|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: The Pilling Report
|
Clotilde
Shipmate
# 17600
|
Posted
I just looked at the BBC news of the Pilling report.
It makes interesting reading.
See: Report here
However, it doesn't seem to say a great deal more than we know is thought. Perhaps its official nature encourages better quality debate than the rather loud debates we've heard (from both sides).
Now I guess there will be all sorts of reaction.
What's yours? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 08. April 2017, 01:37: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
A witness of female resistance
Posts: 159 | From: A man's world | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Far too much "compromise" for the conservative evangelicals, who will campaign ferociously to oppose any hint of change and then start to claim the alternative "oversight" of African bishops.
Far too little change for the majority of the population in the UK, who will simply see this as "far too little, far too late". Bishops will be left in the middle, trying to defend the indefensible.
(Supporters of LGBT rights in the C of E will simply sigh, roll their eyes and keep on working for better times in the future.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
What Oscar the Grouch said. Conservative evangelicals are just not interested in anything beyond an incredibly narrow 'Biblical' framing. They certainly won't be interested in repenting for the church's historic (and unfortunately current) homophobia.
And as usual, transgender people are ignored.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clotilde
Shipmate
# 17600
|
Posted
quote:
The recommendations do not propose any change in the church’s teaching on sexual conduct. They do propose that clergy, with the agreement of their Church Council, should be able to offer appropriate services to mark a faithful same sex relationship. The group does not propose an authorised liturgy for this purpose but understands the proposed provision to be a pastoral accommodation which does not entail any change to what the church teaches.
It does seem a tiny change from where we are now.
What didn't the Bishop of Birkenhead like about it? - He declined to sign it.
--------------------
A witness of female resistance
Posts: 159 | From: A man's world | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
The Bishop's reasons are as expected and laid out at the begining of the (long) statement which follows.
I'm not clever enough to link sensibly but Google is a good friend....
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
After hostly consultation it has been agreed that this thread falls under the remit of Dead Horses, so I'm moving it there.
Please note that this does not mean the subject matter is dead any more than it means it's a horse, just that experience shows that constructive discussion of this topic is more likely to thrive over on that board.
Now let's see if I can do this without breaking something...
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Ah the thread is now where I expected to find it!
I'm still reading the report, but I've seen some negative responses on Twitter. I can understand why Trans* was felt to be outside of the remit, but Rachel Mann hits the nail on the head as to why this is problematic.
At least some gay people are unhappy with the use of "same sex attraction" frequently in the report because of the provenance of the term, used by those who object. My feeling is they have put a lot of wait on the views of Prefer Ould and others like him who have made hard choices because of their reading of the Bible on this issue and who thus see change asap betrayal of those choices.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I thought Andrew Brown's response to Peter Ould's challenge was rather on point. In many areas, I think we have to be very careful of an argument that boils down to "Well, I had to go through it, why shouldn't they?"
As for the terminology, it's an area where the terminology is fraught but it's therefore surprising not to see explicit consideration of the choice of terms with a rationale.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I thought Andrew Brown's response to Peter Ould's challenge was rather on point. In many areas, I think we have to be very careful of an argument that boils down to "Well, I had to go through it, why shouldn't they?"
I don't get Ould's point - although perhaps that's because I'm reading it at second hand and he's actually saying something more sensible and coherent than what's in the reports.
I have a great deal of respect for people who make sacrifices for the sake of fidelity to what they believe God requires. I'm certainly not prepared to say that Ould was wrong to choose the life that he has. I don't think that I am saying, or implying, that Ould was wrong because I recognise that other Christians, equally committed and sincere, want to make different choices, and because I would like my church to support them as well.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I've looked at Andrew Brown's summary. On the one hand, it's not changing any of the rules or any of the facts on the ground. On the other hand, it's acknowledging that the facts on the ground are what the facts on the ground are. For the CofE that's progress.
Lots of monks and nuns and priests over the past two thousand years have adopted celibacy because they believed God wished it of them and that it was a better way. Is it a slap in their faces to get married?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Peter Ould's response is available on his blog
I thought Andrew Brown's response to Peter Ould's challenge was rather on point. In many areas, I think we have to be very careful of an argument that boils down to "Well, I had to go through it, why shouldn't they?"
Indeed. It also makes me wonder whether his choice is as positive as he makes out. I wonder how his wife feels about it too, possibly influenced by Susanna in Catherine Fox's blogged novel . I believe that celibacy is a valid call for Christians, but it's not an easy or generic one. And having known someone who was the person married to hide a homosexual orientation, I know that that can be very hard,
quote:
As for the terminology, it's an area where the terminology is fraught but it's therefore surprising not to see explicit consideration of the choice of terms with a rationale.
Indeed. In paragraph 153 same sex attraction is used when talking about people who wouldn't identity as gay but experience desire for people of the same gender.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Re Peter Ould: 'But I wouldn't have done this if I didn't think I had to' is, in fact, a legitimate form of complaint. But it's a legitimate form of complaint to the people who told you you had to do it. It is not a legitimate reason to forbid other people, later on, from being told 'we now realise you don't have to do that'.
The alternative is that no position can ever be corrected on the grounds that it wasn't corrected in time for some people. We can't stop making black people slaves, because that wouldn't be fair to all the black people who were slaves in previous generations. We can't start ordaining women because that wouldn't be fair to the women who never got a chance to be ordained.
We can't make this law better because that wouldn't be fair to all the people who had to operate under the inferior version.
Heck, we can't discount this TV/fridge/DVD box set/lawnmower/packet of biscuits because that wouldn't be fair to the people who bought it at full price.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Exactly. And watching someone promoting the idea of marrying a woman even when primarily attracted to men (Sean and Gaby) on Living Out website is worrying. Are they storing up heart break?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes.
I don't know about on the female side of things, but the world around me appears to be absolutely chock full of gay male Christians who went 'if I just believe this stuff really hard and squeeze my eyes tight and marry a girl I get on with really well, it'll all work out and I'll be cured'.
And eventually they've all admitted it didn't work. Even when their wives knew about their husband's 'struggle', and went into the marriage with that knowledge, it didn't work. We know it doesn't work. Exodus International is one of the organisations that has had the guts to admit it doesn't work. The failure rate is something like 98% and rising. It doesn't work for the fundamental reason that there's nothing wrong that needs curing.
The only difference between the myriad guys I've met is how long they kept trying to make it work before finally giving up. I've met 2 guys in the space of a few weeks, one who got divorced after over 20 years of marriage, one who's getting divorced after 3.
I've been through a 'cure'. It's amazing how much you can talk yourself into statements like 'I don't have as many gay feelings', and treat it like some kind of proof that the cure is on its way instead of a statement of the obvious point that everybody's libido varies. Not being as interested in guys at a particular moment is completely different to suddenly finding yourself really aroused by girls.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Re Peter Ould: 'But I wouldn't have done this if I didn't think I had to' is, in fact, a legitimate form of complaint. But it's a legitimate form of complaint to the people who told you you had to do it. It is not a legitimate reason to forbid other people, later on, from being told 'we now realise you don't have to do that'.
But whether or not he "had" to surely is between him and God, not between him and the CofE? He could have stayed single.
And I'm sure it makes his wife feel fantastic to know that he's just been grinning and bearing it all these years. She's the one who's had the slap to the face in my opinion!
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I've looked at Andrew Brown's summary. On the one hand, it's not changing any of the rules or any of the facts on the ground. On the other hand, it's acknowledging that the facts on the ground are what the facts on the ground are. For the CofE that's progress.
Lots of monks and nuns and priests over the past two thousand years have adopted celibacy because they believed God wished it of them and that it was a better way. Is it a slap in their faces to get married?
I don't think holy orders is a fair comparison - for them, celibacy was part of the job description (and for monks and nuns and friars and sisters, still is). Being an LGBTQ person is not a job, it's being a human being.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But whether or not he "had" to surely is between him and God, not between him and the CofE? He could have stayed single.
I think the 'had' to is more about having not to, really. As in, not acting on homosexual desires.
But either way what he wants is the Church to affirm that he made the right decision. There is a certain flavour, arguably, of 'one of the reasons I made this decision is because the Church was on this side of the question'. It might not be the only factor in the decision, perhaps, but the 'slap in the face' notion does have a tone of 'but you were supposed to be supporting me, not the people who made the opposite decision'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Exactly. And watching someone promoting the idea of marrying a woman even when primarily attracted to men (Sean and Gaby) on Living Out website is worrying. Are they storing up heart break?
Carys
If you listen carefully to what was said you would have heard a rather strong point: if you are thinking about marriage it doesn't matter one jot if you are also capable of experiencing sexual attraction to other people, what matters is that you are sexually attracted to the person you are planning to marry. According to the video that is the case for this married couple.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Exactly. And watching someone promoting the idea of marrying a woman even when primarily attracted to men (Sean and Gaby) on Living Out website is worrying. Are they storing up heart break?
Carys
If you listen carefully to what was said you would have heard a rather strong point: if you are thinking about marriage it doesn't matter one jot if you are also capable of experiencing sexual attraction to other people, what matters is that you are sexually attracted to the person you are planning to marry. According to the video that is the case for this married couple.
If you listen carefully, you hear an even stronger point lurking in the background: that it doesn't matter one jot if you find a person of the same sex that you want to marry, the right thing to do is to keep looking and looking and looking until finally you have that rare, lucky eureka moment when you find a person of the opposite sex that you're attracted to.
That's the real problem. Not his happy story, but the assertion that other stories couldn't have been happy.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
That narrative is certainly present. Did I give the impression that I wasn't aware of it?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
I noticed that and hopefully it will work for them, but I wonder what attracted to her means in this context. (Actually being asexual myself I tend to wonder that anyway). I wonder to about her motives in this, although it's not my business, except by putting a video on the internet they've opened themselves up to questioning from random strangers. My biggest worry is that by presenting this as the 'godly' thing to do that others will copy and It not be right. I know too many stories (real and fictionall) where straight marriage hasn't been right several years down the line. At least in this case there has been upfront honesty, but I'm sceptical that it will work. I can understand choosing to be celibate but not marrying against inclination.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
But I don't think anything that's said on that particular website advocates marrying against inclination. In fact it seems to me that they've intentionally balanced the testimony to include people who have opted either for celibacy or for marriage when an attraction is most definitely present.
[ 29. November 2013, 18:13: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
At least some gay people are unhappy with the use of "same sex attraction" frequently in the report because of the provenance of the term, used by those who object.
I think the objectors have lifted the term from people like Jo Ind who think that the heterosexual/ homosexual dichotomy is problematic in its own way. Such people, inspired by queer theory, want to move on from the terms gay and homosexual. The conservatives have tried to appropriate the queer theory terms in order to move back. But the original provenance of the term is progressive.
I'm thinking of Jo Ind's book Memories of Bliss, in which she suggests sexual orientations such as cerebrosexual (attraction to brainy-seeming people), tits'n'bums-sexual, and others that I forget.
[ 29. November 2013, 19:54: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I didn't read the report, just the article summarizing it but I enjoyed the recommendation:
quote:
No-one should be accused of homophobia solely for articulating traditional Christian teaching on same-sex relationships
Do they really think anyone is going to defer to them to define the meaning of the word homophobia?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I didn't read the report, just the article summarizing it but I enjoyed the recommendation:
quote:
No-one should be accused of homophobia solely for articulating traditional Christian teaching on same-sex relationships
Do they really think anyone is going to defer to them to define the meaning of the word homophobia?
Especially as traditional Christian teaching on same-sex relationships is homophobic.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Hmmm. I believe we've had a rather large Hell thread dealing with 'but you can't say my views on homosexuality are prejudiced when they're sincerely held religious beliefs'.
Personally, I don't tend to throw the word 'homophobia' at people who sincerely believe homosexuality is wrong. I tend to reserve it for the ones who do things like accuse homosexuals of being hedonistic disease-spreading moral scum and argue against secular law giving us equal rights.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Personally, I don't tend to throw the word 'homophobia' at people who sincerely believe homosexuality is wrong.
I would like to feel the same as you, but I cannot.
Intentionally or not, they provide support for these bastards.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I tend to reserve it for the ones who do things like accuse homosexuals of being hedonistic disease-spreading moral scum and argue against secular law giving us equal rights.
Slavery was not perpetuated by merely by those who believed it right, but also by those who believed black people were not equal.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I didn't read the report, just the article summarizing it but I enjoyed the recommendation:
quote:
No-one should be accused of homophobia solely for articulating traditional Christian teaching on same-sex relationships
Do they really think anyone is going to defer to them to define the meaning of the word homophobia?
I think they are right insofar as a lot of Christians who advocate 'traditional' Christian teaching on this subject are sincere and well-meaning religious zealots, and aren't doing it out of hatred or malice. The problem is simply ignorance - these Christians are almost uniformly massively ignorant of the huge amount of damage they have been inflicting on LGBT people. I think that possibly every single one of them would be utterly horrified if they ever were forced to face up to the full consequences of hurt, suffering, depression, suicide etc that their 'just articulating traditional values' has had upon people. Their motivations are often not homophobic, it's only the consequences of their advocating those values that is monstrous and life-destroying and evil. The Church's ongoing genocide against gay people has been at least as much a result of ignorance as intention, so homophobic isn't really the right word.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Fred Clark had it about right with "You can't deny people their rights and be nice about it"
Whatever your good intentions ("I'm not like THAT"), if you are harming someone else, you are doing wrong.
Sort of like using "speaking in Christian Love" while using it as a bludgeon or a "fire-at-the-stake" flamethrower.
[ 30. November 2013, 15:23: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The last few posts illustrate my point. You're defining homophobia for yourself rather than taking the definition from the Bishops.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The problem is simply ignorance - these Christians are almost uniformly massively ignorant of the huge amount of damage they have been inflicting on LGBT people. I think that possibly every single one of them would be utterly horrified if they ever were forced to face up to the full consequences of hurt, suffering, depression, suicide etc that their 'just articulating traditional values' has had upon people.
Makes me think of this chapter of "Black Beauty".
quote:
"Only ignorance! only ignorance! how can you talk about only ignorance? Don't you know that it is the worst thing in the world, next to wickedness?-- and which does the most mischief heaven only knows. If people can say, 'Oh! I did not know, I did not mean any harm,' they think it is all right.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I don't accept the "religion is an alibi for bad actions" card.
Do you think that someone who sincerely believes for religious reasons that Jews should be expelled from the country or killed is anti-Semitic?
Do you think that someone who sincerely believes that Black people have the curse of Ham to serve their Christian masters is racist?
Do you believe that someone who thinks women are meant to serve the authority of the male head of household is misogynistic?
I do, no matter how fine their intentions.
[ 30. November 2013, 22:02: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by starlight
... a lot of Christians who advocate 'traditional' Christian teaching on this subject are sincere and well-meaning religious zealots, and aren't doing it out of hatred or malice. The problem is simply ignorance...
Oh please!
On this basis you could argue that members of the KKK were "sincere" and "well-meaning" and only lynched people because of ignorance.
Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry - you can dress it up with all the excuses and "yes, but" arguments you like but to argue that something in one person different from you makes it OK to treat them as a lesser person is not just discrimination but downright UN-CHRISTIAN.
And the bulls**t nonsense of "complementarity" (or whatever Emperor's clothes rubbish they choose to call it) is just that - bulls*it.
The church in general, and the Church of England in particular, has to welcome everyone and treat them the same or it has no credibility.
Fundamentalists / zealots are keen on quoting the scriptures but seem reluctant to take on board Matthew 25:40-46.
Either you believe that Christ came to the world for ALL or you don't: and by trying to qualify or restrict what we do IN HIS NAME because of prejudice - even a prejudice that we may base on something in the Old Testament - is anti-Christian.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
As far as the finding the right person of the opposite sex to marry goes, it seems pretty dismissive of the person "found". As a personal tangent, I was once advised to pretend not to be clever so I could find a husband. Any marriage resulting from such deception would have been appalling. It isn't quite such a good analogy for the man concerned as for a woman married to a gay man, who would suffer at least as much as the gay man, but seems to have the same dismissive thought about what a marriage is from the above the neck point of view.
What do the people advocating that gay men should get married to women think about what is due to the women concerned? (I seem to have heard less about lesbians marrying straight men, but a similar argument applies. Except that I have a faint suspicion that there's a trace of the surrendered wife attitude in the expectation of a woman being happy to accept second best status.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What do the people advocating that gay men should get married to women think about what is due to the women concerned? (I seem to have heard less about lesbians marrying straight men, but a similar argument applies. Except that I have a faint suspicion that there's a trace of the surrendered wife attitude in the expectation of a woman being happy to accept second best status.)
I'm curious about this as well. The "post-gay" movement seems to exclusively involve gay men being persuaded to marry women, and it strikes me as borderline misogynistic. Strikes me as the same old "women don't need sex like men do" attitude, so a woman married to a man who isn't attracted to her perhaps is not such a burden. (Not my opinion - this is my view of how these "post-gay" people view women).
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I presume there's a latent bit of "women don't really have to be attracted to their partner, they should just lie back and think of England".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clotilde
Shipmate
# 17600
|
Posted
Like many reports this report seems to me just to describe what some churches are doing at present - blessing civil partnerships - and saying lets be generous and allow for variety in the C of E. Lets say OK to gays and OK to those who say they are sinners.
But will that actually work? Why do we have to be so generous!
--------------------
A witness of female resistance
Posts: 159 | From: A man's world | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
You are forgetting the two year period of facilitated conversation. It wasn't clear to me what the product of this two year process is supposed to be. Will it be a proposal for another multi year facilitated conversation?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What do the people advocating that gay men should get married to women think about what is due to the women concerned? (I seem to have heard less about lesbians marrying straight men, but a similar argument applies. Except that I have a faint suspicion that there's a trace of the surrendered wife attitude in the expectation of a woman being happy to accept second best status.)
I'm curious about this as well. The "post-gay" movement seems to exclusively involve gay men being persuaded to marry women, and it strikes me as borderline misogynistic. Strikes me as the same old "women don't need sex like men do" attitude, so a woman married to a man who isn't attracted to her perhaps is not such a burden. (Not my opinion - this is my view of how these "post-gay" people view women).
Yeah lets just turn it around and think about it. A lesbian married to a straight man is hardly an ideal situation either. Putting aside the (IMO false) idea that "women don't need sex like men do" how do the post gays think this scenario would be helpful for the man in the marriage - to be married to someone who felt no sexual attraction to them? Perhaps these people are just a bit blind to the lesbian aspect?
But let me tell you, it sucks. In my case, one could argue that I didn't realise until many years of marriage, just how much of a lesbian I was. But once that genie was out of the bottle, the eventual breakdown of the marriage became almost inevitable.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Yeah lets just turn it around and think about it. A lesbian married to a straight man is hardly an ideal situation either. Putting aside the (IMO false) idea that "women don't need sex like men do" how do the post gays think this scenario would be helpful for the man in the marriage - to be married to someone who felt no sexual attraction to them? Perhaps these people are just a bit blind to the lesbian aspect?
I don't think they think about it at all, otherwise we'd see some female faces behind this movement other than the long-suffering wives of gay husbands. To me it comes across as an entirely male-focused trend. Where are all of the straight Christian men who are ready and willing to marry "ex-lesbians?" Honestly I'm guessing that they don't exist - at least, not in the evangelical wing of the church that believes in conversion therapy.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You are forgetting the two year period of facilitated conversation. It wasn't clear to me what the product of this two year process is supposed to be. Will it be a proposal for another multi year facilitated conversation?
The facilitated conversation seems to be the main element of the report, and it is interesting that people (both on this thread and in the various societies who have issued press releases about the report) have largely ignored it. I guess everyone wants to classify the bits of the report into good and bad categories, and it's hard to do that with a conversation whose outcome would be uncertain.
To some extent, we may as well ignore the rest of the report; if the conversation is a success, it'll come up with recommendations that carry more weight than those in the report (even if they happen to be identical). I suspect the point of saying anything else might be to threaten a middle ground that everyone will want to oppose, in the hope of dragging people to the table.
I do actually think that some sort of conversation is the only way forward, but despite the recent stunning success of conversation in resolving women bishops, I'm not hopeful here; I think it'll be a very long time before any sort of resolution shapes up, whereas with women bishops, the only debate was over a fairly minor point. (The conversation assumed there would be women bishops and only discussed support for opponents). I suspect that with homosexuality, both sides would currently prefer it if we just kept having 'shall we drive the gays or the traditionalists out' votes until the liberals win.
Another issue which I think needs to be discussed here but isn't being (and isn't directly related to homosexuality) is what counts as an issue on which we all have to agree. Since everyone claims to like the fact that Anglicanism is a broad church (or at least agree that it is), surely we should agree to disagree by default, and only bother having arguments if absolutely necessary. There's a fair logic that since all parties share one church leadership, we need to agree about who's involved in the leadership.
I'm not so clear why homosexuality is an issue on which agreement is needed. In fact, many conservative evos seem to argue that it isn't, but it's a useful canary for 'veering too far from the bible', and the important issue is really 'ignoring the bible'. If that really is the fundamental issue then there may be a lot of scope for a facilitated conversation, since both conservatives and liberals do truly believe that they seriously follow the bible while the other side pick and chose the bits that suit them. However, I don't see why homosexuality is a good canary here; most of these same conservative evos truly believe that liberal parishes are full of priests who deny the literal resurrection which would seem like a more serious issue if we're really talking about the bible.
[ 06. December 2013, 14:26: Message edited by: *Leon* ]
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Deckchairs on the Titanic. Until the Church of England ceases to be an institution supporting bigotry its moral authority, even for going after institutions such as wonga.com is going to be pathetic. And while it has no moral authority, it is going to continue its slide into irrelevance.
This wasn't a step forward. Merely an acknowledgement that some priests are not onboard with the Church's homophobia and a removal of the most ridiculous restraint on their actions. And Orfeo, you might not want to throw the word homophobia at them - but I get the impression that that's a matter of approach because you believe they are reachable?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Justinian
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Nailed it.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
To me it comes across as an entirely male-focused trend. Where are all of the straight Christian men who are ready and willing to marry "ex-lesbians?" Honestly I'm guessing that they don't exist - at least, not in the evangelical wing of the church that believes in conversion therapy.
That's because of the other dead horse of institutional sexism. When I was in the thick of it, I came to the realisation that it was actually more challenging to be a woman in the church than a lesbian, because being a lesbian was merely the icing on the very top of the sexist cake.
Edited to add: And that's in a country that has had women's ordination in the two denominations I have belonged to since the mid 1970s.
[ 10. December 2013, 19:42: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
L'organist & Justinian,
I don't like using the word homophobia (or calling people homophobic) because I don't think it's quite the right word and people ignore it too easily. To me, a "phobia" of something is an irrational fear of it, so homophobia would denote an irrational fear of gay people. So if we imagine a conservative Christian who thinks homosexuality is a sin and who stands against gay rights, it is not necessarily accurate to describe them as being afraid of gays. I think a lot of people who now use the word 'homophobia' are simply using it to refer to someone who opposes gay rights, and don't mean to necessarily imply fear of the part of the "homophobe". However, I don't think conservative Christians tend to hear the word that way or understand it that way, and thus it leads to talking at cross purposes:
Gay person: "You're a homophobe!" [you're condemning me and opposing my civil rights]
Christian: "What a silly thing to say. I'm not afraid of gay people!"
And so, I think, the conservative Christians unduly shrug off the criticism of them, believing it totally misguided, because it is not communicated in a way they understand. The situation is akin to if we were to call a racist person "xenophobic" and have them reply that they weren't afraid of foreigners. Unfortunately English seems to be missing a word for opposition to gays that would function like the word 'racism' does.
The word 'bigot' is slightly better in some ways, I think, as it is more likely to be understood. However, most conservative Christians are probably well and truly in the habit of shrugging off claims that they are intolerant bigots. Their mental response is going to be along the lines of "my religion is true, and so I'm right, so I'm totally justified in not tolerating wrong ideas or wrong ways of living."
Now when I think about these exchanges and miscommunications, I think an important part of what the gay-supporter is trying to communicate which the religious conservative is failing to hear is moral condemnation. The gay-supporter by using the word "homophobic" or "bigot" is trying to say "you're opposing gay people and that is wrong, you are bad for doing this." However, due to the miscommunication the religious conservative completely fails to hear the moral content of the critique. And I think that is extremely important, because in the religious conservative's mind this issue has a moral high ground which opposes homosexuality which they themselves occupy, and a moral abyss which rejects God and the bible and allows the evils of homosexuality to run rampant. So the way they frame the entire issue in their own heads is that there is only one position that a person who is moral would hold, and it's their one. If this conservative religious person is aware of any Christians who support gay rights, they probably regard them as having compromised with "the world" and have misguidedly strayed from God's word. They might think that just as the bible speaks of divorce as being an imperfect concession to human nature, they can understand that the evil of homosexuality might be tolerated by some Christians as a concession.
So I think it would come as a massive surprise to a huge proportion of conservative religious people to learn that other people think their view on homosexuality is morally wrong. These conservatives are so completely used to assuming they occupy the moral high ground that they largely have not even considered the possibility that someone else thinks their position is evil or morally wrong. They simply think that the gay people don't like the religious position because the think that the gay people don't like to have their sins justly condemned or have truth spoken into their lives.
So I think that for most conservative Christians if you can make them realize that you consider them morally in the wrong on this issue, then (1) it will shock them massively, and (2) it will make them actually think. The trouble is, as mentioned, that saying to them "you're a homophobic bigot" won't get that message across. While those words might be intended to mean "you're an evil person" the conservative will hear it as "you're a person who stands up for God's opinions against the evils of society", and what was intended as moral condemnation will be misheard as moral praise.
For those reasons, I avoid the terms "homophobia" and "bigot". Instead, I favour unambiguous moral terms, of the kinds that conservative Christians understand: Evil, wrong, hurt, harm. If we let them monopolize words relating to morality, and thus they are the only ones using moral terms, they will naturally assume their position is the moral one and ours isn't. My most preferred term is hence the word "evil" - let me tell you, when I label them or their position "evil" it gets their attention like nothing else. They immediately know that I am morally condemning them, and they immediately want to know why.
The follow up to that, when they ask why I am labelling their views or them as "evil", I think is just as important. I believe it is important to point their attention at the harms done to gay people. In my experience, religious conservatives are astoundingly good at not seeing the harm they are causing for gay people - they really simply do not see it and do not understand it. I was talking to a religious women this week who was weighing the pros and cons (as she saw them) of gay rights, and she speculated that maybe in 20 years time we would find that children of gay people who grew up with two fathers or two mothers were confused about their sexuality. Her pros vs cons totally failed to take into account any harms that might ever come to gay people as a result of discrimination - she was able to imagine hypotheticals 20 years in the future but not even think to consider that there might be some harms to gay people that are happening in the present (not even "they would feel sad if they weren't allowed to adopt children" seemed to have crossed her mind). And in my experience, this sort of thing is true of conservative Christians in general - they really are just completely and totally ignorant when it comes to the subject of the harm that their discrimination causes to gay people. (I think this goes hand in hand with the fact that they don't understand how someone could consider their views morally wrong. I, for example, consider the conservative religious position evil because of the harm it does to gay people.)
So, when I am asked why I think opposition to gay rights is evil, I point to the harms it does. Either I start small like point to them hurting gay people's feelings by denying them the right to marriage or the ability to adopt kids, and ask how that person would feel if they lived in another country (say a muslim country) which denied them those rights (say because they were a Christian), and then I say "isn't it great that in our country, everyone can do that even if they're of the 'wrong' religion?". Or I go for the more deadly-serious discussion and point to the life-destroying harms done by discrimination. Religious conservatives tend to be completely unaware of (and don't think about) the amount of stress that gay people are subjected to on an ongoing basis as a result of discrimination. So talking them through how stressful many parts of your life are due to the possibility of discrimination will likely be a complete eye-opener for them. I tend to point to how repeated discrimination subjects gay people to chronic stress which causes their bodies to release cortisol which has every kind of bad effect from slowed healing, to greatly increased rate of heart attacks, to depression, and suicidal thoughts. I like to share with them the phrase "it's not paranoia if everyone's out to get you, is it?" I explain that this stress results in a shorter lifespan on average for gay people. They are usually ready to believe this anyway, because they have heard the rumour that gay lifespans are 20% shorter on average - which they tend to attribute to AIDS. (I share with them that due to modern medicine HIV positive people in western countries have a normal life expectancy, so it's only the stress reducing the life expectancy) And at this point they are confronted by the fact that their own acts of discrimination are stripping years off other people's life expectancies, and they're now thinking hard about why I'm calling them "evil". And then if they want, we look at how the stress from being discriminated against makes gay people twice as likely to suffer from depression or anxiety as straight people, and about 4 times more likely to attempt suicide. A useful question to get the religious conservative thinking is "so, if a gay person commits suicide as a result of people being mean to them and discriminating against them, do you think that discrimination has hurt them?" At that point I like to pull out the studies on suicide, and take them through the calculations of how many gay people commit suicide per year as a result of the discrimination - the number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks is of the same order of magnitude as the number of gay people per year who commit suicide in the US as a result of discrimination, so that serves as a useful comparison - if they want to say Islam is an evil religion for killing that many people in the name of their religious teachings then they're implying Christianity is evil for killing that many gay people per year. Now they can, of course, quibble with numbers, or question some of the studies that I might point to (which is totally fair enough, we're largely dealing with estimates and studies of a constantly changing social landscape, and I'm quite happy to have them seriously research studies about the harms suffered by gay people because the whole point is to draw their attention to that!), but they are now actually thinking about the harm that is being done to gay people by their own discriminatory views and thus will realize that their position is actually about hurting people and that I consider it evil for that reason and they are then forced to grapple with the issue that I might actually be totally justified in calling them out on their evil of harming others.
...and that is why I don't like the word "homophobia". It doesn't get the point across. If you are only going to use one word, simply use the word "evil" instead - they will at least understand what you mean and it will make them think. Or if you don't like using the word 'evil', you could use the word "harm" and get them imagining how their views and their discrimination might be "harming" others and get them thinking about what it would be like to suffer through such discrimination.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I and a lot of other people use the word "homophobe" to mean someone who is bigoted against gay people. We've been using it for decades and plan to continue to do so.
Usage trumps etymology so your theory that the meaning is not what people use it to mean is academic nitpicking, not far from complaining about the word homosexual being a Geek Latin hybrid or Gay really meaning merry.
As for your theory about conservative Christians not getting it, they do learn. On this site, they've gone from "It's a misuse of a word meaning a type of anxiety" to "It's not homophobia (meaning bigoted) if it's based on *sincere* religious belief", even if they don't agree they understand what it means.
Translating it to theological terms" leaves them free to say "well, my theology is different then yours and I'm the expert and it's not evil in my theology". Why let the opponents of gay rights define the terminology?
[ 13. December 2013, 00:49: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Translating it to theological terms" leaves them free to say "well, my theology is different then yours and I'm the expert and it's not evil in my theology".
Sure, that's a possible way out for them, although even if they decide to hold to a convoluted definition of evil, they can't really get around charges of causing harm to gay people. But for them to have arrived at that conclusion they've got to actually think about the harm they are doing to gay people and whether that harm is an evil. Moving the conversation from them talking about how gay people are harmful to society and how gay people are evil sinners, to them thinking about how they harm gay people and whether they are evil because of it is a massive success at reframing the conversation and getting them to actually put some thought towards the real issues.
quote:
Why let the opponents of gay rights define the terminology?
If you want to convince anyone of anything you've got to communicate with them in language they can understand. Calling them names that they don't really understand like 'homphobe' repeatedly doesn't help and simply innoculates them against those names and stops them from listening to what you have to say.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
If you want to convince anyone of anything you've got to communicate with them in language they can understand. Calling them names that they don't really understand like 'homphobe' repeatedly doesn't help and simply innoculates them against those names and stops them from listening to what you have to say.
I find that saying "you're a homophobic bigot" gives them incentive to learn what the word means. It makes it clear how their actions are regarded by others as shameful.
Comments like
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Their motivations are often not homophobic, it's only the consequences of their advocating those values that is monstrous and life-destroying and evil. The Church's ongoing genocide against gay people has been at least as much a result of ignorance as intention, so homophobic isn't really the right word.
gives them the out that as long as they have sincere motivations it's not so bad to keep doing those monstrous actions. If you do evil actions, you're an evil doer. Fine intentions are not a valid excuse and praising the fineness of their intentions is enabling their abuse.
In practice calling them homophobic seems to be working just fine so far in bringing the consequences of their actions to their attention especially when they hear it from their own children.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I find that saying "you're a homophobic bigot" gives them incentive to learn what the word means.
Okay, but that surprises me somewhat as I would expect most religious conservatives to think they know what those words mean and ignore them because they think you are using them wrongly.
quote:
Comments like
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Their motivations are often not homophobic, it's only the consequences of their advocating those values that is monstrous and life-destroying and evil. The Church's ongoing genocide against gay people has been at least as much a result of ignorance as intention, so homophobic isn't really the right word.
gives them the out that as long as they have sincere motivations it's not so bad to keep doing those monstrous actions. If you do evil actions, you're an evil doer. Fine intentions are not a valid excuse and praising the fineness of their intentions is enabling their abuse.
I absolutely 100% agree with you.
I wasn't saying this to excuse them, I was saying it to get to the truth of understanding what motivates them. If we can correctly identify their problem as being ignorance, we can think about how to solve the issue through educating them. In general, I find that most conservative religious people don't bother to think at all about the harms they are doing to homosexual people, and in my observation as soon as they actually think about that they are usually quite quick to change sides. I think the biggest problem on this issue is that religious conservatives have been subjected to decades of lies and misinformation about gay people and tend to be almost completely and utterly ignorant of any facts or knowledge that might enable them to make sensible judgments. Conservative Christians seem to have spent decades playing chinese whispers with the "truths" about gay people and seem to love telling others about "scientific" studies that their friend's cousin's pastor told them about. The church worldwide, in my opinion, has a lot to answer for in terms of its role in manufacturing and disseminating harmful and hateful lies about gay people. But as a result, I do feel some sympathy for the ignorant pew sitter who has been lied to for decades and who thus ignorantly and really believes that the gays are coming for their children. If everyone a person knows about a subject is lies, and if they've been brainwashed for decades, it's impossible for them to come to a well-reasoned viewpoint no matter how well-intentioned they are.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
