Politics and Homophobia

[Aardvark]

I'm not discussing Adam and Steve meeting resistance from their local vicar, I'm talking about institutionalised prejudices among both church leaders (or "staff" if you like) and[/b'] the church as in "other worshippers".

 

Those institutionalised prejudices may be unpleasant but in a society with freedom of religion and person experiencing such prejudice is free to simply walk away and find another Church.

 

The issue I have is with this suggestion that someone should be effectively barred from either:

a) Living their life as they feel is right' date=' while practicing that religion, [/quote']

 

Demanding that any particular religion must change for their needs is not a reasonable right. If their lifestyle conflicts with their choice of Church they have to make a choice, not the Church.

 

b) Entering that religion with the "intention" of being homosexual,

 

If the religion is one that condemns homosexuality then the homosexual should simply walk away, no one has the right to enter a religion and demand it make changes to accomodate that person. However reasonable those changes may be.

 

c) Staying in that religion after discovering their sexuality is not compatible with it' date='

...while any other parties the religion condemns are pretty much left to their own devices.[/quote']

 

People have the right to hypocrisy and double standards in the private sphere. It's not nice but it is part what free society is about.

 

Yes, and the other part of living in a free society is having the right to not let other people's irrational prejudices have a very real impact upon your life..

 

That would only be the case if those prejudices were allowed to be imposed in the public sphere. If a Church refuses to perform weddings for homosexuals that is its business, if it then trys to prevent homosexuals getting married outside its Church then it is intruding on the public sphere and imposing its preducies in an unacceptable manner.

 

Hence the fact that we have laws expressly prohibiting discrimination in the public and private sectors (although personally I think calling the church part of the "private sphere" is pretty flimsy).

 

The law recognises the distinction between the public and private spheres (public and private sectors have a different meaning). Churches are private organisations, they are voluntary establishments made up of the coming together of likeminded people. As such they are entitled to whatever sort of internal rules they want, wise or unwise. As voluntary establishments people are free to walk away if they don't like them.

 

As long as those organisations don't impose their prejudices outside their structures and as long as participation is strictly voluntary then they have the right to be left alone, however odd or unpleasant we may consider them.

[Aardvark]

True, but if the religion is going to start saying things like "two women marrying is wrong, but someone who has broken a commandment can marry if they like" without justifying it, and abdicating responsibility to scripture, they are simply reinforcing the idea that it's a decision founded in prejudice.

 

True, in which case we can all stand and point at them and chant

 

'Prejudiced men in frocks, scared of any challenge to their sexuality.'

 

'Ha Ha Ha.'

 

'Losers'

 

Ectera.

[Sayonara]

Those institutionalised prejudices may be unpleasant but in a society with freedom of religion and person experiencing such prejudice is free to simply walk away and find another Church.

 

By "church" I do not mean a single stone building. I mean, for example, the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church. People should not have to abandon the faith they have grown up with just to be permitted the right to marry. Now, the church may well have the right to have all sorts of crazy rules, but the fact is that they are hurting their flock, which anyone in their right mind would see as a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

 

Demanding that any particular religion must change for their needs is not a reasonable right. If their lifestyle conflicts with their choice of Church they have to make a choice, not the Church.

As has been pointed out already, tolerance is a two-way street.

 

 

If the religion is one that condemns homosexuality then the homosexual should simply walk away, no one has the right to enter a religion and demand it make changes to accomodate that person. However reasonable those changes may be.

Fair enough.

 

 

People have the right to hypocrisy and double standards in the private sphere. It's not nice but it is part what free society is about.

In that case there should be no problem with accommodating a long-term worshipper who has recently come out. You really aren't getting us anywhere by repeatedly saying "it's because of the discrimination!", when I am simply saying that I object to the discrimination.

 

 

...

As long as those organisations don't impose their prejudices outside their structures and as long as participation is strictly voluntary then they have the right to be left alone, however odd or unpleasant we may consider them.

Fair enough, but I am not certain you are representing my specific objections in your reasoning. I don't dispute that religions deserve the right to be "left alone", as that implies external influence - I'm talking about them harming their own members and by extension themselves.

[Sayonara]

True' date=' in which case we can all stand and point at them and chant

'Prejudiced men in frocks, scared of any challenge to their sexuality.'

'Ha Ha Ha.'

'Losers'

Ectera.[/quote']

What do we chant at the gay ones?

[Aardvark]

What do we chant at the gay ones?

 

 

Assuming they're still in the closet they are probably too screwed up and unhappy for it to be any fun to chant at them.

 

Which is a shame because the santimonious feeling of virture and superiority that derives from being part of a chanting mob looks like it's fun. Esp the part where you completely abdicate all personal responsibility to the mob.

[Sayonara]

There are plenty of vicars and bishops who are out of the closet.

[Dak]

To someone who believes in god with every fibre of their being, and wants to express that by worshipping in the way that seems most correct, the matter of their sexuality is going to be a minor concern to them by comparison and certainly is not the business of anyone they aren't having a relationship with.

 

If they believe that worshiping in the way that seems most correct inovolves homosexual marrrage, then they should not be a member of a sect which consists of people who believe worshiping in the way that seems most correct prohibits homosexual marrage. and it is a buisness of the churches if the person subscribes to that faith.

 

The situation you described is not analagous at all - if it were, this hypothetical homosexual would need to be joining "the church of absolutely no gayers", whereas sexuality actually comes pretty low down on the list of most religion's priorities (until, it seems, the tiresome homos* want something).

 

in other areas of religion id probably agree with you, but marrage is, in the vast majority of cases, percieved (from a religiouse pov) to be a union between a man and a woman, hense the reluctance for most churches to wed gays id assume. you cant demand that they alter their perseption of what marrage fundamentally is. for those who believe marrage = man + woman, asking them to wed two people of the same sex is paradoxical.

 

True, but if the religion is going to start saying things like "two women marrying is wrong, but someone who has broken a commandment can marry if they like" without justifying it, and abdicating responsibility to scripture, they are simply reinforcing the idea that it's a decision founded in prejudice

 

scripture is quite inportant to a religion, so its obviouse theyd cite it as a reason. and, whilst it undoubtably can be founded in predjudice, it isnt nessesaraly.

 

 

as i said, if it stems from predjudice, its wrong and shouldnt be allowed. if it stems from genuine belief that god doesnt want us to be gay, then it should be allowed.

[Aardvark]

By "church" I do not mean a single stone building. I mean, for example, the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church.

 

That is the same definition i have been using.

 

People should not have to abandon the faith they have grown up with just to be permitted the right to marry. .

 

If those people find that their beliefs/actions are incompatiable with the faith/Church they have grown up with then i'm afraid that leaving that faith might be the only reasonable thing.

 

Now, the church may well have the right to have all sorts of crazy rules, but the fact is that they are hurting their flock, which anyone in their right mind would see as a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

Yes, it is a problem and yes the Church should try to avoid hurting its flock. But ordering it change its behaviour by law would be mistaken. Just because some behaviour is foolish and reprehensible doesn't mean it should be illegal.

 

 

As has been pointed out already, tolerance is a two-way street. .

 

Tolerance also means tolerating Churches which has foolish rules and procedures based on prejudice. If people want to go to the Church of the sexually repressed, in serious denial, bigot then they should be left alone. Homosexuals should conversely be left with the choice to walk away and go to the Church of the better things to worry about than sex.

 

 

In that case there should be no problem with accommodating a long-term worshipper who has recently come out. You really aren't getting us anywhere by repeatedly saying "it's because of the discrimination!", when I am simply saying that I object to the discrimination..

 

Objecting to the discrimination is fine. The discrimination is unpleasant and illogical, but people are allowed to be prejudiced, unpleasant and illogical so long as those feelings are not forced upon other people.

 

It might be a sad matter for a worshipper to leave, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church, because of coming out, but that worshipper can leave and go to another Church. I am not denying it is unpleasant, but the worshipper does have the choice of whether or not to attend that Church, nothing is being imposed.

 

 

 

Fair enough, but I am not certain you are representing my specific objections in your reasoning. I don't dispute that religions deserve the right to be "left alone", as that implies external influence - I'm talking about them harming their own members and by extension themselves.

 

You have identified some unpleasant prejudice which can cause problems and make people unhappy. True, Churches which preach homophobia are both hateful and theoloically dubious, but they have the right to that, as long, and this is the important point, as they do not impose those preaching on the public sphere. A homosexual may be unhappy in that Church, but the second he steps outside the bigotery should cease.

 

One analogy could be that a person was brought up in a strong Conservative Party supporting family. That person then comes to the realisation that they really believe in the doctrine of economic nationalisation. That person has to make a choice, maintain support for nationalistion and leave the Party they were brought up in or abandon that ideal and stay with the Party.

 

It's not a perfect analogy, you can argue about whether a belief is based on prejudice or reason or theology, but it boils down to a private organisation being allowed to make its own rules, however stupid or wrong they may appear.

 

Churches may be hurting people, but it would be wrong to force them to act against their desires. Persuasion, not complusion should be employed. And Worshippers have the right to exercise the choice to leave and join whatever religion they deem most correct. If enough worshippers move to more tolerant Churches then it will create a pressure for tolerantion.

 

To take the logic to its absurd extreme, imagine a Rabbi being forced to eat Non Kosher food as it was decided that only eating Kosher was a prejudiced act which harmed Non Kosher food producers such as shrimp fishermen and pig farmers.

[Aardvark]

There are plenty of vicars and bishops who are out of the closet.

 

They are unlikely to be the ones causing problems for homosexual worshippers, so chanting at them probably wouldn't have much point.

 

Chants such as 'You're honest, you're out, you're trying to make the Church a more humane place, errr .... carry on then'

[Aardvark]

as i said, if it stems from predjudice, its wrong and shouldnt be allowed. if it stems from genuine belief that god doesnt want us to be gay, then it should be allowed.

 

I'd love to know how you'd make that distinction.

[Dak]

I'd love to know how you'd make that distinction.

 

so would i.

 

It would make things a lot simpler. as it is, without a way of distinguishing, we just have to force them all to marry gays, or allow them all to refuse to marry gays.