BS: major religions and homophobia

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 02:39 AM

Well, I think that Amos is having entirely too much fun in thi s discussion.

But back to the issue at hand, I guess I'd have to say that homosexuality poses a serious problem for Christian churches. St. Paul has some rather choice words against homosexuality. Harvard's Peter Gomes tried valiantly to talk around Paul's ideas in The Good Book, but I don't think Gomes succeeded. As a Catholic layman, I can just say what I think - that Paul was homophobic, and that he was wrong to be homophobic. It's a little more difficult for members of the clergy - they have to dance the dance and try to keep the hard-liners happy, because the hard-liners can make life miserable for them.

Most Roman Catholic priests I know tend to skirt the issue. They see no need to make an issue of homosexuality, and they do their best to minister to the needs of homosexuals. However, they try to avoid being viewed as supporting homosexuality. It's a battle they can't win right now, so they step aside rather than burying themselves in an unwinnable battle. Many Catholic bishops seem to think the same way. They look for ways to serve the needs of homosexuals, but they don't fight battles on the issue because they're not in a position where they can get the Catholic Church to fully accept homosexuality.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 03:41 AM

Paul was also a bit of a misogynist, so that runs true to form.

My take on the subject is that we are not living in an ideal world. In an ideal world, all children would have two loving parents and most adults should have someone who loves them unconditionally. (It occurs to me that I'm missing the point there: In an ideal world everyone should have someone that they love unconditionally.)

This is not an ideal world. If- and that's a BIG if- homosexuality is wrong, tough. For whatever reason, a substantial number of people in this world respond to only their own sex- should they then remain celibate? How many of us in the mainstream would be/have been willing to make that sacrifice?

I think loving someone is a whole lot more important than who you love- If there is a God out there watching, S/He knows. I'm perfectly willing not to be the judge.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Gervase
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 06:31 AM

Personally I've had no trouble with my Roman Catholic indoctrination since I decided one Lent to give it up permanently.
But what still puzzles me is the oft-stated determination to separate religion and politics. For XXX's sake, the two are inseparable. If the Council of Nicea hadn't been obsessed with the politics of the Arian heresy and with the schism in the Church, we (our rather some people) would not be reciting the Nicene Creed every time they go to Mass.
And as for the books of the New Testament - the fact that we are told that MaMaLuJo is the Word of God is the result of a political decision. What about Timothy or the Gnostic texts? Sorry, don't get me started...
Call me a goofy radical, but I don't particularly fancy ordering my life and opinions according to the sectarian bickerings of a bunch of intolerant backbiting politicos over the past two millennia.
That said, anyone who chose to live by the simplest Christian tenet of all - do unto others etc - would seem to be OK in my book.
It's a tenet, however, that doesn't require a belief in a creator or any spiritual crutch to uphold. In fact, I'd have more time for someone who did so because they wanted to rather than because their God told them to.
It's a personal thing, though. I've got friends of many faiths and none - I choose them for their personal qualities rather than their belief systems. And I do like singing hymns (just don't ask me to say the creed when I'm in a church!).

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: blt
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 06:33 AM

Being a lesbian, this thread hits very close to home. I have to say that after living in several states that have actively pursued anti-gay legislation and being involved in many discussions with homophobic individuals, there is no blueprint for homophobes, just as there is none for heterosexuals or homosexuals. To be very trite, people are simply people.

I've never felt that gay men are more vulnerable than lesbians to homophobic violence; in a very harsh way, I believe that male issues simply receive more attention so that lesbians are rendered invisible. Certainly I've always been aware of the potential for violence, have had my share of being called nasty names in public, been assaulted physically, been fired from jobs, been denied housing, all because of my "sexual orientation." Most in the lesbian community have had similar experiences but few of these reach the media.

I believe that religions that are patriarchal, in particular Christianity, Islam and Judaism, or cultures that are strongly patriarchal, have foundational roots that demand that women be submissive to men. Ignoring the rules around gender translates either into challenging God the Father or dogmas that deify male power. Either way, lesbians and gay men, as well as bisexuals and transgendered men and women are blamed for "breaking the rules." It is much easier to blame than to change, especially when change is viewed as completely unnecessary or threatening. I believe the core issues have to do with the fear of sexuality, a topic that conservative Christians in general struggle with terribly. This creates many contradictions, the obvious being that the progress of blood borne disease such as HIV or Hepititis , not to mention STD's, is epidemic largely due to cultural taboos about talking about sex and sexuality. This is a sad state of affairs, when culturally we are more comfortable discussing how to more effectively blow up our neighbor's house vs talking honestly about sex. I could go further and equate the fear of sex with a fear of the female body and thus a fear of life, creation, and the earth herself. It seems to be very difficult for dogmatic and frightened individuals to understand that lesbians and gays have always been present throughout history, and to grasp that human sexuality exists on a continuum. It's not that one is either-or, rather human beings have a broad range of sexual identity and expression, and these identities typically change over the life span. However, this implies a sort of impermanence that scares some people, it's like having the rug pulled out from under one's feet. And, the discomfort this creates tweaks people in the lesbian and gay communities just as much as in the straight world. There is something to be said for the security one assumes from having a sexual "identity"--crossing these lines is difficult and painful, whether it's the process of coming out or struggling with being in the closet.

I think this will change over time but slowly. There has been a tremendous shift over the last 50 years in how lesbians and gays are viewed. The violence that persists is characteristic of transitions. I also happen to believe that patriarchal religions are dying, and that some of the violence is related to these death throes. It is certainly an interesting time to be alive.

blt

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: guest(intruder-inactive)
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 07:16 AM

here's a test

give every structured religion with one million followers a secular arm, and secular authority

find a place far away with video feed
watch the fun

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Penny S.
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 07:22 AM

Part of the problem lies in the belief that human society is made up of nuclear families. (Or other forms in which a man dominates a breeding group of women.) We are social beings, though, and in all other types of social creature, there are numbers of individuals who do not have offspring, whose work goes into supporting the offspring of those who do. This happens in human societies, as well.

Because women have, in the past, tended to die a lot in childbirth, a society which had superfluous carers would survive better than one which did not. Perhaps men who were less competitive for women would also tend to survive longer. Human societies have depended on long-lived individuals to pass on knowledge to new generations. We are, to observation, a group of beings with a wide diversity of ways to live together, and we have been very successful. It is possible that these features are not unconnected.

Some individuals find themselves natural celibates, to which condition monasticism is one solution (very large harems are another!) It not very widely successful now, since celibacy can be imposed where it is not the natural inclination. In others, who do need close personal relationships, same sex attachments work. Human society works because there are a wide variety of ways of living together.

At a less unconscious level, many societies have set up systems which channel the intelligent out of the way of having offspring. Monasticism has been one. So has excessive polygamy with the accompaniment of eunuchs, who were used in the civil service. This helps with passing knowledge on, but I suspect it may also have been to do with the insecurity of the leaders of such societies, who suspected that they would not be able to stand against such people. In Arnhem zoo, the lead chimp clearly spent some effort in keeping the most inventive male way down the pecking order.

It is noticeable that most of the most virulent opposition to the alternative ways of life comes from a certain type of male. The sort who like to give other people orders. And have them obeyed. Monastic women were fiercely restricted after the church realised how they had gained autonomy. Lesbians obviously do not accept male authority. Homosexual men do not acknowledge the need for all men to exercise it. Historically, the greatest contempt for the latter has been reserved for those seen as in the "passive, feminine" role. Femmes sole, who are none of the above, have been dealt with by being denigrated as spinsters, on the shelf, the rejected dregs of femininity. (But see characters like Miss Dove in the book and film about a long serving spinster teacher.) Or, when old, reviled, and perhaps worse, as witches (in the old sense as seen in folk literature).

All these things allow the "subordinates" of those who aspire to be alpha males, if only in their own homes, to see that there are alternatives, and it has been in the interest of these males to set up systems which declare their way to be the norm, and that the alternatives are fatal to the soul. This could be analogous to the way paedophiles, with their peers, set up a belief system in which they are right and natural. Because they tend to be larger and stronger, and because in their case there is sufficient truth about the ways families work in their beliefs to convince many others, the dominant males could have been able to inculcate their beliefs about the inferiority of women, and the abominability of same sex relationships in practically all religions in the world.

The argument that what they teach is natural is undermined by the frequency with which such teachings need to be repeated, and the strength with which they need to be enforced.

A hypothesis by

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Katcina
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 09:18 AM

Thank you Gervase,

I tend to absentmindedly call myself a Christian. Mainly because of my upbringing but now more and more because I do believe a very nice man called Christ walked on this earth long ago. Believing that a man called Christ even existed I also believe makes me a Christian more than any religious indoctrination ever could.

DO UNTO OTHERS

My be all end all rule in life.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Bagpuss
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 12:09 PM

Fionn - most people hate it when religious people shove religion down their throats - *telling* them what they should believe. Some of us find it equally annoying for others to tell us what we should not believe in. I remain a Christian, because when I read what Jesus says, he makes a whole lot of sense to me and also because I have a feeling that there is something more to the world than the material. But I don't believe in anything because someone else tells me to. I believe in what seems right to me - and if that happens to coincide with the main teachings of a religion then thats great.

I always remember that Jesus came and found the Jewish religion full of nonsensical ritual etc which actually gets in the way of the real message. So he tried to sweep that all away - and all we have done since then is to put a whole other load of nonsense in between us and what god wants.

Why should it matter to anyone else what I believe in? It wouldn't change the way I would treat people if I discovered none of it is true.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 12:22 PM

Why should it matter to anyone else what I believe in? It wouldn't change the way I would treat people if I discovered none of it is true.

BP, you have struck the Holy Nail on its Holy head. The proof of the pudddinhead is in the easting. Or whatever.

A

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 12:31 PM

blt, THANK YOU!! Well said and courageous.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: harpmolly
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 12:34 PM

"Fifty per cent of straight unions end in divorce and a woman and man who have never met can legally wed on television as a game show finale. And people think that *gay marriage* mocks this heterosexual institution?"

--Rachel Giese

Toronto Star, Jan. 18, 2001

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 12:50 PM

This is a painfully difficult subject to talk about, in part because the only word we have -- homophobia -- is a political construct created more to obfuscate than to enlighten. And in part because each side of the equation claims the high moral ground and each is blind to its own faults and fallacies. And in part because our society is so heavily sex-drenched.

"Don't homosexuals have a RIGHT to get their rocks off?" I dunno. Where would such a right come from? The whole idea of "right" is a very squishy one. As I see it, it is just the idea of "responsibility" turned on its head. To say that I have a "right" to live wherever I want is the same as saying that landlords have a responsibility to allow me to move in (providing I pay the proper fees and so forth). If I have a "right" to free speech, that means that the police, etc., have a responsibility to allow me to speak my mind, and not arrest me, and further protect me from people who want to beat me up or even kill me because they disagree with me.

Thus nobody has a "right" to hate anybody. That would imply that the victims have a responsibility to accept hatred, or hateful behavior, which is absurd.

So do homosexuals have a "right" to practice whatever sexual acts they desire (I'm assuming we're talking about two consenting adults here and will ignore anybody who brings in paedophilia as being totally irrelevant)? In the sense that society (through its laws, police force, judges, etc.) has a responsibility to mind its own business, I'd say sure. Questions about what sexual acts are "good" or "bad" are none of the government's business. Thus I will (and have) support the "right" of homosexuals to be left alone by the government, to have equal housing rights, equal employment rights (in non-religious organizations), etc.

Do homosexuals have a "right" to do all these things, and claim to be Christians or Moselems or Jews or whatever? In the sense that they have freedom of speech, of course. But if a religion defines homosexual acts as unacceptable, that's the "right" of that religion, and it's the responsibility of the government not to tell various religions what they can and cannot do. Thus, in my religion, homosexual persons are expected to be celibate. Whether they are or not is none of my business, of course -- that's between them and God.

Also in my religion, persons are expected not to harm others, or judge others, or spread lies, hatred, or ill-will.

I realize not everybody agrees with what my religion teaches. That's their "right." As it is mine to belong to the religion I do. Will I be hated? Will I be vilified? That's up to the haters and vilifiers. I choose not to be that way.

I have had many friends, cow-orkers, etc. who are gay/lesbian, some of them were fine people, some were petty and mean -- golly, just like breeders.

The real "cure" for hatred and fear is proximity. Know me, see me, work with me -- and by garsh I'm pretty much like folks. Blacks, whites, gays, straights, whatever. As the restauranteur in "Muppets Take Manhattan" says, "Peoples is peoples."

mixed up and loving it,
Alex

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 12:53 PM

and in today's Washington Post, an article with new and possibly important insights

In Search of the Gay Gene

I think it will be many years before the science of sexuality can sort out enough of the truth to make sense of it all....and many more years before the public will accept enough to deal with the truth. Unfortunately, some will focus on the most 'outrageous' examples of same sex behavior to do their judging.,,,And, unfortunately, some individuals will continue to define themselves almost totally by their sexual orientation and practice public displays which fan the flames....

As with a number of other issues, freedom and rights are one thing, while reason and temperance are quite another.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Pseudolus
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 12:58 PM

Excellent point Mollificent! Can you imagine network executives mulling over the idea to have a gay man select his partner on a game show??

Why not just live and let live? I respect folks that make their religious beliefs known in an effort to get people to "Hear the Word" kinda thing. It's when it gets to the point of, "I'm right and you're wrong and if you want to get to heaven, you better follow me, doing as I do" that I get off the bandwagon. I believe that when the Judgement Day comes (if in fact there is such a day), I'll be judged more on how I treated my fellow man/woman while I was here. If there is no such thing as a judgement day? I'd rather look back on a life filled with respecting my neighbor and his/her direction in life, chosen or not, than to look back on a life of pitying or hating people for not agreeing with me.

During a similar discussion a friend of mine once said, "I don't need the pressure of thousands of people going to hell 'cause I made the wrong choice and they all followed me!!!!"

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 01:00 PM

Good post MT. Maybe one of your best.

I've personally always believed that a "right" is a tenuous concept at best. Where do mine end and yours begin? If you kill me, I obviously did not have the "right" to live. Yeah, I know...............But much of our talk of rights, etc. gets down to the fact that your rights only extend as far as you are willing and able to push or defend them. What do we give up and what do we retain?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: little john cameron
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 01:05 PM

Here's a few surprises
http://skat.usc.edu/~trimmer/famous_names.html

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Troll
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 01:08 PM

I agree with Alex. In the past I have agreed with Kendall.
What's happening to me? Will I start agreeing with Skeptic next?
Stay tuned.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Bagpuss
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 01:41 PM

My acid test for whether a religious belief is justified (to me) is "Why is this rule here?". Lying, murder, adultery are against the rules because they harm other people. In christianity Jesus summed it up very simply - love your neighbour as yourself and the rest will follow naturally from this. If you love and have compassion for another person, you will try to avoid hurting them. Any other rules are pointless - either they naturally occur from following the main rule - or they are irrelevant nonsense that came from the minds of people. The old testament tells us all sorts about what sort of food we should and should not eat, but we don't go around lambasting people about their choice of food.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 01:43 PM

Where's my remote.....oh please! Where's my REMOTE!!!!?? They're gonna make a game show out of TROLL'S MIND!!!

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 06:17 PM

Spaw, what two guys or more, of either/any sex, choose to do in private in no way compromises your own rights, so I don't think you can go very far with that line. Mousethief belongs to a church which is judgmental about same-sex sex, and in my book he either speaks out against that position or he goes along with it. One or the other - there's nowhere to hide.

Some people evidently have little choice about what religion they belong to - witness the staggering proportion of people,t he world over, who meakly subscribe to the same religion as their forbears. (And blessed are the meak, as those who rate Jesus's teaching will know.) Thus some homosexuals find themselves in churches like Mousethief's, and endure all kinds of self-doubt, diminished confidence, guilt etc, because of the judgmental attitude Mousethief espouses. OK, they bring it on themselves by believing such nonsense, but why the hell does any church need to bother itself with issues like this anyway? What purpose do the churches serve when they inflict this misery on their blessedly meak sinners?

Joe, I am afraid that within catholicism, the homophobia comes from the church itself. Your church. Liberal minded people in that church surely have a duty to challenge the church - to challenge papal authority - on this issue, as notable elements of the American hierarchy have indeed been prepared to do. (Just as they have also challenged papal authority on birth control etc.) Of course, once a church (especially one with built in infallibility clauses) starts to compromise in the face of such lobbying, the whole edifice is in danger of crumbling. To which I say God speed the day - and say without irony, because I have no problem with God/the Gods - just religion.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 06:22 PM

Er, I think maybe that should be "meek." Must be this PC I've borrowed......

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 06:30 PM

You're pretty quick to fling around words like "homophobia" and "judgmental" there, Fionn. And to tell people in religions which you don't ascribe to, how to run their own business.

God save me from such open-mindedness.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: harpmolly
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 06:39 PM

"... but we don't go around lambasting people about their choice of food."

Bagpuss--obviously you haven't been watching "Survivor II: The Australian Outback." ;)

OK, after that totally OT tidbit, I'm retiring. ;)

M

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Amergin
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 06:57 PM

Amos, that ought to be a very dull game show...

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: RichM
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 07:00 PM

Religions have always defined their current beliefs in tandem with their times; or more precisely, in tandem with the previous generation's beliefs.

So, at various times, it has been a sin to believe the world was round; the world was NOT the center of the universe;that you could marry catholics -protestants -jews-hindus etcetcetc;that you could go to Hell for missing church attendance on the designated day, eating meat, and so on.

To paraphrase a famous quote about generals: churches are always superbly prepared to define sin by the previous generations' definition.

What is it, then that consistently keeps a belief system from changing with the times?

I believe that knowledge of other cultures and peoples - on a daily basis - is what slowly erodes the differences between us, and paves the way for not merely tolerance but actual acceptance of others.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 07:00 PM

The bottom line is this: if you're going to be a member of a religion, you might as well believe what that religion teaches. If you don't like the teachings of any given religion, then you are free to start your own religion. I would never tell somebody what to do, but my religion says basically, "if you want to be one of us, here's what you gotta do." If you don't want to be one of us, fine, go your own way. Here are the tools and rules we have inherited. If you would like to join us, feel free. If not, that's your choice.

But the idea of telling me that I should try to change my religion because it doesn't meet your idea of what a religion should teach about some particular issue? And who appointed you God?

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Penny S.
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 07:19 PM

I think Bagpuss' test is on the right lines. "Why would God command this?" usually confirms the basic rules about relating to others. I'd add "How does this fit with the God revealed in Jesus?" for Christians, which in my book rules out a lot of the pernickety detail, the jots and tittles of the law. It depends how you perceive Christ, of course, and your concept of God.

Yesterday I glanced at the beginning of a book on creationism. It postulated that the negative aspects of our world, such as radiation in the rocks, were the result of Adam's fall, not because of some link between him and the world inherent in the nature of creation, that was a spontaneous result, but because God went round afterwards, retuning the setup to make all sorts of nasties happen. I paraphrase, but not much. It is that sort of God who is a stickler for meaningless laws, or rather, the sort of person who would feel comfortable with that sort of God who is responsible for the problem. And if God is like that, I want a recount.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 07:28 PM

God isn't like that. Religions which feel the need to organize are. It is a popular stunt to run on the not-quite-bright the concept that "if it is good, we're to be thanked; if it is bad, you probably brought it in with you." Thus all blessings are of God but all not-blessings are your fault. A lot of cults do this trick as well -- if you have good luck, be thankful you have opened yourself to the benevolennt radiation of Cult Leader. If you have bad luck, flog yourself for not having opened yourself up to the benevolent radiation of Cult Leader, and thus sinning and causing your own bad luck. For my part, I think I should take absolute responsibility for all my luck, even when it is too good to be believed. Or too shitty to stand.

'Course I'm not entirely up to that standard yet. Maybe I should start my own cult, with self as sole member. Then I can beat myself up for not being worthy of my own benevolence! Er....ah....hmmmmmm.... how would that work, again?

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Jock Morris
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 07:49 PM

Amos, you had me going there with the anti-witch stuff; just as well I read on a bit:-)

Blessed be,

Scott

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Grab
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 08:36 PM

Penny, that sounds about right. I once read an article about the Book of Job which had the line, "'Where were you when I made heaven and earth?' asked God, like a peevish ageing builder." If you see it that the rules are MAN-MADE, then it makes sense - the rules aren't the requirements to get to heaven, but guidelines on how to live a good life. If all that stops you killing your neighbour and stealing his car are 3 or 4 of the Commandments, then you're as mad/bad as they come anyway.

The trouble is that it's a virus. The Bible and the Koran contains passages saying "this is the word of God", and if it's God's words then you can't argue with it; God is by definition perfect and can't be wrong. So it gets copied, just as a virus gets copied, and the carrier then passes it on to their friends and family. Not a nice analogy, I know, but that is the traditional way religion works, through indoctrination of children rather than free choice of adults. And once it's getting passed around, it's awfully difficult to protect against the effects of it, especially for those in whom the bug bites hardest.

Of course, given that typical folkies are pretty laid-back, this is all preaching to the choir...

Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 08:55 PM

Fionn....What did you miss? What I said was simple. Anyone can assume they have rights. They don't unless they are willing to fight for them in some way and yours extend only as far as you can make them. Same is true with me. The concept is tenuous and dependent upon one's ability to stand up for them.

I agree wholeheartedly that what you, Alex, Joe, or anyone else do is not of my concern and THAT is what bothers me about the whole damn thing. A church, a group, an individual who proposes to tell me, you, Joe, or Alex what to do is not going far unless we allow it. I'm not willing to tell anyone what to do or think.......are you? You want to screw chickens, go for it. You want to kill me? Then there's gonna' be a fight. You want to force my attendance at something, I have to "give in" don't I? If I don't give in, then your right to tell me what to do or think is nonexistent. If I can't enforce what I think you should do, then you have the right. If I can, you don't. We allow the friggin' government and churches and businesses to have the rights when we give them up.........that's the problem. We have given up rights for securities and recapturing any part of them is extremely difficult.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Bagpuss
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 08:57 PM

You know what - If there is a God, I don't think he would give a toss whether we believed in his existence.

Mousethief, I don't agree with the "if you don't like it, leave" philosophy you have. All that does is cause more division - which inevitably leads to bigotry and hatred. I believe in unity and ecumenism, not more division.

Although I mainly follow a broadly christian religion, I think that all religions are an attempt to know God (the same God) - or to create god if you dont believe in him. The main differences between religions are the bits where we got it wrong.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Bagpuss
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 09:12 PM

Spaw - are you saying that a right is only a right if you will fight for it? So what is your definition of a right? Anything that a person is willing to fight for. Some days I would fight for a bar of chocolate - but that doesn't mean I have a right to it. Likewise I would fight being killed. Do I have the same right to life as I have to chocolate.

I believe rights are more abstract. They are what a substantial proportion of people believe that every person in the world should have - and should not be denied them. The right to life, the right to freedom of speech etc. They are dependent on the community, but not necessarily on the individuals ability to stand up for them. Thats why we have human rights laws - to help protect the weak who cannot defend their rights so easily.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 09:26 PM

Yeah BP it is why we have the laws.......they are what stands for the "fight." Your "right to life" is worthless if I shoot you isn't it? So we have laws to try to insure against that......not always successfully, but we try. Who makes the laws? The strong make the laws. I'm saying that when we allow ourselves to become so weak that we allow the bigoted, racist, and homophobic and others to make the laws, we lose!

What I fear most is that so many are willing to say, my church say X, but I like the rest of it, so I just do it my way and ignore that. Sadly then, the church issues statements against X and touts its membership as behind them. The "fight" in this case is standing up and getting others who agree to say....."The church is wrong and I will not support it."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 09:57 PM

You may have a "God-given" right -- such as those to life and liberty -- but if another seeks through means overt or devious to corrode that right, then it comes down to Spaw's framework -- give in or refuse. If you refuse, then you have the integrity of your convictions. If he rejects your refusal, then you have a contention, which will be resolved one way or another in the course of time. When I was very young, I thought I had to go to church X because if I didn't I would be presneted with overwhelming emotional, rhetrocial and perhaps even physical persuasion. When I got a little older (perhaps too heavy to carry around) I gained the right to make "No" stick and got to stay home on Sunday. The core right was mine "by nature", in the best Jeffersonian sense. But the implementation of it was easily over-ridden until I massed a few more kilos.

A

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 10:27 PM

Thank you Amos. That's the idea in a nutshell. Much Obliged!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: kimmers
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 11:33 PM

Hmm. This is always a toughie.

I grew up Conservative Baptist and there was no doubt of the position of my childhood church on this issue. Homosexuality was wrong, but one could promise to "hate the sin and love the sinner". Our church even had a sort of Moral Watchdog Committe, just waiting to jump on some real or imagined offense.

We were lucky enough to have a very intelligent and insightful youth pastor, however, who encouraged us to look critically at the Bible. He introduced to me the concept that the Bible, though inspired by God, was written by human beings who were creatures of their time. That's why the Bible is riddled with scientific inconsistencies; God was working with mortals who had a Ptolemaic world-view and didn't exactly know much in the way of chemistry or physics.

So, when I read the Bible, I look at each statement and ask myself whether I am truly reading a principle that is true for all time, or something that is merely a reflection of the culture prevalent at the time the Bible was written. "Do Unto Others" clearly falls into the first category. For me, issues such as the role of women in the church and how long my husband should wear his hair are clearly cultural, and I do not feel bound by the cultural beliefs of people who lived over 2000 years ago.

Homosexuality fall somewhere in the middle, for me. I do still believe (despite my years of liberal Anglicanism) that sex outside of the context of the marriage commitment ain't such a bright idea. Yet I have enough gay friends to realize that there are a lot of people out there with same-sex partners who are willing to make that same kind of commitment. I cannot find it in myself to call their behavior wrong, and I can only trust that someday I will stand before God and get to ask these questions, and it will all make sense. In the meantime... it is not for us to judge, only to love our fellow man.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 11:41 PM

DAMN IT!

I've got to agree with BOTH Amos and Spaw at the same time. There ought to be a law against that. But there ain't and I do.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: blt
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 03:50 AM

In some of these posts, if the word "heterosexual" were substituted for "homosexual" or gay/lesbian,or the ever popular "they," a good deal of mystical logic would be readily apparent. Why is this topic painful and for whom? Unless this discussion is allowed to be fully aired, the words themselves become weapons--insults and epithets.

I understand and experience homophobia as a real concept, not a political construct, in the same way (with a very different history) that racism is a real concept. Politically, fear is useful no matter which stereotypes are harvested to serve an interested power and homophobia in these conservative times has been useful for some folks. However, that does not mean that homophobia is only a slogan. Those who wave their intolerance around like a flag often have no direct understanding of the pain homophobia causes, or refuse to believe that homophobia hurts other human beings. This is the function of a stereotype--it allows us to dehumanize others. Once the words "gay" or "lesbian" become attached to someone's face--a daughter, a son, a neighbor, a teacher, a minister--the stereotype stands a chance of being broken. Sadly, it's no guarantee. There are many stories of children being kicked out of their parents' homes for coming out of the closet. There are also many stories of parents learning about their own fears and changing. I guess I could put my father in the latter category, although it's taken him over 20 years to do it.

It's interesting that few posting to this thread identify their own sexual identity. At first, I thought this was due to a presumed heterosexual stance, like the use of the word "man" to mean men and women. It's safer to be heterosexual writing about what it means to be homosexual than it is to be homosexual writing about what it means to be heterosexual. And, just in numbers, there are more hets than homos, so there's some safety issues there. It appears easier to admit to being Christian, lapsed or otherwise, than it is to clearly state one's own sexuality, which is another very interesting thing. I'm not implying any judgement, I'm just curious what it means.

Personally, faith or the lack of it has absolutely nothing to do with being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or transexual. It simply has no relevance. Codified laws and beliefs cannot change the fact that some men and some women will choose the same gender for primary relationships, some of which will be sexual. Not all relationships, gay/lesbian/heterosexual, are built on sex although this is the lens that fundamentalist beliefs seem to have glued to their brains. What seems to get lost in the shuffle of defensiveness and fear is that human beings need to be in relationship to evolve. I believe that this is a primary drive, perhaps even more important than sex. At the risk of sounding like a line out of The Lion King, it is what connects us to all life forms. That one aspect of this very human characteristic terrifies many people is, as I said in my last post, the price of change. We are evolving, whether George W. Bush, the Taliban, and the Army of God want to or not. It's bigger than they are, like global warming. It's happening no matter what the USA decides to do. We're (speaking as a US citizen)going along for the ride like small children, tantrumming the whole way, not able to grasp that it doesn't really matter that we don't understand. We can either open up a bit and grow or scream our heads off--the earth doesn't really care, she's a single mom and right now she's having a stressful day.

blt

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Katcina
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 04:57 AM

Oops, I didn't realize I needed to reset my cookie and wasn't paying attention. I'm the last guest and dtill have to agree with Spaw & Amos' last postings as much as it pains me.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Bagpuss
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 07:59 AM

Just to be a little light hearted, anyone seen the Goodness Gracious Me sketch where an Indian boy brings his boyfriend home for the first time and is "coming out" to his parents. And the parents say "But why couldn't you have chosen a nice Indian boy?"

blt - personally I didn't bring up my sexuality because I didn't need to in order to make the points I was making. I did need to say what religion I was in order to make those points. Perhaps if I was gay, then I might have brought it up because I would have had more personal experience of the issue and therefore more points to make on my stance. But I didn't expect everyone to assume I was heterosexual and I have no problem with everyone knowing I am heterosexual. Maybe we are all required to state what political party we support now, as politics was part of the whole discussion originally.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 09:06 AM

blt -- graciously said and true as a bell.

A

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: John P
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 09:57 AM

Why is homosexuality such an issue for Christians? Yes, the bible condemns it. What about all the other things the bible comdemns? Why aren't there national debates about these other issues? Why don't we have laws against them?

Lev. 18:19 says that we shouldn't have sexual intercourse during menstruation.
Duet. 22:22 says that adulterers should be stoned to death.
Lev. 7:23 says that we should not eat beef or mutton.
Duet. 22:13 says that a bride who is not a virgin should be stoned to death.

The list goes on. Why should anyone, or any religious organization, or any government, give a damn about what people do in bed with each other? Why does anyone think it's any of their business? Those of you who are members of religious organizations -- why do you belong to a church that tells you who can and can't sleep with? Why are you willing to give someone else that kind of power over you? If you don't personally agree with the tenets of your church, why do you remain a member? If you are not homophobic yourselves, why do you support a homophobic organization? Why should my government extend tax-exempt non-profit status to an organization that is discriminatory? If a chuch decided that being a practicing African-American was sinful, would anyone give them the time of day? Why is homophobia any different? How can anyone who is not bigoted against women continue to be a Roman Catholic? Or do you just take what you like and leave the rest? If so, why? Do you support the church financially?

Sorry, the whole question of gay and lesbian rights makes me rant and rave. I'll be better now.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Pseudolus
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 10:21 AM

I'm catholic and I don't have all the answers....I do however have several opinions. I think one of the reasons the Catholic Church might see homosexuality different than the other items you listed might be because they also believe (at least they used to) that the purpose for sex was for making babies and not necessarily for pleasure......alright, stop laughing ok??? Anyway, I've been perplexed with the same question and that is the best explanation I can muster. I don't agree with it, I just think that it could be the reason.

So why am I still a catholic?? I guess I compare it to my childhood...I didn't agree with all of my parents' rules either but I didn't run away from home. As I got older I've argued with my parents over several "rules" and I've won them over on some and fell sadly short on others. I believe that you MUST question your own religion when you disagree so that one of two things happens. either you convince some folks that you are right, or maybe you better understand why the rule exists. Or maybe a third thing happens and that is you agree to disagree somewhat. I don't think there is a religion out there that I would agree across the board with every rule. However, there's a lot there that makes sense and that brings me comfort in times of stress. The Catholic family has its problems no doubt, but what family doesn't? I'd rather keep the comfort it brings and fight the battles to change the things that need changing...

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Bagpuss
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 11:16 AM

Why don't we just leave? Because that solves nothing - its not going to change the view of anyone else in the church. But if I stay as a member and challenge it, I can and indeed have changed the minds of quite a few people. Therefore I have in my own small way changed the church for the better. Its not good enough, but its starting to change.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 12:56 PM

Fight for a bar of chocolate, yes - now you're talking, Bagpuss!

John P, if we ever meet, I'll shake your hand. And the beer's on me. I might even shag your arse off - a mixed blessing indeed, according to my more intimate friends.

Spaw, your post about rights was a bit convoluted for me, but if I followed it, I can't find much to disagree with. My quarrel was with Mousethief, whose post you found so wonderful.

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.

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.

Religion may indeed be a viral infection - very well put, Grab - but our bodies have mechanisms for fighting off such diseases. If you don't want to resist, that's your choice. But I'm entitled to ask: how can you be comfortable peddling an attitude that is calculated to offend for no purpose?

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 01:01 PM

Hadn't seen your last post, Bagpuss. You've obvously done your best, and that's all anyone can do. I have no argument with anyone who takes your line.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 01:46 PM

The Catholic church may be like your parents with rules you agree with or not, but, unlike your parents, in most cases, the Catholic church can and does exert tremendous pressure around the world for conformity to its rules. I would think that the majority of its members are still following the tenets of the Pope with blind faith, esp. those in underdeveloped or developing countries.

You are certainly entitled to whatever brings you comfort, but I think it is naive to believe that the Pope is going to heed a few unsettled Americans, etc. and totally turn over the teachings. Also, isn't it hypocrticial to belong to a church and not follow its teachings? I have Catholic relatives who take everything the church teaches with a grain of salt. That to me is hypocritical and also does nothing to encourage growth in consciousness, for the church as a whole or as an indiviual. Sorry, if that offends any of you, it is my opinion.

blt, I am enjoying your posts esp. Very well said. I've come out before somewhere in the threads as bisexual. (I even made it up to the final cut of the first definitive book of bisexual experiences, "Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out.") I am sorry I didn't saying anything earlier in this thread. I guess it was partly out of fear and out of pain, but also partly because this is an issue I speak out on, a lot, at every opportunity, and this time I felt I needed to be quieter and watch.

Bi, for now and always,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: Pseudolus
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 02:20 PM

Is there a religion out there that is THE one? As far as I can see any religion you choose is run by, made by, governed by human beings. I think the REAL naive thing would be to say that there is a religion out there that has rules that you can believe in across the board. If all of the followers of any religion blindly followed all of its teachings then that religion would never change or evolve in any way. I am not the role model Catholic by any means but as I said in another post, I believe that I will be judged more by how I treat others than how I followed a set of man/woman-made rules.

I find comfort in prayer. My wife is a Lutheran, I am a Catholic and we got married in a Methodist Church! Just what church we go to depends I guess, we've been to them all!! But, when I go, I am able to take comfort in the service, in the prayers, and in the music.

I agree about the pressures put out by the Catholic Church but they are not the only ones. Many religions depend on followers who have the blind faith you were referring to. Many depend on guilt and fear. What it really adds up to is manipulation and I don't like it even if it is in my own religion. The bottom line is (for me that is...), my relationship with God is a personal one. It is not dictated by people who try to decide what I should do with my life, when or where I should pray, and who I should or should not be intimate with. I respect their right to interpret the "word of God" differently than me, I just don't feel the need to go blindly down that path. It didn't make me a bad family member and it doesn't make me a bad Catholic.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: major religions and homophobia
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 02:50 PM

I agree, there are many religions which exert the type of pressure I was referring to and I understand that you have your own relationship with God, regardless of the teachings of your church. My point, which I should have stated more clearly, is that, IMO, anyone who supports a church, I will use the Catholic Church as an example, by belonging to it and tithing to it, and giving it credence in the eyes of the world, is culpable for the effects it has on social issues, such as homosexuality.

One may say they don't agree with certain teachings, and you are right, Frank, there probably is not one religion of which all parts are agreeable to its folowers, and that they do not follow those teachings, BUT they are giving tacit approval to the church to continue the teachings regardless. 'Twere me, my conscience wouldn't be very comfortable with that.

I apologise to anyone who may feel this as a personal attack; it is not meant to be.

kat