|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why is Evangelicalism associated with homophobia?
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Put it this way - nobody refers to 'heterosexual practice' or 'heterosexual lifestyle'. Heterosexual sex is just seen as a normal healthy part of adult heterosexual existence, rightly so. Why, then, is non-heterosexual sex not seen as just being part of non-heterosexual existence? Are LGBT people a different species? Why not, you know, just treat us as people?
It baffles me that non-affirming evangelicals, who generally believe in some kind of divine Creation and God influencing the creation of a person (even if they're fine with evolution generally) cannot bring themselves to believe that someone's non-heterosexuality is part of how God made them? Why would God, who according to evangelicals is in charge of our lives, create heterosexuals with a sex life to be enjoyed but non-heterosexuals with a sex life to be viewed as awful and sinful? Why would God despise non-heterosexuals so much?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Traditionalists must, surely, be aware by now of how hurtful those phrases are?
Why do you think that?
'Cause they get told near every time they use 'em!
Are you familiar with confirmation bias? Add to that a firm conviction that you are on God's side and the people telling you you're being hurtful are in league with the Devil of Hell. Toss in a few people who actually WANT to be hurtful and are using God as an excuse.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Jade Constable
As I said above, it's perhaps because evangelicals are traditionally comfortable with the notion of self-denial?
Perhaps as middle class evangelical lifestyles become more and more like everyone else's, with far less self-denial in evidence, there'll be a corresponding reluctance to insist on self-denial in this respect.
[ 29. June 2014, 20:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you familiar with confirmation bias? Add to that a firm conviction that you are on God's side and the people telling you you're being hurtful are in league with the Devil of Hell. Toss in a few people who actually WANT to be hurtful and are using God as an excuse.
Yes indeed, but I'm referring not to the Phelps' of the church, rather the moderates. Folk like George Carey, who know gay people socially, and sincerely want to obey scripture. They're not personally homophobic, and genuinely want gay people to feel welcome in the church, but they do keep dropping these clangers.
Are they really unaware of the baggage? I guess they may be, but if so, it's on them to educate themselves.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Are they really unaware of the baggage? I guess they may be, but if so, it's on them to educate themselves.
Yes, they are unaware. Privilege is blind. How do they know to educate themselves when they can't see that they need educating?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jade Constable
As I said above, it's perhaps because evangelicals are traditionally comfortable with the notion of self-denial?
Perhaps as middle class evangelical lifestyles become more and more like everyone else's, with far less self-denial in evidence, there'll be a corresponding reluctance to insist on self-denial in this respect.
IME evangelicals are not very comfortable with self-denial - only comfortable with others enduring self-denial! Certainly no evangelical is suggesting celibacy for straight people like they are for LGBT people - to evangelicals, celibacy and monasticism is for gays and Catholics.
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jade Constable
As I said above, it's perhaps because evangelicals are traditionally comfortable with the notion of self-denial?
Perhaps as middle class evangelical lifestyles become more and more like everyone else's, with far less self-denial in evidence, there'll be a corresponding reluctance to insist on self-denial in this respect.
IME evangelicals are not very comfortable with self-denial - only comfortable with others enduring self-denial! Certainly no evangelical is suggesting celibacy for straight people like they are for LGBT people - to evangelicals, celibacy and monasticism is for gays and Catholics.
Testify. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
If it's not a cliche for married evangelical leaders to lecture lesbian and gay Christians on the joys of celibacy, it should be.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Ah, well! If evangelicalism is mainly about telling other people what to do then the answer is simple: if you don't want to be told what to do, don't hang around with evangelicals! Shouldn't be too difficult.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Unless of course you're in a church like the CoE with a large evangelical membership...
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Reading threads like this, I do find myself wondering why gay people or anyone 'nice' would want to be associated with evangelical churches if such churches are so hopelessly oppressive and unhelpful?
If you're a tolerant Christian in a particularly 'evangelical' area and can't commute I can understand that problem. But otherwise, if evangelicalism is so utterly oppressive, outdated and irrelevant then it should surely be abandoned and left to die, rather than argued over. There are gentler alternatives.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Don't have any evangelicals in your family, do you? I'd have to write off whole branches of my family to disassociate myself from evangelicals. OK, so that's just a bunch of cousins I don't see very often. But one of them has a son who is gay -- what's he supposed to do?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It baffles me that non-affirming evangelicals, who generally believe in some kind of divine Creation and God influencing the creation of a person (even if they're fine with evolution generally) cannot bring themselves to believe that someone's non-heterosexuality is part of how God made them? Why would God, who according to evangelicals is in charge of our lives, create heterosexuals with a sex life to be enjoyed but non-heterosexuals with a sex life to be viewed as awful and sinful? Why would God despise non-heterosexuals so much?
You have just made a huge leap from the specific issue of Christianity and homosexuality to the huge general issue of theodicy.
No, I don’t understand either why God allows people to be born with (or to acquire) same-sex attraction which he has forbidden them to fulfil.
But neither do I know why he creates people with heterosexual feelings in cases when he knows they will never marry, and will therefore be tormented by them all their lives( a far greater number than gay, or if you prefer, LGBT, people), or why he gives sexual feelings and abilities to twelve year olds (along with the ability for the girls to fall pregnant), or why children are born with a mixture, or lack of, conventional physical gender attributes, with all the complications which ensue.
Or why children are born with an endless list of horrible diseases, deformities and disabilities………
The problem of suffering is easily the most cogent argument against Christianity, but it is every bit as much a problem for Christians who believe that homosexual practice is not forbidden by God, as it is for those who do.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The analogy only breaks down if you take the position that having same-sex attractions is itself a matter of choice
I stated quite explicitly that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.
quote:
"we're going to continue persecuting, condemning and campaigning against you, but we'd like to not feel bad about it while we do it, so could you please stop calling us "homophobic" while we persecute you, because that word makes it sound like we're doing something bad, and we'd prefer not to feel bad about ourselves while we persecute you, thanks".
I have no more desire to "persecute" homosexuals than I have to persecute Hindus, and neither do any of the evangelicals I know.
In fact I have had Hindu friends whom I greatly liked and respected as people, and my attitude, which they understood, was, "I don't agree with your beliefs or practices, but in a pluralist society we can co-exist and enjoy a civil relationship".
Ditto for the gay people I know and have known.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I have no more desire to "persecute" homosexuals than I have to persecute Hindus, and neither do any of the evangelicals I know.
In fact I have had Hindu friends whom I greatly liked and respected as people, and my attitude, which they understood, was, "I don't agree with your beliefs or practices, but in a pluralist society we can co-exist and enjoy a civil relationship".
Ditto for the gay people I know and have known.
I find this disanalagous, as there are virtually no evangelicals who are trying to prevent Hindus from getting married, but millions in this country who are trying to prevent gay people from getting married.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
1.Neither I, nor any of the evangelicals I know, are interested in political campaigning on behalf of anti-gay legislation. We regard gays in the same way we regard members of other religions, ie as wrong in their beliefs and practices, but as entitled to them as we are in a pluralist society, and as entitled as we should be to openly express their disagreement with other belief systems without being vilified as bigots.
Nope. That's not how "a pluralist society" works. It's not a criticism-free zone. You're free to hold and express whatever bigotries you like, but the rest of us are free to form our own opinions about you. What you seem to want is a situation where you are entitled to express your opinions, but no one else is.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
2. To insist that “homophobia” and its cognates are correct and unchangeable is to exhibit a prescriptivist rigidity which would be laughed out of court in other circumstances. To use “homophobe” to describe someone who merely disagrees with homosexual practice is as insulting as calling a black person as a “nigger”, and just as easy to dump in the dustbin of linguistic history. “Homophobia” should be reserved for extremists such as those who have called for capital punishment for gays in Uganda.
If you don't want to be equated with racists, you should stop copying their arguments! A lot of white supremacists argue, similarly to you, that they don't hate members of other races, they just believe in the inherent superiority of white people and have never personally harmed a member of another race. In short, they argue for a standard where no one can be considered a racist unless they personally assassinated Medgar Evers.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
6. The analogy of opposition to homosexual practice with racism is entirely invalid. No-one can choose their ethnicity, and while no-one can choose their sexual orientation, they can choose what they do with it, and therefore can logically be criticized by someone who disagrees with their decision. In the same way, I have an overwhelming inclination, which I didn’t choose, to believe and practise the Christian religion, but in the end it is my choice whether to go along with it or not, meaning that an atheist is perfectly entitled to deny that it is my unavoidable destiny or identity, and just as entitled to question and criticize my choice.
So you're saying that anti-gay prejudice is more analogous to religious bigotry than it is to racial bigotry? Because people can (and do) change their religion a lot more readily than they change their sexual orientation. (Evangelicalism is particularly based on the premise that people can change their religion.)
But hey, if you'd rather be analogized to the Inquisition than to the Klan, I can accommodate that.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
7. Yes, to use “those who engage in homosexual behaviour” or even “practicing homosexuals” is clunky and inconvenient, but it obviates to some extent, the constant confusion over whether the term “homosexual” is being used to describe an orientation, or a life choice to go with that orientation.
It also fits perfectly with the special vocabulary used by the reparative therapy crowd who insist "There is no such thing as a homosexual… He is a heterosexual, but he may have a homosexual problem."
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's not how "a pluralist society" works.
Yes it is - or should be, ie a place where disagreement and criticism is possible without gratuitous vilification.
quote:
A lot of white supremacists argue, similarly to you, that they don't hate members of other races, they just believe in the inherent superiority of white people
The idea that anyone is arguing for the "inherent superiority" of straights over gays is entirely a figment of your imagination.
If you really can't understand the difference between disagreeing with someone, and asserting tour "inherent superiority" over them, try sitting
down and thinking about it for a little while.
quote:
So you're saying that anti-gay prejudice is more analogous to religious bigotry than it is to racial bigotry?
Do you seriously imagine that every disagreement between religious outlooks equates to bigotry?
Possibly a dictionary would help.
quote:
"There is no such thing as a homosexual… He is a heterosexual, but he may have a homosexual problem."
I'll take your word for it that someone has said that, but it certainly does not express what I believe, or anyone I know believes.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I stated quite explicitly that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.
Yes. My argument is that your position is inconsistent. If sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice, as you and I agree, then the analogy with race holds. Because both race and sexuality are not matters of choice, but the choice to marry is a choice. So disallowing same-sex marriage is analogous to disallowing interracial marriage or disallowing black marriages.
quote:
I have no more desire to "persecute" homosexuals than I have to persecute Hindus, and neither do any of the evangelicals I know.
Trying to deny myself and others fundamental human rights (eg to marriage) very much is persecution from our point of view. You may not feel like a persecutor, but we feel persecuted, and very justifiably so:
For many centuries the Christian church executed gay people. Did you know that in many decades the Inquisition executed more people for being gay than they did for everything else put together? In the 20th century, the persecution was toned down a notch and instead of outright execution, gay people could simply look forward to receiving such severe punishments at the hands of Christian authorities that it made commit suicide. In most Christian countries, Churches were on the front lines resisting any attempts to change the law and legalize gay sex. In the last two decades, Christian organisations have been funding campaigns to try to prevent gay civil partnerships and subsequently prevent gay marriage. Those campaigns have commonly functioned by spreading hurtful lies about gay people and their ability to parent and to love.
It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.
If you crunch the numbers, as I have, Christians probably drive approximately as many gay people in the US to suicide per year, as were killed in total by the Muslim terrorists in 9/11. (Give or take, it's hard to get exact stats but the numbers are similar to at least within an order of magnitude)
quote:
In fact I have had Hindu friends whom I greatly liked and respected as people, and my attitude, which they understood, was, "I don't agree with your beliefs or practices, but in a pluralist society we can co-exist and enjoy a civil relationship".
Ditto for the gay people I know and have known.
When I see multiple churches in multiple countries campaigning to prevent Hindus from marrying then I'll agree with your point. It's rather obvious Christians do not treat gay people nearly as well as they do Hindus.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's not how "a pluralist society" works,
Yes it is - or should be, ie a place where disagreement and criticism is possible without gratuitous vilification.
As Starlight points out, there's nothing gratuitous about it. The vilification your position receives is thoroughly considered and reasonable.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday: quote:
A lot of white supremacists argue, similarly to you, that they don't hate members of other races, they just believe in the inherent superiority of white people
The idea that anyone is arguing for the "inherent superiority" of straights over gays is entirely a figment of your imagination.
I don't think a position that boils down to "God blesses and approves my family, but He despises yours, you horrible sinner" can be interpreted any other way. At any rate, I note you didn't address my point, which was that you seem to be arguing for an incredibly narrow definition of homophobia roughly equivalent to arguing that anyone short of an actual Klansman or Neo-Nazi doesn't qualify as a racist.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, I don’t understand either why God allows people to be born with (or to acquire) same-sex attraction which he has forbidden them to fulfil.
Has it never occurred to you that this mysterious problem might disappear if either of the limbs of the proposition is re-examined?
In other words, "are people born with same-sex attraction?" is only one of the two possible questions to wrestle with here. The other possible question to wrestle with is, "does God really forbid people from fulfilling same-sex attraction?".
I think that's one of the biggest problems I have with many conservative Christians in this area. They have haggled and haggled over the first question, and that haggling is finally beginning to diminish. But so few of them ever seem to seriously try out the second question. They treat the answer as immutable. With the result that the only possible conclusion, once they conclude that yes, people really are born with same-sex attraction is to shrug their shoulders and say "sorry, turns out God is a tremendously evil bastard".
I submit that that this simply isn't the inevitable conclusion. Try out the second question.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Reading threads like this, I do find myself wondering why gay people or anyone 'nice' would want to be associated with evangelical churches if such churches are so hopelessly oppressive and unhelpful?
If you're a tolerant Christian in a particularly 'evangelical' area and can't commute I can understand that problem. But otherwise, if evangelicalism is so utterly oppressive, outdated and irrelevant then it should surely be abandoned and left to die, rather than argued over. There are gentler alternatives.
It's called not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The fact that I think mayn evangelical Christians have got one point thoroughly wrong does not mean that I think the entire mode of evangelical thinking is wrong.
I frankly resent the push, from both sides, to define my entire Christian experience based on my sexuality. It pisses me off that I myself have had to make "how do they treat gays" a key criterion in choosing a church. I would far rather be looking at other factors in choosing a church, not ruling out a whole bunch of them just because of one issue.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It pisses me off that I myself have had to make "how do they treat gays" a key criterion in choosing a church. I would far rather be looking at other factors in choosing a church, not ruling out a whole bunch of them just because of one issue.
Agreed. And in my case the issue is complicated by a forty year association with a single church, and one generally noted for both its kindness and social awareness.
In general, I don't do contempt for others because of what I see as moral turpitude. It just strikes me as another form of finger pointing.
The 19th Century missionary, Anthony Norris Groves, said this (the quote is from memory and not guaranteed perfect) in a letter about a controversial issue which was causing congregations to split.
"I would rather remain in fellowship with anyone, no matter how imperfect, for the sake of the spark of divine life which is in him, than separate from that person and by that act of separation do something to extinguish the spark".
It is a bit like "70 times 7" forgiveness. Contempt and separation are pretty final acts.
My wife and I had a long discussion with a very good friend who is gay and who felt she had no option other than to leave the church where she had been a member for many years. She was right to go, but the people and the community remain wrapped around her heartstrings. It still hurts a lot.
We've talked with her about our personal dilemma, and she is strongly of the view that it is better for us to work for change from within. Otherwise, the field is left open for the intransigent.
[ 30. June 2014, 06:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The other possible question to wrestle with is, "does God really forbid people from fulfilling same-sex attraction?".
Well yes, obviously that is the issue underlying the whole thread.
And yes, Christians who try to take their faith seriously on BOTH sides are obliged to permanently heed the famous words of Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible ye might be mistaken".
quote:
"sorry, turns out God is a tremendously evil bastard".
As I pointed out in the post to which you are responding, Christians who believe that God does not disapprove of homosexual practices are still obliged to wrestle with a whole range of other issues relating to his goodness.
Our view of God's character is a broad and complex question which cannot be answered exclusively on the basis of what we decide is his attitude toward homosexuality.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As I pointed out in the post to which you are responding, Christians who believe that God does not disapprove of homosexual practices are still obliged to wrestle with a whole range of other issues relating to his goodness.
Our view of God's character is a broad and complex question which cannot be answered exclusively on the basis of what we decide is his attitude toward homosexuality.
This is true. I still think, though, that there are some very special forms of cruelty in the proposal that people are born with a form of sexual desire that is perfectly capable of being expressed in consenting adult relationships, but must not be.
The things that make it special, I would argue, are exactly the same things that cause heterosexuals to value their own sexual expression so highly.
Barring all homosexual activity did not have anything like the same cruelty when homosexuals were viewed as basically heterosexuals who've gone astray. The solution was obvious: stop straying and start aiming for 'normal' sexual behaviour instead. But once you recognise that this IS our 'normal', the prohibition becomes a burden that no heterosexual is obliged to bear. A heterosexual who is prohibited from sexual expression in their current circumstances may hope for a change of circumstances. A homosexual, by contrast, is told that the nature of their circumstances is completely irrelevant. The reason for being barred from sexual expression is innate.
I doubt most heterosexuals would think much of a God who told them that they could not have sex no matter what. Even if they found the perfect person and made a mutual lifelong commitment, and ticked every possible box in terms of sexual ethics - how many married heterosexual couples would accept being told they were forbidden from ever having sex ever again?
That strikes me as an exceptionally profound prohibition that strikes at the very heart of the human psyche.
[ 30. June 2014, 07:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
If sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice, as you and I agree, then the analogy with race holds.
No it doesn't.
As I explained earlier, orientation still leaves open the the possibilty of choice.
A hetero male's orientation means that he finds many women sexually attractive, which faces him with the choice of whether to say either "I am naturally polygamous, and God has made me this way, so I will go after them", or "I think God has called me to faithful monogamy, so I will try to resist this inclination".
I hasten to add that I am not saying anything here about differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals as regards promiscuity and faithfulness - obviously examples of both can be found in both groups - but simply explaining that sexual orientation involves an element of choice which ethnicity does not.
quote:
When I see multiple churches in multiple countries campaigning to prevent Hindus from marrying then I'll agree with your point.
I regard same-sex marriage legislation as inevitable, and have no interest in opposing it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A heterosexual who is prohibited from sexual expression in their current circumstances may hope for a change of circumstances. A homosexual, by contrast, is told that the nature of their circumstances is completely irrelevant. The reason for being barred from sexual expression is innate.
I agree that it is a profound theological difficulty (though not more so than many others) but in practice homosexuals in the West are free to engage in homosexual relationships, and nowadays have access, if they wish, to many churches.
On the basis of the freedom of religion in a pluralist society analogy which I mentioned earlier, I happen to support this state of affairs.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think it is a part of the more general challenge in our time, orfeo. As IngoB has pointed out clearly on other threads, traditional Christian sexual ethics are restrictive for single people and married people. There is self denial involved, and self-denial doesn't get a very good press these days, particularly over human sexuality. It is a powerful driving force for a very large percentage of the human race.
A silly line from a poem about caviar comes to me. "The virgin sturgeon needs no urgin'". When it comes to the desire for sexual fulfilment, containment is very difficult. After 30 years in church based youthwork, it's kind of topic A really. What do we actually do with desire, given that it is with us a lot of the time.
Teaching about the virtues of faithfulness and the vices of objectification establishes some moral boundaries. Self righteous pontifications are no use at all, particular from the married to the unmarried.
I heard Elaine Storkey talk about this at a youth conference I attended a few years ago. Her address to the young people in front of her (average age about 18 I should think) included the following bit of self-awareness. From memory it went something like this.
"From the comfort and freedom of my happily married state, who am I to lecture you about sexual containment? I've been married for thirty years, I've had loads of sex."
We forget all too easily what it is like. I think celibacy is a relatively rare calling and perhaps those who are called that way are equipped for the calling. But if you aren't called and equipped, what do you actually do? The answers to that question had better show some empathy and sensitivity, rather than moral high ground proclamation. That's like placing heavy burdens on people's hearts without doing a thing to help them.
Now the truth, far too often, is that there is a good deal of pastoral sensitivity about this in evangelical churches when it comes to heterosexual relationships. Plus a certain amount of Nelsonian blind eyes on telescopes. The perceived moral high ground only seems to emerge when homosexual relationships are discussed. IMO that's a double standard with baleful effects.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
you seem to be arguing for an incredibly narrow definition of homophobia roughly equivalent to arguing that anyone short of an actual Klansman or Neo-Nazi doesn't qualify as a racist.
That is a bizarre comparison, and I find it difficult to believe that you intend it seriously.
For a start, racism is not analogous to believing that homosexual practice is wrong.
And it has nothing to do with "narrow definition"; the simple fact is that the vast majority of Christians who believe that the Bible forbids homosexual activity do not hate or fear homosexuals, but just believe that they are mistaken on this particular issue.
Neo-Nazis and Klansmen - give us a break.
Anyone who can't discuss a question like this without throwing up that sort of image should fall under some variation on Godwin's Law.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A heterosexual who is prohibited from sexual expression in their current circumstances may hope for a change of circumstances. A homosexual, by contrast, is told that the nature of their circumstances is completely irrelevant. The reason for being barred from sexual expression is innate.
I agree that it is a profound theological difficulty (though not more so than many others) but in practice homosexuals in the West are free to engage in homosexual relationships, and nowadays have access, if they wish, to many churches.
On the basis of the freedom of religion in a pluralist society analogy which I mentioned earlier, I happen to support this state of affairs.
I agree that I am talking about a theological difficulty, rather than a legal prohibition.
Nevertheless, the theological difficulty finds its way into practice, in such areas as the resistance of same-sex marriage. Conservatives who see marriage as an official 'stamp of approval' of a relationship do not want that stamp given to same-sex relationships.
The theological difficulty is also fairly profound for those homosexual Christians who would otherwise find themselves aligned with the relevant kind of theology. The rate of suicide or attempted suicide among homosexual Christians is distressingly high, and it occurs specifically within the theological tradition that condemns homosexuality. The inability to reconcile what a person believes/has been taught to believe with their own personal experience of same-sex attraction is, quite literally, lethal. Being in a pluralistic society only partially solves that, as resolving the conflict still requires moving from one's "home" in that pluralistic society to somewhere else within it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Don't have any evangelicals in your family, do you? I'd have to write off whole branches of my family to disassociate myself from evangelicals. OK, so that's just a bunch of cousins I don't see very often. But one of them has a son who is gay -- what's he supposed to do?
I've got limited internet access right now and I admit to not having read all the comments since my previous one, but I'd like to use RuthW's as a suitable hook to jump back into the debate.
As (amongst other things) the pastor of a church which describes itself as evangelical, my own convictions at present go something like this:
All other exegetical considerations aside, I can't get away from the idea - largely from Genesis - that the biblical "ideal" sexual relationship is one man, one woman, till they are parted by death. I think that enshrines notions of difference (at least at the level of biology) and faithfulness that are important. I might also be tempted to throw in procreation.
Biblically, I find this ideal hard to get away from, even as biblically, I find abundant examples of people who for one reason or another are not in line with this ideal but who are loved and accepted by God in their non-ideal circumstances. "Non-ideal" does not necessarily mean "wantonly sinful" as far as I'm concerned.
What I would like to do is uphold what I see as an ideal whilst acknowledging that for many people, for whatever reason, this ideal is not realisable and that they are not necessarily to blame for this.
I would like a church that is sincerely, not insincerely, open to all and in which there are no second-class members. A church in which all of us, in our diversity of fallenness, stand only by the grace of God. A church in which all of us, in different ways, reflect the ideals of the Kingdom of God. We don't all reflect the same ones, and we don't feel superior for the ones we reflect. Some of them we don't reflect at all, but that's ok. Is this homophobic?
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's not how "a pluralist society" works.
Yes it is - or should be, ie a place where disagreement and criticism is possible without gratuitous vilification.
In which case you first. When you claim that people who do acts you don't like are committing sins you are vilifying them. If you don't want vilification coming right back, drop the language of sin. Because what you are asking here is quite literally the right to vilify others unilaterally and have them not point out what you are doing.
quote:
quote:
A lot of white supremacists argue, similarly to you, that they don't hate members of other races, they just believe in the inherent superiority of white people
The idea that anyone is arguing for the "inherent superiority" of straights over gays is entirely a figment of your imagination.
The idea that suggesting a gay orientation is inherently sinful is anything else is a figment of yours.
quote:
If you really can't understand the difference between disagreeing with someone, and asserting tour "inherent superiority" over them, try sitting down and thinking about it for a little while.
Once you are reaching for the language of sin you are vilifying and talking about the inherent superiority of one way over another. It is possible to disagree amicably. You are not. You are vilifying the the other side by talking about sin, and then objecting to return fire.
If "sin" and "immoral" are allowed, so are "bigotry" and "homophobia". When you talk about homosexual practice being unacceptable, others have the right to talk about your beliefs and practices being unacceptable.
The right to free speech does not mean that everyone has the obligation to sit and listen politely while you make offensive comments.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As (amongst other things) the pastor of a church which describes itself as evangelical, my own convictions at present go something like this:
All other exegetical considerations aside, I can't get away from the idea - largely from Genesis - that the biblical "ideal" sexual relationship is one man, one woman, till they are parted by death. I think that enshrines notions of difference (at least at the level of biology) and faithfulness that are important. I might also be tempted to throw in procreation.
Biblically, I find this ideal hard to get away from, even as biblically, I find abundant examples of people who for one reason or another are not in line with this ideal but who are loved and accepted by God in their non-ideal circumstances. "Non-ideal" does not necessarily mean "wantonly sinful" as far as I'm concerned.
What I would like to do is uphold what I see as an ideal whilst acknowledging that for many people, for whatever reason, this ideal is not realisable and that they are not necessarily to blame for this.
I would like a church that is sincerely, not insincerely, open to all and in which there are no second-class members. A church in which all of us, in our diversity of fallenness, stand only by the grace of God. A church in which all of us, in different ways, reflect the ideals of the Kingdom of God. We don't all reflect the same ones, and we don't feel superior for the ones we reflect. Some of them we don't reflect at all, but that's ok. Is this homophobic?
In the sense of anti-gay? Yes, it kind of is, for reasons which I will try to unpack carefully.
The very notion of an 'ideal' relationship creates a measuring point. It immediately provides you with an opportunity to assess a relationship and decide in some way how close it is to the ideal - the assessment might be difficult to quantify, but it's still an assessment.
Which then provides you with a way to compare two relationships, and decide that one is closer to the ideal than the other. Which means that it's better than the other.
So if your ideal sexual relationship is a heterosexual one, you've immediately got a reference point that says that if all other factors are equal, a heterosexual relationship is closer to your ideal in one respect than a homosexual one.
Regarding procreation, I will happily accept that a heterosexual relationship is better than a homosexual one. There are other ways, however, in which your notion of an ideal needs to be unpacked, and I'd say there are two key ones (which are interrelated):
1. Why is there only one single ideal for all purposes?
2. Would a procreative relationship really always be 'better' than a non-procreative one?
There are clearly people who see sex in very functional terms and emphasise that sex is for procreation, and therefore procreative sex is 'better' than non-procreative sex. I know IngoB is one. I've had some long discussions with him on the Ship as to why I think that this 'functional' view of the human body (not just the sexual parts) is misconceived. Procreation actually doesn't need a relationship, nor does it need sexual pleasure - there are many examples in the animal kingdom that demonstrate that procreative sex can be achieved with a single encounter and/or an extremely short copulation period. There are animals that can have intercourse faster than I can sneeze.
Sexual relationships for human beings are about far more than procreation.
I also note that most of us accept heterosexual marriages where procreation is either not intended or not medically possible.
I have challenged people in the past about just why marriage services talk about procreation as if it's one of the things that marriage is fundamentally about - the minister at my old church, and I think I've also raised the same challenge on the Ship. I've not had much in the way of convincing answers. It's not evident to me that there is a Biblical basis for seeing procreation as a cornerstone requirement of a sexual relationship, such that a procreative relationship is better in all circumstances.
There is certainly evidence that people in the Bible thought that childlessness was a curse from God. I am less convinced that there is evidence God agreed with this opinion.
And finally, I would say that the statement in Genesis that "for this reason" a man will leave his parents and join his wife does not, in my view, indicate that "this reason" is a procreative one. It is a relational one. It is about one person completing another. I know there are people who think that only a man can 'complete' a woman, and vice versa, but I don't agree with this. The only sense they can do this 'better' is the procreative, a-penis-fits-neatly-into-a-vagina form. I'm not persuaded that men and women are so clearly different in terms of outlook and personality that ONLY a man can fill the holes in a woman's personality/thinking/whatever and vice versa. Those sorts of things are on a spectrum rather than being binary - and while it may well be true that men tend to exhibit certain traits, and women tend to exhibit others, it is not true that either end of the spectrum is the exclusive domain of one gender. So even if you argue that a 'better' relationship involves picking a pair of people from opposite ends of a spectrum, it is false reasoning to conclude that the complementary pair will inevitably be one male and one female.
Any homosexual relationship I'm in is inevitably going to fall short of an ideal that involves procreation. But my response is: what if I'm not trying to procreate? What if I'm trying to achieve deep loving connection with another human being? Why would ability to procreate be relevant to THAT goal?
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In haste (for now):
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So if your ideal sexual relationship is a heterosexual one, you've immediately got a reference point that says that if all other factors are equal, a heterosexual relationship is closer to your ideal in one respect than a homosexual one.
My ideal sexual relationship is a heterosexual one: that of Adam and Eve (maybe "archetypal" might be a better word than "ideal").
That is not quite the same as saying that all heterosexual relationships are inherently superior to all others merely because they are heterosexual. And there are lots of ways other than whether or not a couple is hetero that we can fall short of this ideal.
You might as well say I'm anti-divorcee (which I don't aim to be and I'm pretty sure I'm not perceived as).
[ 30. June 2014, 11:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My ideal sexual relationship is a heterosexual one: that of Adam and Eve (maybe "archetypal" might be a better word than "ideal").
It would be better, yes.
But this does tie into what I'm saying. Of course, when there were 2 human beings, you needed a procreative sexual relationship to generate more human beings. Adam and Steve might have had a superb intimacy, but they wouldn't have made babies.
It doesn't follow that making babies is the rationale for all sexual relationships that followed theirs. And if you're going to use Adam and Eve as a model for sexual relationships, bear in mind how they started blaming each other and got turfed out of paradise...
[ 30. June 2014, 11:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
From orfeo quote:
I doubt most heterosexuals would think much of a God who told them that they could not have sex no matter what. Even if they found the perfect person and made a mutual lifelong commitment, and ticked every possible box in terms of sexual ethics - how many married heterosexual couples would accept being told they were forbidden from ever having sex ever again?
Omit the married, and it's still a bit challenging when one's nearest match, to whose wellbeing one has committed oneself, declares that he has embraced celibacy. That he has not been hit on one of the repetitions of this is solely because I have been driving at the time.
Hence my condemnation of those who do this to others on religious grounds. I know what it's like. Though self denial for a known other person's wellbeing is possibly more bearable than for obedience to an incomprehensible edict based on very, very little evidence of God being an utter toad.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
you seem to be arguing for an incredibly narrow definition of homophobia roughly equivalent to arguing that anyone short of an actual Klansman or Neo-Nazi doesn't qualify as a racist.
That is a bizarre comparison, and I find it difficult to believe that you intend it seriously.
For a start, racism is not analogous to believing that homosexual practice is wrong.
And it has nothing to do with "narrow definition"; the simple fact is that the vast majority of Christians who believe that the Bible forbids homosexual activity do not hate or fear homosexuals, but just believe that they are mistaken on this particular issue.
Neo-Nazis and Klansmen - give us a break.
Hey, it's your special pleading, not mine.
quote:
To insist that “homophobia” and its cognates are correct and unchangeable is to exhibit a prescriptivist rigidity which would be laughed out of court in other circumstances. To use “homophobe” to describe someone who merely disagrees with homosexual practice is as insulting as calling a black person as a “nigger”, and just as easy to dump in the dustbin of linguistic history. “Homophobia” should be reserved for extremists such as those who have called for capital punishment for gays in Uganda.
Which is exactly equivalent to arguing that opposing inter-racial marriage and supporting Segregation or Apartheid isn't "racist", but that term should be reserved only for people who want to literally lynch members of other races. While someone running a whites only school may object to being called a "racist" because he's not as bad as those Klansmen down the road, there's no reason the rest of us have to humor his delusion. The same reasoning applies to those who are anti-gay, but reassure themselves that they're not as bad as those "extremists" in Uganda.
Just out of curiosity, how do you parse the idea that the Biblical God literally condemns homosexuality, but doesn't literally command stoning (male) homosexuals to death.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Orfeo;
quote:
Nevertheless, the theological difficulty finds its way into practice, in such areas as the resistance of same-sex marriage. Conservatives who see marriage as an official 'stamp of approval' of a relationship do not want that stamp given to same-sex relationships.
Christians who believe the Church should be separate from the State, and countries not even nominally Christian, should not object to whatever arrangements the state wants to make for citizens who are not of the Christian persuasion. Also they should recognise those relationships as lawful.
As with many other things which are lawful, like gambling, they might still regard SSM as sinful and not want to do it in their own society within the state.
Much of the heat in the current situation arises from the CofE being an established church, so that what the CofE does can be interpreted as an act of the state, in this case discrimination by the state. Changing that situation would considerably change the terms of the debate....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For a start, racism is not analogous to believing that homosexual practice is wrong.
And it has nothing to do with "narrow definition"; the simple fact is that the vast majority of Christians who believe that the Bible forbids homosexual activity do not hate or fear homosexuals, but just believe that they are mistaken on this particular issue.
Neo-Nazis and Klansmen - give us a break.
Anyone who can't discuss a question like this without throwing up that sort of image should fall under some variation on Godwin's Law.
I do see them as analogous. Not perfectly, no, but sharing some of the difficulties. Your POV seems much like "separate but equal " to my eyes. Even without rancor, it sends a message to those who are "other" that they are not quite good enough. And when you add the authority of God, so much more the damaging.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Or why children are born with an endless list of horrible diseases, deformities and disabilities………
Perhaps being born gay is a 'disability'?
Normally, we help disabled people to live as 'normal' a life as possible.
We give them wheelchairs.
We don't say that it is OK to be disabled but sinful to use a wheelchair.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you familiar with confirmation bias? Add to that a firm conviction that you are on God's side and the people telling you you're being hurtful are in league with the Devil of Hell. Toss in a few people who actually WANT to be hurtful and are using God as an excuse.
Yes indeed, but I'm referring not to the Phelps' of the church, rather the moderates. Folk like George Carey, who know gay people socially, and sincerely want to obey scripture. They're not personally homophobic, and genuinely want gay people to feel welcome in the church, but they do keep dropping these clangers.
Are they really unaware of the baggage? I guess they may be, but if so, it's on them to educate themselves.
Lambeth 1988 bound bishops to 'listen to the experience of homosexuals.'
So they are already supposed to educate themselves.
To help them, a gay friend of mine took out an annual subscription of Gay Times on behalf of both his diocesan and suffragan bishop.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Orfeo;
quote:
Nevertheless, the theological difficulty finds its way into practice, in such areas as the resistance of same-sex marriage. Conservatives who see marriage as an official 'stamp of approval' of a relationship do not want that stamp given to same-sex relationships.
Christians who believe the Church should be separate from the State, and countries not even nominally Christian, should not object to whatever arrangements the state wants to make for citizens who are not of the Christian persuasion. Also they should recognise those relationships as lawful.
As with many other things which are lawful, like gambling, they might still regard SSM as sinful and not want to do it in their own society within the state.
Much of the heat in the current situation arises from the CofE being an established church, so that what the CofE does can be interpreted as an act of the state, in this case discrimination by the state. Changing that situation would considerably change the terms of the debate....
It doesn't seem to have changed the terms of the debate in the US.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Or why children are born with an endless list of horrible diseases, deformities and disabilities………
Perhaps being born gay is a 'disability'?
Normally, we help disabled people to live as 'normal' a life as possible.
We give them wheelchairs.
We don't say that it is OK to be disabled but sinful to use a wheelchair.
Disabled =/= wheelchair user. And disabled lives are normal lives.
Comparing homosexuality to disability and then talking about disability in those terms is incredibly homophobic and incredibly ableist.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
racism is not analogous to believing that homosexual practice is wrong.
I've stayed out of this discussion so far, because over a decade on the Ship has taught me that threads like this rarely get beyond endless stating and restating of positions.
But I felt that I had to comment on this. Kaplan, do you fail to understand the meaning of the word "analogous"? Because that is the only explanation I can find for your statement.
An analogy is:
quote:
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based
The key word here is "similarity". To say that racism and opposition to homosexual practice are analogies is not to claim that they are identical - simply that there are sufficient similarities to compare them.
And that seems undeniable:
a) discrimination based on sexuality is like discrimination based on race, as they are both about things which the person being discriminated against has no power to change. A black person cannot simply decide to become white. A gay man cannot simply decide to become straight. (Although there are, of course, additional complicating factors about sexuality, but the basic premise remains.)
b) discrimination based on sexuality is like discrimination based on race, as they are both attitudes which have been defended by Christians, often by claiming authority from the Bible or by saying "that's the way things have always been."
c) discrimination based on sexuality is like discrimination based on race, in that both are attitudes which the wider society (especially in the West) now regards as abhorrent.
d) discrimination based on sexuality is like discrimination based on race, in that the consequences of such discrimination have often been naked bigotry, violence and severe oppression.
Now, you may want to claim that the analogy between the two is not sufficiently strong, or that it is for some reason invalid. But you've really got to make your case on that - simply denying the analogy completely is not enough.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The key word here is "similarity". To say that racism and opposition to homosexual practice are analogies is not to claim that they are identical - simply that there are sufficient similarities to compare them.
Everything Kaplan Corday has said (including the words "homosexual practice" which get people so riled up) leads me to believe that he draws a distinction between being homosexual and having homosexual sex.
If I understand his argument, he's not discriminating on grounds of sexuality per se, but only on the grounds of actual sex, and whilst being homosexual is innate, just like skin color, having sex with people of the same sex is a choice.
This strikes me as rather like arguing that you're not discriminating against black people, just as long as they, you know, don't act black.
It's still racism, and it's still homophobia.
Is hating cornrows better than lynching black people? Sure. Is Kaplan Corday's position less homophobic than the Westboro nutjobs? Sure.
But that's pretty cold comfort for the poor buggers he'd condemn to a lifetime of celibacy.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
If you really can't understand the difference between disagreeing with someone, and asserting tour "inherent superiority" over them, try sitting down and thinking about it for a little while.
Once you are reaching for the language of sin you are vilifying and talking about the inherent superiority of one way over another. It is possible to disagree amicably. You are not. You are vilifying the the other side by talking about sin, and then objecting to return fire.
<snip>
If "sin" and "immoral" are allowed, so are "bigotry" and "homophobia". When you talk about homosexual practice being unacceptable, others have the right to talk about your beliefs and practices being unacceptable.
The right to free speech does not mean that everyone has the obligation to sit and listen politely while you make offensive comments.
This is fair enough to a point. However, thinking of two other analogies, it's a bit muddier. Firstly, most people who object to 'homosexual acts' would do so as they fall into the category of 'sex outside marriage'. Parents who disaprove of their unmarried children having sex at 16 don't tend to get labelled as bigots, but their reasoning probably isn't vastly different from an anti-homosexual "it's sex outside marriage" stance (however, now that homosexuals can get married, that argument is nicely screwed, anyhow)
The other analogy is vegetarianism. Many vegetarians think that eating meat is morally wrong (i.e. a sin), don't do it, and think that others shouldn't do it, though wouldn't want to make it illegal for others to eat meat. However, we don't tend to label them bigots either. Some vegetarians do get some abuse, of course.
I think anyone who adopts a stance of "I disaprove of your actions/beliefs, but will fight for your right to hold them" isn't in too horrendous a place. Sadly, amongst most evangelicals the stance is "I disaprove of your actions, but think you should probably be legally allowed to do them, however, I'm not going to do anything to help you in your fight for that in case people think I approve of your actions"
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I have no more desire to "persecute" homosexuals than I have to persecute Hindus, and neither do any of the evangelicals I know.
Trying to deny myself and others fundamental human rights (eg to marriage) very much is persecution from our point of view. You may not feel like a persecutor, but we feel persecuted, and very justifiably so
Kaplan has already said that he doesn't want to deny those rights, which is a very good thing. There are a lot of evangelicals out there that do, however, and I get the impression that on his thread Kaplan has received a lot of the ire that they should.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Don't have any evangelicals in your family, do you? I'd have to write off whole branches of my family to disassociate myself from evangelicals. OK, so that's just a bunch of cousins I don't see very often. But one of them has a son who is gay -- what's he supposed to do?
I've got quite a few evangelicals in my extended family, but I don't have to deal with them every day, fortunately.
As for your cousin - yes, what can he do? Beg his folks to become Episcopalians? No. When he's of age he'll just have to go off to live his own life, make his own friends, find his own spiritual community, and come back for the occasional flying visit, if that's bearable. Plenty of people in our mobile, global societies hardly ever see their parents; we don't have to wait around for their approval and we don't have to attend their churches.
[ 30. June 2014, 17:36: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I should say that I have affinities with evangelicalism, but not so much the type that's normally discussed here.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Ummmm... In all the times I have dealt with homophobic behaviour, it has never been because I was engaging in so-called "homosexual practise", it was because I self identified as LGBT. No one ever asked whether I was single or celibate or what plans I had for the future. I was singled out because of that marker: I was a threat to children. I was a threat to Christianity. I had a demon that needed to be exorcised. I needed to be "cured". (The fact that I had tried and it didn't work was my fault.) I self identified with the wrong identifier.
Fundagelicals like to convince themselves that they have nothing against the person but it's directed at the act, but that's a lie they tell themselves. Homophobia has nothing to do with being against "acts" or "practice". Few gays are ever subjected to slurs, kicked out of church, asked to leave their employer or beaten up because people saw them have sex. It's do to who we are, not what we do.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
You must understand that I have nothing against Evangelicals as people : it's their practices I object to...
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Ummmm... In all the times I have dealt with homophobic behaviour, it has never been because I was engaging in so-called "homosexual practise", it was because I self identified as LGBT. No one ever asked whether I was single or celibate or what plans I had for the future. I was singled out because of that marker: I was a threat to children. I was a threat to Christianity. I had a demon that needed to be exorcised. I needed to be "cured". (The fact that I had tried and it didn't work was my fault.) I self identified with the wrong identifier.
Fundagelicals like to convince themselves that they have nothing against the person but it's directed at the act, but that's a lie they tell themselves. Homophobia has nothing to do with being against "acts" or "practice". Few gays are ever subjected to slurs, kicked out of church, asked to leave their employer or beaten up because people saw them have sex. It's do to who we are, not what we do.
I don't think your second paragraph necessarily follows from the first (though I do think it's true for a lot of people). If there are people whose conscience genuinely prohibits them from acknowledging gay sex is okay by God, but do want to be open, inclusive, accepting to everyone (gays included), then they're not the kind of people that would have treated you in the shitty ways you describe. These are the kind of people who, even if they changed their theology to become more inclusive tomorrow, they wouldn't need to change their day-to-day interactions to become more inclusive, because they're already doing a pretty good job of loving their neighbour. I know a large number of evangelicals that fall into that category. I also do know a large number of genuinely homophobic evangelicals who, sadly, fit the description in your second paragraph.
I have no idea whether Kaplan is former or the latter. I'm uncomfortable with people assuming he must be the latter, just because they've encountered other people who are, and then assume that he must be too.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Leorning Cniht;
quote:
This strikes me as rather like arguing that you're not discriminating against black people, just as long as they, you know, don't act black.
And 'acting black' would mean exactly what acts, please? What distinctively 'black' acts are there? Whereas the biblical prohibitions are specifically about actions.
Basic proposition - what you are in racial terms does not compel you to do particular actions that nobody else might. Your local culture might include acts different to others - those acts would surely be potentially open to moral judgement precisely because they are actions, not just what you are; whatever your race.
Of course if that is right, then gay people using the "It's like racism" claim would actually be taking a bigoted persecuting position...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
