but you really start to appear sadly self-deluding when you deny that it's discrimination at all.
How about denying people the opportunity to eat pork (Judaism, Islam) or beef (Hinduism)? Does that count as discrimination?
How about Jehova's Witnesses being denied blood transfusions?
If not, why not?
The fact that more people care about having sex than eating pork is irrelevant to my question.
Those are rules which apply equally to everyone who belongs to a tradition, so there's no discrimination (you discriminate between one thing and another). And if I was a member of one of those faiths, I - like many progressive Jews and Muslims (can't speak for JWs) - probably wouldn't regard those rules as very importtant nowadays.
Posts: 138 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
I don't quite think that's an empty statement. We're not talking about civil society here. The church has held that the sacrament of marriage is the union of a man and woman. BL seems to just be stating what the church has traditionally taught.
If we are going to insist on what the Church has traditionally taught then we should be insisting that all sexual activity for non-reproductive purposes is sinful, and that marriage is indissoluble as per the teaching of our Lord. Which is why I maintain that Roman Catholicism, which maintains exactly that, isn't homophobic. The condemnation of homosexual activity is, as it were, purely incidental to its account of what sex is for and about.
But it's slightly hypocritical to move the goalposts for heterosexuals, whenever it suits but to insist that any attempt to reconsider the status of homosexuality is deplorably wicked.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Agreed there is some inconsistency there, at least in many churches where standards for heterosexual people has been relaxed.
My only point was just to say that Black Labrador wasn't making an empty statement, there is teaching that follows along with it (whether or not one agrees with it).
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
Fish Fish, I am sorry that I clicked too soon WhatI wanted to to say was that I agree wiith what you have said regarding the right way to live for single people.It was good to hear someone spell it out. This teaching is so much disregarded these days even by Christians.
I do believe too that the bible does teach that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong, and that we can't just please ourselves what we do or think in our lives.
We do not hate gay people or wish them harm, as so many people on this thread have sugested.
[Previous aborted post and duplicate of this one deleted]
[ 28. January 2004, 17:15: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Those are rules which apply equally to everyone who belongs to a tradition
So's this though.
Is denoting something a sin discriminatory just because not everyone is tempted to that sin? Is it discriminatory to call drunkenness a sin because I don't drink?
Note that this is a different question from asking if I should go to bars and rail against drunkards when I'm not tempted with the sin myself; the answer to that one is obviously "No."
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I do believe too that the bible does teach that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong...
[Previous aborted post and duplicate of this one deleted]
But you think it's OK to abort posts?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If we are going to insist on what the Church has traditionally taught then we should be insisting that all sexual activity for non-reproductive purposes is sinful, and that marriage is indissoluble as per the teaching of our Lord. Which is why I maintain that Roman Catholicism, which maintains exactly that, isn't homophobic. The condemnation of homosexual activity is, as it were, purely incidental to its account of what sex is for and about.
But it's slightly hypocritical to move the goalposts for heterosexuals, whenever it suits but to insist that any attempt to reconsider the status of homosexuality is deplorably wicked.
We have 3 options of how we set our moral standards
1. Reason (though, as I have asked, who decides who's reason is acceptable?)
2. The churches teaching (Who change their teaching from generation to generation as you rightly point out)
3. The Bible
As I stand firmly on the Bible, and since it does not teach the restrictions on sex you allude to, and doesn't change with the whims of the age. Therefor we shouldn't so much rely on the church's traditional teaching, but on the Bible's.
[Edited for quote UBB.]
[ 29. January 2004, 00:05: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I do believe too that the bible does teach that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong...
[Previous aborted post and duplicate of this one deleted]
But you think it's OK to abort posts?
Only the ugly, stunted ones that would have had a miserable existence anyway.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
