[GN] The Churches and Homosexuality
D Stephen Heersink
least hostile to homosexuality, and in some cases, such as Orthodox
Judaism, severely punitive. Unitarians, which are questionably a
religion, and some mainline Protestant traditions, have, or are
beginning, to rethink their historical positions. But the largest
Christian groups, Roman, Eastern, and Evangelicals, whilst coming at
the issue from different origins, draw the same conclusions:
Homosexuality is simply not in God's plan.
Is there anything gays and lesbians can do to help reverse the tide of
averse opinion? I think the answer is a tentative, Yes. The first step
is to challenge Christians to be "consistent." The whole of the Bible
has only two explicit passages concerning homosexuality, the Levitical
Code of Holiness and the Apostle Paul's epistolary prologue to the
Romans. It's strange for everyone but Orthodox Jews to point to the
Levitical Code of Holiness, since Reform and Conservative Judaism, as
well as mainline Protestants, and Roman, Anglican, and Orthodox
catholics and even Evangelicals do not subscribe to the other
Codes of the Levitical Code. Why, then, do believers who otherwise
reject the applicability of this Code to their own lives appeal to it
as the reason for their enmity with homosexuality? Either they accept
the Code or they don't; picking and choosing which parts of the Code
stand and don't is wholly arbitrary and contrary to all traditions,
save the extreme Evangelicals and Orthodox Jews.
The other passage is the Apostle Paul's epistolary epilogue to the
Romans. What one has to understand when reading this, or any, passage
from the Bible is the context. Failing to frame biblical statements in
their context allows anyone to make the Bible say anything they want
it to say. Thus, reading the prologue to the Epistle to the Romans
requires reading the whole shebang, particularly the passage that
follows immediately in Chapter Two. In the second chapter, Paul heaps
more heinous scorn on those who judge other's as a far more serious
sin than those who worship the human body. At least those who worship
the human body indirectly worship its creator, while the person who
sits in judgment of another usurps the authority God reserves solely
to himself. Thus, the next time a "Christian" pronounces a judgment on
someone, or even one's self, remind them that sitting in judgment of
another is the greatest sin, the worst form of idolatry, and robs one
of righteousness (Romans 2). To make the judgment that homosexuals
"are going to hell" is the usurpation of God's divine privilege to be
the sole judge of all people, and thus, is the worse form of idolatry,
and idolatry is the worse sin of all. At least that is what the
Apostle Paul is saying in Romans 1-3.
For a plethora of reasons, many of the injunctions, particularly the
injunction against divorce, is widely practiced among many "religious"
people, although it is rigorously condemned by almost all religions.
Just as heinous, if not more, is the person who sleeps with an
already-married person, whether divorced or not. Such a person has
broken an irrevocable covenant betwixt two people and participates in
their sin if s/he engages in sexual activity with one of its parties.
After all, it was Jesus himself who said, "What God has joined
together, let no one sever." At least the Roman Catholics are
consistent in their ban of divorce. But the same Evangelicals who
can't find a single utterance by Jesus concerning homosexuality, seem
to ignore rapaciously his overt injunction against divorce. The next
time a "Christian" starts to condemn homosexuality, ask them if
they're divorced and remarried. If so, tell them they are living in
habitual and heinous sin and are no authority for teaching others the
wisdom of the Bible. I don't suggest being as rude and crass as these
hypocrites are often towards us, but they are deserving of others'
righteous judgment when it comes to their "marginalizing" divorce from
the panoply of anathemas.
I think the truth, and thus the real problem, is not that the Bible
opposes homosexuality, since it really doesn't figure much in the
grander scheme of things. The real problem is that many people find
homosexuality repugnant and THEN look to the Bible for justification
of their prejudice. This happenstance is common mainly among
Evangelicals, who are wont to quote the Bible as an authority at every
instance, unless it indicts them. Even then, they can find a single
verse, taken out of context, and make it say the opposite of what it
really says. The thirteenth-century mystic and theologian Catherine of
Siena wrote that those who take the Bible literally do not understand
it at all, for it is not a literal document, but a spiritual one,
written under the guidance of the Spirit to be understood spiritually.
To read it literally, as the Evangelicals do, does both God and the
Bible an enormous injustice and is sinful, even a sin against the Holy
Spirit. Tell that to the Evangelical mishandlers and catch their
reactions. They'll probably just walk away in silence.
Many religious bodies are indeed rethinking the role of homosexuality,
especially in historical and traditional Christianity. They are seeing
that it really isn't very important in the overall scheme of things,
and indeed, we may have misunderstood it all from the very beginning.
After all, the Bible extols David's love for Jonathan being greater
than that of his love for women, and Jesus himself had a special
disciple who was his beloved, the one who he loved. Maybe two verses
against homosexuality in the great compendium that makes the Bible so
influential really pale in comparison to the EXAMPLES of love that are
given us. It's hard, if not impossible, to cite examples without
bringing about condemnation or indignation, while it's much easier to
cite a single verse as evidence of God's plan. But the beauty of the
Bible, if one can see it, is in the EXAMPLE, not in the versification.
We don't judge King David solely for his relationship to Bethsheba,
nor should we judge King David for a single citation of a verse.
Clearly, then, dialogue is ONE way out of the current impasse. Those
who wish to act rashly and acerbically will receive similar attention,
but those who wish to act compassionately and with valor will likely
find love. Let's hope the dialogue that will help point the way is of
the latter kind, not the former.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
**********
If you receive GayNet via direct email:
To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
unsubscribe gaynet
in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Chief Thracian
<dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<<
But the largest Christian groups, Roman, Eastern, and Evangelicals,
whilst coming at the issue from different origins, draw the same
conclusions: Homosexuality is simply not in God's plan.
>>
We also have a major problem of homopobia in the Muslim
cultures...approx. 1/3 of the world.
<<
Is there anything gays and lesbians can do to help reverse the tide of
averse opinion? I think the answer is a tentative, Yes. The first step
is to challenge Christians to be "consistent."
>>
Intelligent, well-informed debate (by our side only) has been
accomplished many times over, here on Usenet as well as in a myriad of
other media sources such as magazines and newspapers. In fact *all the
answers that are relevant to the matter at hand, can be found
scattered throughout various articles on Usenet. All one need do after
finding them, is to copy and paste these remarks for your own use in
confronting homophobes.
Yet, homophobia rages on, and is getting worse...so worse in fact, as
to explode into an all-out holocaust very soon. Continued intelligent
rebuttals are failed tactics at this point, for you can never win over
the hearts and minds of true brutes. So your suggestion to continue
doing just that, brings to mind two words:
Neville Chamberlain.
<<
Clearly, then, dialogue is ONE way out of the current impasse.
>>
To have real dialogue, *both parties must agree to sit at the table to
hash things out. There is absolutely *no desire or intent of the enemy
in so doing. In fact, that is part of the nature of homophobes: to
never compromise.
<<
Those who wish to act rashly and acerbically will receive similar
attention, but those who wish to act compassionately and with valor
will likely find love.
>>
How erroneous of you! If dialogue on a platform of compassion worked
most (or even some) of the time, then we'd never have suffered this
plethora of wars, devastation, and terrorism by any gov't or rulers
that have ever existed. There are some issues which never lend
themselves to peaceful resolutions, and anti-gay bigotry is apparantly
one of them...even more so than the anti-Semitism of Germany and
Eastern Europe.
Our community has, for a long time now, confronted the enemy with
intelligent, well-researched criticism...which--if it hasn't by
now--will *never succeed in winning our battles.
Your suggestion that love begets love sounds pretty...but time and
time again have proven that this just doesn't cut the mustard, in many
(if not most) cases. You also suggest that anyone who doesn't
participate in such milquetoast debates, is rash, and therefore
deserving of whatever anti-gay torture that comes their way. Or IOW,
any gay person who gives vocal dissent, and participates in peaceful
demonstrations that obstruct business as usual...deserves whatever
homophobes dish out to her.
So, any gay person who doesn't behave in what you deem to be the only
civilized manner...you would have no qualms assisting the Religious
Reich in rounding up, and even murdering, such a one. At least, you'd
assist them by remaining *silent.
As I have warned many times over: the attempts at intelligent debate,
or showing "love" instead of anger, will remain barren of any
victories. In fact, gays who continue in such strategies serve to
*obstruct our progress, by buying more time for the enemy to plot our
demise in the background of these "compassionate" debates. (And I am
sure that some who do keep proposing peaceful debates, are actually
right-wing saboteurs in the guise of gay participants. Some of whom,
perhaps, are gay themselves.)
You are implying that "love" can only be shown by non-aggressive
stratagems such as debates and displays of "neighborliness"...which
will eventually win their hearts. This, my friend, is not love but
mere pandering. Love for our brothers and sisters at this point, means
aggressive confrontation against our enemies...not giving them an inch
in any aspect of our demands. But this kind of love demands great
courage.
Again, I use the German Nazis as an example of true love: some took up
arms to fight these beasts...and thus, can be deemed an act of great
compassion, this willfullness to die if one needs to, for the sake of
saving the lives of others. And I would say that, like the Nazis, the
Religious Reich can never be persuaded to lay down their arms by
public debate. They'll just laugh loudly, while crushing us under
their steam rollers of zealous mania. Mr. Rodgers be damned.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
Eric Bohlman
>Intelligent, well-informed debate (by our side only) has been
>accomplished many times over, here on Usenet as well as in a myriad of
>other media sources such as magazines and newspapers. In fact *all the
>answers that are relevant to the matter at hand, can be found
>scattered throughout various articles on Usenet. All one need do after
>finding them, is to copy and paste these remarks for your own use in
>confronting homophobes.
Let's not forget that probably at most 10% of Internet users even know that Usenet exists. It's
very easy to believe, incorrectly, that other people are as well-informed as we are.
There are really three key groups of people we need to reach. We're not going to change the
opinions of hard-core homophobes, and we're not going to do anything by preaching to the converted.
The most important groups to reach, in what I think is the right order of importance, are:
1) Apolitical, apathetic gay people.
2) Straight people who support gay rights in the abstract, but don't know or don't care what
concrete measures they could take to help the cause. This is a *much* larger group than most
people imagine. 85% of the American population, for example, believes that people shouldn't be
fired, evicted, etc. just because they're gay, but most of them can't be bothered to go to the
polls when there's a referendum on a gay-rights law. Reaching these people is a matter of tedious,
one-on-one canvassing; it takes patience, not drama.
3) People who hold anti-gay attitudes purely out of ignorance or conformity ("I don't know anything
about these people, but ____ says they're bad news, and I respect his judgment").
Different techniques are needed for reaching these different groups. In particular, angry,
polemical, "in your face" arguments aren't going to be effective for groups 2) and 3); you really
have to be nice to such people. Venting anger on them will merely turn them off. Save the venting
for the Robertsons, Helmses and Dobsons of this world; they're beyond hope in any case.
D Stephen Heersink
supporting gay rights are failing:
>Yet, homophobia rages on, and is getting worse...so worse in fact, as
>to explode into an all-out holocaust very soon. Continued intelligent
>rebuttals are failed tactics at this point, for you can never win over
>the hearts and minds of true brutes. So your suggestion to continue
>doing just that, brings to mind two words:
>
> Neville Chamberlain.
>
>Clearly, then, dialogue is ONE way out of the current impasse.
>To have real dialogue, *both parties must agree to sit at the table to
>hash things out. There is absolutely *no desire or intent of the enemy
>in so doing. In fact, that is part of the nature of homophobes: to
>never compromise.
I think Thracian may be a little to close to his own vortex in the
history of gay liberation. The degree and amount of progress made in
both tolerance and rights of gays over the past thirty years, AIDS
notwithstanding, has been truly remarkable. I've been "here" for this
duration and can attest to the success of those making cogent
arguments. One is either too close to the situation are not properly
situated historically to the successes that gays have achieved.
Numerous religious bodies are rethinking their opinion of
homosexuality in dramatic ways: Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists,
and Episcopalians. Even Roman Catholic theologians, not otherwise
silenced by Rome, are no less feverish in their challenge of the
"inherited" traditions. None of these events were even on the radar
screen thirty years ago. Indeed, poll and poll of mainstream
Christians shows the clergy and laity have a much greater tolerance
where there has been classical discussion groups arguing the pros and
cons. They are beginning to take our arguments seriously, and the
changes taking place are evidence of its success.
The battle is by no means over, nor even close to being over. But
every successful change of mind or attitude has thus far come about by
making coherent and consistent arguments in favor of gay rights and
equality, which, when juxtaposed to the religious right's prejudices,
make the choice clear and unambiguous. When push comes to shove,
reason will ultimately prevail, even among the religious mindset.
Granted, those mindless individuals who don't think for themselves
will never see the light of day, but we only need a majority, not the
entire population.
And, moreover, it's not even "just" the religious right that prey
against gays and lesbians: it's by and large the appellation of
"red-necks" that have no religious affiliation who are the larger in
number. These rednecks have nothing in common with religion except
when it serves their purposes (e.g., they're anti-gay first, and then
search religion in support of their prejudice). Incidents like Matthew
Shephard will do much to draw repugnance in the hearts and minds of
many who otherwise do not care. Speech and action does work,
confrontation in the positive sense of a clear dialogue with
open-ended rather than close-ended questions make positive
contributions, and the more and more our culture is seen as something
to emulate or at least respect, the more mileage we get for our
efforts.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
**********
Chief Thracian
<dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<<
I think Thracian may be a little to close to his own vortex in the
history of gay liberation.
>>
How wrong you are: how very wrong. I keep myself well informed of the
gay situation in all parts of the world, including the many regions of
these United States. Though I dwell proudly in the vortex, that does
not by any means distract me from continuing my education.
<<
When push comes to shove, reason will ultimately prevail, even among
the religious mindset.
>>
My point exactly: soon the push will come, and then we shall shove
back. There will be a vicious spell of chaos, before reason will
finally overcome. Homophobia shall rear its ugly head across the world
for the last time: Nations and bureau7racies shall crumble on the one
issue of homosexuals alone. They shall crumble into dust and blow
forever away into the abyss.
You even admitted push will come to shove, before reason will prevail.
You are unwilling to admit on the conscious level, that by "push
coming to shove" you mean "a period of violence and aggression". Your
keyboard is saying it, but your mind is not. You have a split
perception in this matter, for you cannot face this truth, at this
time...you need a little while longer for it to sink in. And have no
worries, my brother: You shall emerge a great soldier, ready to fight
battle after battle: victorious in each and every one.
<<
Granted, those mindless individuals who don't think for themselves
will never see the light of day,
>>
Then how do they manage to even accomplish the most basic chores of
life maintenance? They have eyes just like the rest of us, and operate
in the light of day, or artificial indoor lighting. It is just such
mindless goons that run most of this world, and have overrun the
highest offices in our government. Their henchmen are now infiltrating
all known LGBT organizations, newsgroups, lists, etc....faking being
"gay" to access our vulnerable spots, than gut us like fish. They send
viruses to all gays participating on the net...often in the guise of
innocent ladies who "didn't know" what they were doing.
Not one form of subterfuge shall be overlooked by the enemy. I
guarantee you that they shall leave no stone unturned in their
attempts to completely sabotage gay politics, and our system of
democracy. Obviously, they are playing on the majority's homophobia to
ensnare us all. Well, Duh, that's right down the line with the
instructions in Mein Kampf.
Not a soul will be passed over; each one of us shall be judged by God
(or destiny if you will), based on the level of his or her homophobia.
For in their own twisted way, these evil Fundamentalists are the
servants of truth: by spreading terrorism across this sorry land, the
truth of all souls shall be revealed. And all shall see each other in
the light of day: their true stance on gays. Thusly is the wheat
separated from the chaff. And we shall inherit this earth, and save
all remaining souls. Gays and Lesbians will become the heroes of this
great drama of the human saga.
<<
but we only need a majority, not the entire population.
>>
No, we don't even need a majority...we need but a solid minority of
7%. And when I say "solid" I mean totally devoted, unswerving
dedication to gay liberation. They can be straight, which is no
disqualification. Gays who cater to the heterocentric oppression of
the majority will also be excluded. Just remember this: "Many are
called, but few are chosen."
For it only takes a small percentage of bright intellects, to overcome
the will of a sea of slugs. Or a nation of thugs.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********