BS: major religions and homophobia

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Pseudolus
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 04:01 PM

I certainly did not take it as a personal attack. Where most people shy away from discussions about religion, I actually enjoy it......I'm weird that way!!! I guess I don't see religion and faith as an all or nothing kind of thing and perhaps we part ways right there. But I don't think that when there is a difference of opinions, let's say me and the Pope, that I should bail out and move on. I don't feel that I'm culpable for the effects Catholicism has on Social issues like homosexuality any more than I am culpable for effects my government has on world issues. I'll take any heat for effects that I myself have on the issue whether it be my own actions or my kids actions as I see it my responsibility to teach them acceptance and sharing. I don't advocate tolerance in this case because in my mind the word tolerance implies that somebody did something wrong. It is a difficult concept to teach a child NOT to prejudge or assume since by nature we as thinking, breathing, humans are formulating opinions all the time. this doesn't mean that there aren't people out there that I don't care for, I just would like to think that I tried my best to like them first!!

So, hopefully I didn't come across as being on the attack or being defensive, I didn't intend either. Like I said, I enjoy an argu...uh, I mean a figh...uh, hmmmm, a LIVELY discussion when it comes to religion and its issues. I seem to learn a lot about people, their beliefs, and even myself in the process.

Take Care, Frank

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: kimmers
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 04:12 PM

It's funny to hear all this about the Catholic church. When I think of homophobia and intolerance, the Catholics are *not* the first branch of the church that springs to mind. Yes, they're big, ancient, and well organized, so their public positions get more press. But they have changed their minds on various positions, through the years. I'd like to see more change, but on the whole I see the Catholics moving forward rather than backward. There have always been gay priests, for one thing, even if they are almost all living a secret life... and I think that this must give some undertone of tolerance.

For a dose of real, paranoid, gibbering-with-misplaced-fear intolerance, you need to hang out with the Right-Wing Evangelicals. My apologies to those of you who are of that religious persuasion... and my condolences as well. While a gay Catholic (or Anglican) might simply remain quiet about his or her sexual orientation, a young person growing up gay or lesbian in the fundamentalist tradition is in for a hellish time.

I like the point made earlier (by blt, I think) that same-sex relationships aren't necessarily only about sex. We're also talking about attraction between hearts and minds. There have been times in Western culture where a man or a woman would spent most of his or her leisure time with companions of the same sex, then go off to have sexual relations with their spouse without a whole lot of friendship being involved.

If I were lesbian, I think I'd rather be in a celibate relationship with my true love than be in a miserable marriage with societally-approved sex. Heck, that's true even as a heterosexual.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 04:29 PM

Mousethief, I think John P has covered most of the bases for me. I used "judgmental" because that's exactly what your attitude is. To me it's breathtaking that you can't see it.

What in what I said is judgmental? Please be specific. Just saying "it's breathtaking you can't see it" isn't teribly helpful, and looks like a dodge. What exactly did I say that was judgmental?

I used "homophobic" in the sense that most people do these days. What I meant by it was "anti-homosexual" or "anti-same-sex sex" - something you are against because (for reasons you can't explain) it offends your God. You're entitled to your prejudice, but don't blame it on your religion.

When did I say I was against same sex sex? When did I say it "offended my God"? You are putting words in my mouth.

What I said was that according to the teachings of my church, homosexuals are expected to remain celibate. I went on to say that I know lots of gays who are wonderful people and a whole hell of a lot "like folks." If this is prejudice and judgmentalism, you will have to do a little more than the handwaving you've done so far to explain why.

I didn't invent this religion. I inherited it from the people who went before me. If you want it to be changed, maybe you should join it and try to change it. I don't feel inclined to try to change it, and for that, apparently, you are calling me homophobic and judgmental and prejudiced.

So far all the judgmentalism and prejudice has come from your side of this debate. Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Matt Woodbury/Mimosa
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 04:43 PM

I was raised in a church that taught that it was "The Only True Church" and therefore essentially infallible. They went mixing their doctrine, which held that Blacks were not entitled to their priesthood, with the Boy Scout program, and ended up changing their doctrine to avoid a lawsuit. They claimed a new revelation from God.

The churches and Eminem are entitled to spout whatever beliefs they want, and I, for one will enjoy the opportunity to group Eminem with the Pope, the President, the US Attorney General, and the (purportedly closeted) president of the Mormon Church.

When they start attempting to force their religious views on others through the State, they can bring the whole mess down upon their own heads.

I think the people who stay in the church and attempt to change it from within are as important to change as the people who leave in loud protest. Eventually, the churches will have to change, because they can't keep their noses out of politics, but I left the Mormons because I didn't want to spend the rest of my life waiting for the church to offer me full citizenship.

Mimosa

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: CamiSu
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 06:53 PM

There have been so many things said here, and lots of people have said things I want to say as well. Probably a lot will have been said by the time this gets posted, as I am off line and writing as I get my thoughts organised.

blt, you have said it so well and so eloquently. And I will id myself. I am a straight woman (Wavestar's mother in fact, so my daughter's best friend is a lesbian), who does not care what other people do in bed. It is none of my business. However, I do think it is my business to do what I can to help ensure that people have the legal right to form a relationship with whomever they want, provided the feeling is mutual, and both parties are competent to decide. I am a Sunday School teacher in a Chrisstian Science church, and have really had to think about this, in terms of how openly I express my opinions. (They got expressed on the front page of the upper valley paper, and I still teach the high school and college class.) I truly believe God is incusive of all the qualities we associate with either gender, and is NOT He or She. (Unfortunately we don't have a word for this inclusiveness.) Thus I look upon people as reflections of God first, and gender identity is just a part of who they are, along with lovingness, honesty, talents, etc. It is certainly not the sum total of that person, nor all I see when I think of that person.

It is astonishing to see what people will do when someone they've known for a long while, comes out. I was gratified to see my father, who was a noisy raging homophobe in my high school years, change his mind when the daughter of a close friend, came out. I could wish that more parents could manage this feat.

Of course it is also astonishing to see some of the ideas some people have... A man in our town, a recognised "expert" (quotation marks are mine)on Russia, is certain that homosexuality is a communist plot! I'm not kidding! He's written in the paper under his own name, PhD!!!

The comments about many of the rules being set up to keep the "alpha males" in power rings very true. Most of the people I heard testify against the Civil Union legislation last winter, were raging about the fact that the Bible says it is abomination. The Bible also says not to eat pork and (sorry John) the FAT of beef or mutton. (One offers the fat and organs to God, and eats the rest, or offers it all--and after God is done with it, it is given to the poor). There are lots of rules that were germaine to the times (pork could kill you) and are no longer. And the last time I looked the commandments did not mention homosexuality. It does mention adultery, but our laws still, except for Vermont, prevent those of us who are not heterosexual from publicly and legally committing to a single partner. Makes it kinda tough. I really like the comment about Church/State separation in this context.

The other people who squawked against the bill were concerned about the sexual acts. I don't want to know what ANYone does in bed! Not my business! But I do want people who love each other to be able to care for each other, speak as next of kin in medical matters, be able to care for each others' children, and so on.

I also want to end the us/them attitude. It's all US. One race (human), one people, one family. (Do I REALLY want to be brother to bigots? Oh dear! But I have to, to be true to myself.) Oh dear, this sounds SO self righteous. I do laugh at myself! HONEST!

Love to all.

CamiSu

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 07:55 PM

CamiSu:

Homosexuality was a plot by the Reds started in 1811 to deflect attention from the machinations of the nascent underground international Communist movement. This is a well-known fact. Those Pinkos are nobody's fools, remember! In fact that's the ORIGINAL etymology of the expression "red herring", which was indirectly immortalized in the famous Communist Negro folk verse that starts out,

"What's that smells like fishes?
Tell ya if ya really want to know...."

Now that we have eestablished a musical basis for this thread.... :>)

Remember the perspective and the conditions when those od Laws cited above were imposed. It was a time of very slow communication, when technology was limited to hand tools, when survival was an exhausting battle against the forces of weather and gravity every single day, and when life was a risky proposition even if you cleared some reserves herding or farming, because the world was full of plunderers and murderers in various guises. The strength of the tribe -- not of the individual or single family -- was the sole assurance of survival, and these laws were tribal laws. A tribe is a different kind of group. It is kept together through different kinds of beliefs, especially one that is not exposed to post-scientific reasoning.

Under those circumstances, laws like the ones espoused above might be the elders' best guess at what kind of conduct would keep the tribe together and keep it surviving.

Sure, they may seem absurd from a perspective informed by two to three thousand years of intellectual advances and the evolution of forms and agreements amongst humans. Sure they are O.B.E. as a Confederate dollar. Sure they are vaguely ridiculous by modern standards of relevance. But they might have worked a little once.

'Course that's no call to make religious doctrine out of 'em... A little applied rationality can go a LONG way in such matters!:>)

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: GUEST,Blind Desert Pete
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 12:52 PM

I know Ill catch h*** for this but my 02 cents worth. I was just a private in the sexual revolution and although hit on frequently had nothing against gays, ( always figured that it just meant more gals for me) then they brought us AIDS. its not private behavior that is nobodys business. it has affected all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:05 PM

"They" didn't bring "us" anything. I guess it's too much to hope that you know AIDS is more prevalent among heterosexuals in developing countries, which comprise 95% of new reported AIDS cases.

There is also legitimate controversy, among experts, as to how it is spread and what causes it. Some respected researchers seem to have proven that testing HIV positive does NOT cause AIDS, but it is not in the ecomomic interests of the drug companies, etc. to admit this and back further research, etc.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Grab
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:11 PM

Fionn, I'm quite happy offending anyone who believes that anything written down can be the literal word of God. If you're not in that category, I didn't mean to offend you. Sorry, it did sound a bit all-inclusive, didn't it? Let me rephrase more accurately (but slightly more long-windedly. :-)

(BTW, the word "you" below means "one" - I use "you" bcos "one uses" is not normal English usage. To prevent any offense being taken, "you" does NOT apply to any person in particular!)

The "viral" quality is in religions (or more accurately, subsets of religions) which believe in writings as being the literal word of God - in other words, fundamentalism. If you use your intelligence to reason about why some of the writings exist, then you're fighting the virus of fundamentalism. If you just accept that it _is_, without ever wondering _why_ it is, then you've caught the virus. Children are naturally vulnerable, since they don't have any point of comparison, and are still learning what's "normal". Kids naturally ask "why this/that" bcos they don't know stuff. If your answer is simply, "bcos God says so, and if you ask about it you'll go to Hell," then they'll believe that it's the case. They may shake it off as they grow up; they may be affected for the rest of their life, and pass on their indoctrinations to their children.

Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: GUEST,Blind Desert Pete
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 03:22 PM

Kat: Of course Iknow that Its because anal sex is often used as birth control. Its the behavour not who or what we are.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 03:27 PM

Do you have any solid data which says it is because it is used as birth control? I've never heard that one and it seems very far-fetched to me given that most developing countries have centuries old taboos plus, in all of the research I've done, I've never seen any evidence that heteros are catching it through anal sex.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Ely
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 03:47 PM

Not sure what you mean, kat/katlaughing. I don't imagine that anal sex is as popular with heterosexual couples since it's not as, um, anatomically necessary, but if they do it, they can certainly transmit HIV.

Any Bishop Spong readers in the house? I'm not saying he's Gospel (no pun intended) but his case is that the Bible is largely political--pieced together and made up to make Jesus look really good. Not that he wasn't a remarkable person to begin with.

My parents never made a big deal out of it, so by the time I knew what it was, there had been gay people around me for years whom I knew as people, not as gay people. I think my reaction was something like, "Oh, her marriage failed because she was married to a guy but she liked women. Yeah, I guess that would be a problem."

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 04:26 PM

On the point of why stay in a denomination you don't fully agree with--

Sometimes it's because the denomination is one that is committed to continuing thought and prayer and discussion of difficult subjects, and is devoted to a larger mission than any one subject of current dispute. The Episcopal Church (the Anglican church) has historically been one of these.

Does every parish operate from complete wisdom? No, of course not; but what are they supposed to be attemtping to approximate? That's the operant question.

The presiding bishop for the US church recently summed it up by saying that heresy is prefereable to schism. He was talking about the church having to be willing to allow enough present-time interpretation of matters to risk the occasional heresy. The alternative, when passions run high, is schism-- "I and my friends are putting OUR marbles in another collection plate, our butts in other pews, and our prayers in another direction! And BTW, YOU are going to HELL!"

This perspective-- heresy over schism-- allows for the rethinking and eventual clear sight of what may turn out, in hindsight, to have been incorrect. But schism cuts the communication off. A people can heal and grow from the former much more easily than from the latter. And who do we learn the most from? People we agree with, or people who irritate us into fresh thought?

One of the things I love about our denomination is that it has TOOLS to use to handle these difficult topics. At its best, it does not usurp what it sees as God's prerogative-- to evaluate. Rather, it seeks to provide a setting and an attitude of prayerful dialog with God, within which to seek His wisdom.


Another look at these sorts of discussions comes from the Re-evaluation Counseling community (RC).

There was a lengthy battle years ago, among RCers, over whether sexual preference is a choice, a distress recoding, or predetermined. The ultimate question was, how do we exchange good counseling on matters touching on our sexuality? (It's a peer counseling system.)

It was finally recognized, after all positions were thoroughly aired and after massive amounts of session time was spent just on the communication about it (I do not mean session time trying to "cure" gays), that the most important thing to see was this: All present developed countries' societies carry so much massive distress about ALL things having to do with sexuality that the answer to this specific question is not important in itself. The larger questions were agreed to be: "What exactly did you experience and how did it hurt you? How is it still holding you back? And in present time, how do we choose to treat people, and how do we want to BE treated?"

It always comes down to respect and a commitment to do one's own best thinking, guided by whatever one chooses to be guided by, within whatever ethics one has adopted, and always subject to continuing learning and understanding.

And truth and love are never far apart.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 06:25 PM

Roger, on reflection I've realized that the foregoing was Part One of the answer I owe you. There will be more.

Part Two will address the way human idiocy on the personal level so often lets us feel that we actually know what we think about Big Questions-- when we have not yet been personally touched by them. *G*

Part Three will address how human idiocy gets moved up from the personal to the institutional level.

And I will be speaking mostly to you and the questions you posed, although I imagine someone will manage to get pissed off at me and answer me in ire.

In the meantime, though, I'm going to go fish up a thread we had about whether Mudcatters ever really change their minds about what they've read or discussed in Mudcat threads. I'm one of the ones who has had changes of mind or heart but, as I recall, people saying that were in the minority. I love how people have acknowledged in some other recent threads that mostly they post to share what they think, not to exchange it with someone else in mutual listening and discussion. What I find intreresting about it is that it seems to me that when we entrench ourselves further in our own positions, we are less likely to find ways of working together to change what we don't like. But, whatever!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 06:44 PM

Ely, my point exactly, I guess I just didn't phrase it very clearly. I meant that I'd like Blind Desert Pete to back up his statement claiming that heteros are catching AIDs more because they use anal sex as birth control. I don't believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Haruo
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 07:14 PM

I just posted a new thread to continue this one, since it's up to 115 and 100 is usually a good place to break it off. I'm a Baptist who has no use for homophobia, myself, and hopefully I'll have a chance to read this thread and post in the new one tomorrow. I've got a couple pertinent songs in my online hymnal (namely, the MCC hymns "We are the Church Alive" and "Our God is like an Eagle") in both Esperanto and English.

Liland