Poll

What are your views on homosexuals and/or letting them wed?

I accept them.
51 (66.2%)
I tolerate them.
6 (7.8%)
It's flat out wrong.
7 (9.1%)
I don't really care.
9 (11.7%)
I have mixed views. (Describe)
4 (5.2%)

Total Members Voted: 77

Print

Author Topic: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage  (Read 139001 times)

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #285 on: August 15, 2012, 09:05:16 PM »
however what i DONT like is when homosexuals make it very visible to others, a great example was at my gr8 ottawa trip when we were walking past a hotel and a man was walking in high heels and a dress, thats just disgusting.

"A man walking in high heels and a dress" could imply many other things beside being gay.  That person could have been a drag queen, who performs as a woman for entertainment purposes.  Or the person could have been a cross-dresser, someone who gets (sexually) excited by wearing women's clothing.  OR the person may have been transgender, identifying as a woman despite being born biologically male, in which case they were expressing the gender that they feel most comfortable/honest as.

It's important to distinguish between the following:
biological sex = based on what genitals you have.  1 in every 2,000 births in America are intersex, meaning that they have ambiguous genitalia.  The voice actress who portrayed Meowth on Pokemon was born intersex, raised as a male, before eventually realizing that she felt female and transitioning into living as a woman.
gender identity = how you feel mentally about your gender.  Transgender people identify as a gender that does not align with their biological sex.  I have a biologically female friend who identifies as genderqueer because she feels that she is mostly female but about 40% male.  People whose biological sex aligns with their gender identity are called cisgender.  Most people are cisgender, and don't often recognize the distinction between biological sex and gender identity.
gender expression = a person's mannerisms, clothing, etc.  How a person presents themself, basically.  People can dress more masculine, feminine, or androgynous, depending on what their culture/environment considers to be more masculine/feminine.  For example, the man wearing the dress and heels appears to be presenting a feminine gender expression.  Many men have earrings (feminine/androgynous), and many women have short boyish hair (masculine or androgynous).
sexual orientation = What gender a person finds sexually/romantically/physically attractive.  This is not synonymous with gender expression.  A man can wear a dress and still be straight.  I am gay, yet I wear pants nearly every day.

I think same-sex couples should have the right to marry legally.  To specifically exclude same-sex couples from the 1,000 or so legal benefits that opposite-sex couples receive from the state not only seems unfair, but also sends the message that LGB people are "less than" or inferior to straight people, and that same-sex relationships are illegitimate or lack the same basic commitment as opposite-sex relationships.
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

« Reply #286 on: August 15, 2012, 09:43:55 PM »
when we were walking past a hotel and a man was walking in high heels and a dress, thats just disgusting.

I find people who are disgusted by other humans harmlessly expressing themselves disgusting.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

« Reply #287 on: August 16, 2012, 06:21:39 AM »
"A man walking in high heels and a dress" could imply many other things beside being gay.  That person could have been a drag queen, who performs as a woman for entertainment purposes.  Or the person could have been a cross-dresser, someone who gets (sexually) excited by wearing women's clothing.  OR the person may have been transgender, identifying as a woman despite being born biologically male, in which case they were expressing the gender that they feel most comfortable/honest as.

It's important to distinguish between the following:
biological sex = based on what genitals you have.  1 in every 2,000 births in America are intersex, meaning that they have ambiguous genitalia.  The voice actress who portrayed Meowth on Pokemon was born intersex, raised as a male, before eventually realizing that she felt female and transitioning into living as a woman.
gender identity = how you feel mentally about your gender.  Transgender people identify as a gender that does not align with their biological sex.  I have a biologically female friend who identifies as genderqueer because she feels that she is mostly female but about 40% male.  People whose biological sex aligns with their gender identity are called cisgender.  Most people are cisgender, and don't often recognize the distinction between biological sex and gender identity.
gender expression = a person's mannerisms, clothing, etc.  How a person presents themself, basically.  People can dress more masculine, feminine, or androgynous, depending on what their culture/environment considers to be more masculine/feminine.  For example, the man wearing the dress and heels appears to be presenting a feminine gender expression.  Many men have earrings (feminine/androgynous), and many women have short boyish hair (masculine or androgynous).
sexual orientation = What gender a person finds sexually/romantically/physically attractive.  This is not synonymous with gender expression.  A man can wear a dress and still be straight.  I am gay, yet I wear pants nearly every day.

I think same-sex couples should have the right to marry legally.  To specifically exclude same-sex couples from the 1,000 or so legal benefits that opposite-sex couples receive from the state not only seems unfair, but also sends the message that LGB people are "less than" or inferior to straight people, and that same-sex relationships are illegitimate or lack the same basic commitment as opposite-sex relationships.

your'e right, it could be any of those.
people who hack sports games, obviously didn't make the team!

The Chef

  • Simon Cowell
« Reply #288 on: August 16, 2012, 06:39:50 AM »
Quote
i feel that people should be able to do whatever they want as long it is within the law.

What if the law banned homosexuality entirely?

Quote
however what i DONT like is when homosexuals maker it very visible to others,

I don't like it when straight people make it very visible to others.

Quote
a great example was at my gr8 ottawa trip when we were walking past a hotel and a man was walking in high heels and a dress, thats just disgusting.

Is it now?

Quote
bottom line: i can tolerate it

I don't think so, junior.

« Reply #289 on: August 16, 2012, 08:32:01 AM »
screw you
people who hack sports games, obviously didn't make the team!

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #290 on: August 16, 2012, 08:42:59 AM »
i have absolutley no problem with homosexuals in our society, as long as it doesnt get out of hand.
At what point would you say heterosexuals were getting "out of hand"? A boyfriend and girlfriend holding hands in public? A peck on the cheek? A brief, tongue-less kiss on the lips?

i feel that people should be able to do whatever they want as long it is within the law.
Even assuming that you're referring to first world countries with relatively low legal discrimination against LGBT people, who writes the laws? What if the laws themselves are what's in dispute? Most people believe people should follow the law -- they just then follow that up with what they think the law should be.

however what i DONT like is when homosexuals maker it very visible to others,
So you can tolerate them for as long as you can pretend they don't exist.

"I don't mind black people, so long as they paint themselves white when they go out in public."

a great example was at my gr8 ottawa trip when we were walking past a hotel and a man was walking in high heels and a dress, thats just disgusting.
Do you have the same reaction when you see a woman wearing jeans and sneakers?

screw you
Pretty sure The Chef is a guy, dude. Might want to retract that proposition.
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

« Reply #291 on: August 16, 2012, 02:56:51 PM »
screw you

Stop being a crybaby and offer a rebuttal like an adu-

Oh wait, you're 14.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #292 on: August 16, 2012, 09:34:49 PM »
From a public policy perspective: Since fertility is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license, there's no good reason that same-sex couples shouldn't get the same legal benefits of marriage that mixed-sex couples do. Where a problem might arise is that the concept of "marriage" simultaneously refers to both a legal contract administered by the government and a sacrament performed and recognized by most religions (with the exact boundaries getting a bit muddled at times), and changing one of them from the status quo may put undue pressure on the other, which would be a potential First Amendment issue either way (if the state pressures the church to recognize same-sex marriages, that's the free exercise clause; if the church pressures the state to roll back marriage equality laws, that's the establishment clause). Therefore, it may be necessary to change the name, with all the legal benefits of a marriage license being transferred to civil unions, and "marriage" becoming a word reserved for the church, and for individuals to use as they see fit.



From a religious perspective, I am no longer convinced by the traditional Christian arguments against same-sex relationships. The Bible verses used to support that view are taken out of context. (A more complete treatment is here, from a more accomplished author than me)

  • The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has nothing to do with loving, committed, monogamous same-sex relationships (hereafter referred to as LCMSSRs). Sodom's sin was being greedy, arrogant, and uncaring toward the poor, according to Ezekiel. The incident recorded in Genesis 19 where the men (and possibly also women) of the city got together to rape the visiting angels was a common contemporary way of humiliating strangers, showing them who's boss, and is set up as a stark contrast to Abraham's generous hospitality in the previous chapter (this connection is reinforced when Jesus says that cities who do not accept the disciples with hospitality are worse than Sodom and Gomorrah).

  • In Romans 1, when Paul refers to a group of people who rejected God, worshiped idols and images of animals, and engaged in some sort of same-sex relations, he seems to be referring to fertility cults like those of the goddess Cybele. Cybele's priests, the Galli, would castrate themselves, put on wigs, and play the part of female temple prostitutes -- the priestesses doing the opposite -- all culminating in massive idol-worshiping orgies (usually involving idols fashioned after animals). One can certainly condemn that sort of behavior without necessarily condemning LCMSSRs, just as one can condemn the act of gang-raping an angel.

  • In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, Paul gives lists of sinners, where some English translations have him including "homosexuals." This ought to be suspect from the outset, as the word "homosexual," as well as the whole modern understanding of sexual orientation, did not start to come about until around the 19th century. Until then, it was thought that men who had sex with other men were so overcome with lust that their wives no longer satisfied them, and they were looking for more of a challenge (by sleeping with another person rather than with their own property (wife or slave)), and men still got married to women anyway for social reasons whether they wanted to or not. The idea that a man would choose a LCMSSR with a single man instead of marrying a woman would be quite an odd concept to someone in Paul's time.

    The specific words Paul uses here are actually unclear as to their exact meaning. One of the words, arsenokoitai, is virtually unknown in contemporary literature, giving us little opportunity to deduce its actual meaning as it was used (reading the literal meaning of the words making up a compound word can only take us so far, as seen in the word "understand"). The other word, malakoi, is used so much in contemporary literature that it's hard to nail down a definitive meaning, or to know exactly which sense Paul was using it in. However, several contextual factors indicate that the most likely explanation is that he is referring to the common practice of the day of men buying adolescent and young adult boys as sex slaves. If so, this has nothing to do with LCMSSRs.

  • There is a prohibition against "lying with a man [as with] a woman" in Leviticus, where many English translations use the word "abomination." But that word is also used to refer to eating the wrong animals, and many other things that don't seem like horrible moral atrocities.

    The law in the Bible can be reduced down to three guiding principles: Love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as yourself, and be different from the world. At the time the law of Moses was written, being different from the world meant not shaving the sides of their beards like some pagan priests did, not boiling young goats in their mothers' milk (a pagan ritual), not burning their children in sacrifice to the god Molech, not wearing clothes of mixed fabrics, and so on. This is why that section of Leviticus in particular seems so haphazard.

    Things are different under the new covenant. The law is written on our hearts, not on stone. Jesus and Paul agree that the whole law comes down to loving God and loving your neighbor ("The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love", Paul says in Galatians 5) -- and Jesus adds, in Matthew 25, that just about the most important way of loving God is loving your neighbor, because whatever you do to that jerkweed at the office that keeps stealing your pen, and to the homeless lesbian teenager living in the parking garage, and to that annoying kid from that politicians campaign that keeps calling you asking if they can count on you for a $200 donation, is what you do to God.

    The laws about being different are... different. When the law of Moses was written, it was written at a specific time in a specific place to one race of people all being removed from slavery at the same time. That's not us. We are billions upon billions of people of every race, color, nation, gender, orientation, background, and level of ability, each being liberated from our own personal slavery at different times in different places in different ways. Paul recognized this. A big issue of his day was eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. The best cuts of meat for sale would usually be ones that had been dedicated to some pagan deity before being brought to market. Some Christian converts felt guilty about this, not wanting to be connected with false gods. Paul said that there was nothing inherently wrong with eating the meat, but it was a personal issue for each believer -- and not to be forced on anyone. Paul made himself very clear in rejecting attempts to force the "being different" laws on other believers. A strong contingent of believers at the time felt very strongly that non-Jews who converted to Christianity must be circumcised. Paul vehemently disagreed with them, saying that anyone who gave in to them would then be "obligated to follow the whole law," and said of the pro-circumcision crowd, "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Galatians 5:12) He had similar things to say about those who tried to get people to follow the dietary laws and observe all the feasts and festivals and rituals of the law.

    (To be sure, Paul does have a lot to say about moral living, and admonishes his readers not to use the freedom of the new covenant as license to sin. However, the morality he enforces is first and foremost about loving God and our neighbor, and secondarily about not giving the world reason to accuse Christians of wrongdoing. A good example of this is Titus 2, where he tells wives to submit to their husbands "so that no one will speak evil of us" and "so that no one will blaspheme the word of God." Ironically, while Paul, like Jesus, had a very progressive, egalitarian view of women for his day (see here if you don't believe me), today, many churches misapply his words to oppress women -- and that's a big part of why people are speaking evil of us today.)

    Above all, the number one way we are to look different from the world is by following the first two commandments: loving our neighbor, and loving God (which is expressed most importantly by loving our neighbor). They will know we are Christians by our love. How exactly all that plays out is going to look a bit different for each person -- but it should never involve forcing other people -- especially non-Christians! -- to follow arbitrary rules.

    (Some Christians would accuse me of completely throwing morality out the window here. They say that if I say the law of Moses no longer applies to us, I've just given everyone license to do whatever they want. But here's an analogy: Murder is illegal in Sweden. French citizens living in France are not subject to Swedish law. Does that mean everyone just kills everyone they want in France? Likewise, murder is not wrong solely because it was specifically outlined as wrong in the law of Moses. It is also wrong because it fundamentally violates loving one's neighbor. Just because the law of Moses doesn't apply doesn't mean we live in Bizarro-world where we do everything the exact opposite of everything in Leviticus. As Paul said, we are not to use our freedom as license to sin -- our freedom is the freedom to be excellent to each other.)

  • Having dealt with the text of Scripture, I personally think the most compelling argument against the traditional view is the existence of intersex people. The traditional Christian view of sexuality implicitly requires that gender be absolutely black and white. But then what do you do with the people with ambiguous genitalia, or the people with XXX or XXY chromosomes, or the people who have female bodies but with testes instead of ovaries? These aren't just theoretical constructs, and they aren't just statistics -- they're famous voice actors and Olympic champions. Where do they fit in? What gender are they supposed to marry?

    Are they supposed to remain celibate, whether or not they want to? Because Paul says in 1 Timothy that forcing people to forgo marriage against their will is the kind of thing that demons teach.

    Once that weakness in the argument is exposed, the whole thing comes crashing down for me.



We can certainly disagree theologically. There are people on the other side who make very good arguments that it is immoral. However, if it is immoral, it is a victimless crime -- people in LCMSSRs are only hurting themselves, if anyone. No one is being exploited or victimized, so we shouldn't be making one-to-one comparisons with murder, rape, stealing, or other sins like that. If it is a sin, it's a personal one (And whether or not it's a sin is irrelevant to public policy anyway). If it's something to be argued over, it's to be argued over within the church -- it's not like Christian theology teaches that if we can just argue them out of that one sin, that's what will save them.



Full disclosure: I am Christian, I am bi, I am male (and pretty much cisgendered, I suppose), and I am a bit jealous that girls get so many more clothing options than us. But the traditional gender role kyriarchy is a whole nother huge story...
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 11:18:45 AM by Sapphira »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #293 on: September 02, 2012, 04:23:09 PM »
Therefore, it may be necessary to change the name, with all the legal benefits of a marriage license being transferred to civil unions, and "marriage" becoming a word reserved for the church, and for individuals to use as they see fit.
Quick follow-up: This may come off sounding a bit too much like "separate but equal." I'm not saying "marriage for straights, civil unions for gays." I'm saying civil unions for any two* people who want the legal benefits that married couples currently enjoy, and marriage at whatever house of worship you choose that agrees with your definition of marriage. That is, I'm not saying "Well, okay, we'll make a little thing for the gays (and bis (and trans*es (and any other quiltbags))) on the side but make sure it doesn't spill over into Actual Marriage"; I'm saying change the name for the whole thing, for everyone -- mixed-sex couples too.

*- Polygamy/polyamory is a debate for another time. Next generation, maybe. Part of me hopes I get to see the day when that's the next big controversial fight, because if politics continue in the direction they're going now, the LDS church will be one of the biggest organizations fighting against polygamy and everyone will be like "No, don't listen to the Mormons! Polygamy is awesome!" and the Mormons will be all like "No, we need to stand for traditional marriage! One person and one other person!" and that'll be kinda funny to see. Though I'm sure the humor will wear off once people start killing each other.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 04:31:12 PM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

Luigison

  • Old Person™
« Reply #294 on: September 02, 2012, 04:51:40 PM »
Quick follow-up: This may come off sounding a bit too much like "separate but equal." I'm not saying "marriage for straights, civil unions for gays." I'm saying civil unions for any two* people who want the legal benefits that married couples currently enjoy, and marriage at whatever house of worship you choose that agrees with your definition of marriage. That is, I'm not saying "Well, okay, we'll make a little thing for the gays (and bis (and trans*es (and any other quiltbags))) on the side but make sure it doesn't spill over into Actual Marriage"; I'm saying change the name for the whole thing, for everyone -- mixed-sex couples too.

*- Polygamy/polyamory is a debate for another time. Next generation, maybe. Part of me hopes I get to see the day when that's the next big controversial fight, because if politics continue in the direction they're going now, the LDS church will be one of the biggest organizations fighting against polygamy and everyone will be like "No, don't listen to the Mormons! Polygamy is awesome!" and the Mormons will be all like "No, we need to stand for traditional marriage! One person and one other person!" and that'll be kinda funny to see. Though I'm sure the humor will wear off once people start killing each other.
What if we have marriage for any two* people who want the legal benefits that married couples currently enjoy, and "religious matrimony" at whatever house of worship you choose that agrees with your definition of "marriage"?  I'm playing devils advocate here, but I think you see my point. 
“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #295 on: September 02, 2012, 07:21:13 PM »
Ultimately, it shouldn't really matter who gets which word, though I suppose religion could make an argument that they have more right to the word "marriage" than the government does, because their holy books mention marriage and government doesn't have holy books. And since different religions' books have different definitions of marriage, if the government uses that word and attaches a specific definition to it, it could be seen as endorsing the religion(s) whose definition matches the government.

Granted, you could use somewhat similar logic to say that the government currently endorses religions that consider murder to be a sin over religions that believe murder is good.

I don't know how necessary this would even be, though. If readings of scripture similar to mine become the norm and American Christianity at large ends up accepting LGBT people over the next couple of generations, it might just work itself out (But when polygamy comes up, we might need to split them then. There are probably quite a few legal benefits to married couples that couldn't feasibly be scaled up to arbitrarily large groups of married people, regardless of whether the relationship is considered legitimate.).
« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 07:29:33 PM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #296 on: September 02, 2012, 09:08:45 PM »
Wouldn't it be easier to let same-sex couples have marriages than it would be to change all marriages to "civil unions?"

"Change it to 'civil union' for everyone if we're going to include gay people" sounds like a vague slap in the faces of people who are fighting for marriage equality.  I think the syntax battle should be separate from the same-sex couple battle.
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #297 on: September 02, 2012, 10:36:05 PM »
Wouldn't it be easier to let same-sex couples have marriages than it would be to change all marriages to "civil unions?"
That would definitely be the ideal, and would be my preferred option. Because even if splitting marriage in two like that isn't quite echoing "separate but equal", it does at least smack of "well if I can't have it all to myself then no one can have any!"

(I don't know about "easier", though -- is any solution here actually "easy"? but i digress)

I do want to be sensitive to both sides. I know there are plenty of people who think same-sex relationships are wrong who are good, loving people with sincerely held beliefs, many of whom wish they didn't believe it -- I used to be one. Between the ages of about ten and twenty, I knew that I was attracted to both genders (after turning twenty, I also found out there's more than two), and didn't see any way out of the traditional Christian view. Peer pressure piled on top of that -- high school students are homophobic enough already, but when you're going to a small private fundamentalist Baptist school that uses textbooks from Pensacola Christian College (where men and women have to use separate sidewalks to "avoid the appearance of evil" (that's not even what that Bible verse means anyway; it's a misunderstanding of a mistranslation that has gone way way too far)) and Bob Jones University (we visited them once. we played a board game with two guys and a girl who were students there, and me and the two guys started saying (not singing, just saying) the lyrics to All-Star and the girl whispered "Stop it! You're gonna get us in trouble!" with genuine fear in her voice (also BJU didn't allow interracial dating until 2000))... so I had to make sure I just kept repressing those thoughts, because they were going to put me on the wrong side of Jesus and the bullies (Jesus seemed to be on the bullies' side a lot, come to think of it). I figured everyone was like me, having the capacity to be tempted with lustful thoughts about men and women, and we had to choose to dwell on the right ones (but wait, that wasn't right, because I'm not supposed to be thinking about either of them) -- as I started talking and actually listening to other people much later on, I finally realized that probably wasn't really the case for most people.

I'm rambling. I guess my point was that I'm a politically moderate (Actually, I don't know where I am politically anymore. Sometimes I'm a libertarian, sometimes I'm a socialist, sometimes I'm an anarchist. I don't want to vote for Obama or Romney, but for just about the opposite of the reasons everyone in my church doesn't want to vote for either of them) bisexual (I guess I could say "practicing" or whatever in the sense that I'm okay with it now, but I'm not sleeping with anyone because I'm still planning on waiting until marriage, and I'm not dating anyone because I'm lame and have no social skills and there's no one around here anyway) Christian now, but I still sympathize with conservatives, and while they're not the ones being oppressed here, I still don't want to force them into anything (partly because that probably wouldn't change their minds and actually be effective anyway). And the lawyer in me maintains that there are legitimate Constitutional issues to figure out here, due to marriage kind of being a joint church-state thing that really shouldn't have been like that in the first place.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm saying it should be illegal for churches to believe quiltbaggery is sinful. I do think they're wrong on that, and do want them to change, but I don't want to send theological messages with a gun (which, my libertarian and/or anarchist headmates remind me, is ultimately what any government mandate boils down to -- don't do this and you'll pay a fine; don't pay the fine and we'll arrest you; resist arrest and we'll shoot you). By the same token, I don't want doctrine becoming law (whether or not I agree with the doctrine in question -- you shouldn't go to prison for believing in infant baptism -- but, admittedly, especially so when it's a doctrine I strongly disagree with, and which personally affects me -- there's a good chance that the person I end up falling in love with and spending the rest of my life with will be male (on a relative scale, not an absolute one, as currently my absolute chances of finding someone at all are far from a certainty, but enough pretentious lapsing into overly loquacious self-pity as my posts gradually descend into Dr. Bronner-grade madness (DILUTE! DILUTE! OKAY! I AM SAD SOMETIMES!)).)

Did I end with the right number of parentheses there? Did I even end all of my sentences there? I can't tell anymore. I suck at concise writing (I can see now that never doing second drafts of any of my papers in college maybe actually was a bad idea; is this the kind of stuff I expected my professors to read?). I think this post would be better suited to the medium of notecards clothespinned to criss-crossed strings hung across my apartment (I don't actually have an apartment (I live with my parents and if they knew I was bi they would not be happy (that would have worked as a pun if I was gay but oh well I definitely like girls))).
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #298 on: September 03, 2012, 11:18:02 AM »
I'm of the belief that extending marriage to include same-sex couples does not really force conservatives into anything at all.  They will still be able to go on holding the same beliefs and acting in accordance with them, and same-sex couples who value legal protection will be able to act likewise.

I want to digress too!  I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic elementary school and Catholic high school and was confirmed Catholic and Catholic Catholic.  I didn't figure out I was gay until I got to college and there were actual resources available to help me better understand the variation that exists with sexuality.  My mom was pretty staunchly conservative, at least with gay people, and when I came out after my sophomore year she was not pleased.  However, I had specifically taken classes on the subject (and gone to see a counselor) so that I could be well-informed and confidently defend against her anti-gay arguments.  I never tried to put down her faith or claim that religion as a whole is wrong or incorrect.  I would just defend that same-sex attraction and relationships do not have to clash with Christianity, as the specific aspects of Christianity that people use against LGBT people are very weak and lack substantial support.
Eventually she was OK with it.  She died almost two months ago, and one of the last things she told me on the phone before falling ill was how she had listened to an NPR story about a Catholic priest woman who was a lesbian and did not see her religion as being at odds with her sexuality.  She was excited about this story because it confirmed to her that being gay doesn't have to be bad from a Catholic perspective!

I think there will always be people who oppose same-sex relationships.  But I think there are a lot of conservative folks who have the capacity to incorporate marriage equality into their personal beliefs.
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #299 on: September 03, 2012, 08:52:39 PM »
Sorry to hear about your mom. Good to hear that she did accept you, though.

I really don't know how my parents would react. I know they wouldn't kick me out, thankfully, but I wonder whether they would eventually come around after I explained my interpretation -- I don't think they're really aware that it's possible to accept same-sex relationships without having to throw out the Bible, without even having to throw out inerrantism and plenary verbal inspiration. They know there are Christians (or, they would say, people who call themselves Christians) who accept it, but they probably assume all of those people are of the "Well of course the Bible says that, but we don't need to follow the Bible anymore, because that was a long time ago and stuff" type. It might just blow their mind to know there exist LGBT Christians with internally consistent conservative hermeneutics (not that I'm the best example of a conservative LGBT Christian, being that I'm not a conservative anymore most of the time, but they are out there). I bet there's even a couple of gay young-earthers (not that young earth creation is the best example of an internally consistent hermeneutic, being that it's not).

Now I'm remembering one time, I wanna say about seven years ago, when my mom asked me if I thought it was possible to be gay and Christian, and I said no. I remember regretting my answer shortly afterward, thinking if nothing else I may have been a bit hasty (and really regretting it now that I believe the opposite (well, not the complete opposite -- that would be if I believed that only gay people could be Christians)), but I never mentioned anything about it to her again. The farthest I've gotten so far is bringing up the interpretation that Sodom was destroyed for inhospitality, not homosexuality (and that even if the attempted angel gang-rape were the sin they were destroyed for, it would be no more fair to paint all gay people with that brush than to compare all straight people to David and Bathsheba, and it's unfair to use the word "sodomy" to refer to gay sex (actually, legally it means anything other than PIV sex, which makes even less sense)). She basically accepted my point there, but I didn't press it any farther.

One thing I can't picture, though, is my mom listening to NPR.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 09:01:32 PM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

Print