Your posts equate a rejection of the “goodness” or “normality” of a homosexual lifestyle with hatred or fear of that lifestyle and homosexual people.
However, one can reject something without hating or fearing it. And I think it’s this very basic point that you’ve failed to grasp.
Consider something very trivial - I can reject the proposition that Star Wars 1-3 (the “prequals") are good movies. Simply because I reject that they are worthwhile movies doesn’t mean I hate or fear the movies. I just don’t think they’re worth wasting my time watching them.
Likewise, simply because I reject homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, doesn’t mean I am bound to hate and fear homosexual people.
And so Brian is absolutely right to say that you’ve constructed a straw-man argument.
This is a bigger argument than homosexuality - though homosexuality is the issue at hand here. It’s an argument about ethics and morals; it’s about what forms the basis of our ethics and morality. Indeed, it’s an argument about how to put into practice those ethics and morals in everyday life, and especially in the Christian church situation. It’s about a definition of “normality”, and what determines that definition. It’s an argument about whether, this side of heaven, any of us in general (including homosexuals) are “perfectly normal”.
And finally, it’s an argument about whether, in a democratic society, Christians have the right to seek to persuade the public and those in the political arena of what we consider to be in the best interests of our society. You may disagree with what we have to say (that much is obvious), but we still ought to have a right and opportunity to say it. And while Christians form any part of the voting public in our democratic society, then why shouldn’t we speak up for we believe in?
You are being disingenuous. The language used by many posters on this site, and by many evangelical preachers and leaders, betrays (and I would argue incites) a far deeper antipathy than disagreement over a movie. Would you call a Star Wars fan “perverted” or “evil”? Would you say that watching the prequels was “a reprehensible act”, or subject viewers to ‘conversion therapy’? Would you call for the movies to be banned?
Laws which restrict the full participation of a group of people in society must be justified by rational evidence, not merely “belief”. Certainly Christians have the “right to seek to persuade the public and those in the political arena of what [you] consider to be in the best interests of our society”. The public and those in the political arena also have the right (in the latter case the duty) to reject assertions which are not justified by rational evidence and/or sound argument.
I have never felt fear, nor hatred, nor wished violence to my gay hairdresser, who did a marvellous job of styling my hair…
Tim, are you seriously telling us that this hairdresser did a marvellous job of styling your hair? If that’s the case then anyone with a pair of clippers can be a marvellous stylist. ;)
By the way Jason, what is it in your personal experience which has led you to conclude that “homosexual relationships are more damaging than good for people”? How can you be sure that it is not prejudice against the relationships which causes the damage, rather than the relationships themselves?
How can you be sure that it is not prejudice against the relationships which causes the damage, rather than the relationships themselves?
That’s an interesting question. May I ask how you can establish the matter the other way? How do you know the damage is done by prejudice against the relationship and not by the relationship itself?
You are being disingenuous. The language used by many posters on this site, and by many evangelical preachers and leaders, betrays (and I would argue incites) a far deeper antipathy than disagreement over a movie. Would you call a Star Wars fan “perverted” or “evil”? Would you say that watching the prequels was “a reprehensible act”, or subject viewers to ‘conversion therapy’? Would you call for the movies to be banned?
Disingenuous - little unfair, I think. I did point out that the Star Wars example was very trivial! It was to illustrate that it is possible to disagree/reject something, but disagreement/rejection does not *necessarily* (in the sense ‘of necessity’) mean hatred and/or fear.
Sure, the language of churches, posters on this site, and preachers against greed would also betray (and hopefully incite) a far deeper antipathy to greed than disagreement over a movie. Greed would also be seen as “perverted”, “evil”, and “reprehensible” (in fact, another Christian person said that to me just last night).
Laws which restrict the full participation of a group of people in society must be justified by rational evidence, not merely “belief”. Certainly Christians have the “right to seek to persuade the public and those in the political arena of what [you] consider to be in the best interests of our society”. The public and those in the political arena also have the right (in the latter case the duty) to reject assertions which are not justified by rational evidence and/or sound argument.
So, again, it comes down to what we regard as qualifying as a ‘sound argument’ or ‘rational evidence’. Irrationality means ‘without reason’. Christians put forward their position ‘with reason’; it’s just that the basis of their reasoning, the thing that determines their reason - that is, the text of the bible - is not considered ‘reasonable’ by some in our society.
What does “full participation...in society” mean anyway? It’s one of those emotionally charged rhetorical devices that is just another means of stating, “we want our own way regardless of what others think”, isn’t it?
How can you be sure that it is not prejudice against the relationships which causes the damage, rather than the relationships themselves?
That’s an interesting question. May I ask how you can establish the matter the other way? How do you know the damage is done by prejudice against the relationship and not by the relationship itself?
Firstly, it is not my onus - I am not asserting that there even is any damage in the first place. Are you asking me justify Jason’s position?
Secondly, Jason has made it clear that his assertion that homosexuality causes damage is drawn from his personal experience . It is hardly fair to ask me to comment on evidence which he acknowledged is not available to me.
What does “full participation...in society” mean anyway?
In this context, how about this for a definition:
(a) every particiapnt in a loving, committed, sexually-exclusive relationship has the right to have that relationship legally recognised and protected
(b) every child has the right to have their family relationship legally recognised and protected
(c) every parent has the right to have their relationship with their child legally recognised and protected
(d) every person has the right to be protected from abuse and discrimination
(e) every citizen has rights and responsibilities under law, is entitled to the protection of the law, and is entitled to assume laws affecting them are based on sound evidence and rational reasoning
Firstly, a quick welcome to Kate and thanks for your articulate and measured input.
Brian Tung - 24 June 2008 11:56 AM
Understanding takes time, study and above all the suspension of prejudice.
We like to think we are or can be objective, but the reality is we all bring our preconceptions and prejudices to just about any debate. I doubt it’s possible to divorce ourselves from them entirely.
I confess that I look back with considerable embarrassment and shame at some of the well intentioned but naive, insensitive and probably hurtful things I said to a former gay flatmate and probably to other gays too. I’ve been too hasty in expressing Christian dogmatism/legalism and not being loving and trusting God and his Spirit to change lives in his own good time, if that is his plan. So Kate, I’m sorry for the hurt I’ve caused to you (indirectly) and to other gays like you. Also, on more than one occasion I’ve seen posts here from Christians (presumably Sydney Anglicans) equating homosexuality with rape and paedophilia. This I find offensive so I can only imagine what gays would make of such statements! Anyhow, I suspect this extreme view is held by only a very small minority. (I see that Kate has compiled a much more extensive list so negative feelings towards gays may be more pervasive than I’d like to admit.) Anyhow, I don’t think we Christians can kid ourselves that we leave our prejudices behind in entering these forums.
Firstly, it is not my onus - I am not asserting that there even is any damage in the first place. Are you asking me justify Jason’s position?
No. It just got me thinking. Ill be interested to read Jason’s response. But I assume that you would assert that no damage is done by same sex relationship. So I assume that you must be some estalbished criteria and methodology already. That’s all.
Secondly, Jason has made it clear that his assertion that homosexuality causes damage is drawn from his personal experience . It is hardly fair to ask me to comment on evidence which he acknowledged is not available to me.
What does “full participation...in society” mean anyway?
In this context, how about this for a definition:
(a) every particiapnt in a loving, committed, sexually-exclusive relationship has the right to have that relationship legally recognised and protected
(b) every child has the right to have their family relationship legally recognised and protected
(c) every parent has the right to have their relationship with their child legally recognised and protected
(d) every person has the right to be protected from abuse and discrimination
(e) every citizen has rights and responsibilities under law, is entitled to the protection of the law, and is entitled to assume laws affecting them are based on sound evidence and rational reasoning
These would seem fair enough (except d, please change it to unfair discrimination. If we are to have a rational society then we need fair discrimination. Actually I’d make further changes… abusive or irresponsible parents might not need the right to have the relationship with their children protected...)
However that said, having laws for protection and rights like those does not in any way validate homosexuality. I can be in support of laws like those while still believing that homosexuality is wrong, a perversion of marriage as God had planned, and an affront to God and mankind.
We have laws that support and protect greed too, but they don’t make greed good.
We like to think we are or can be objective, but the reality is we all bring our preconceptions and prejudices to just about any debate. I doubt it’s possible to divorce ourselves from them entirely.
That’s right. But we need to be honest with ourselves. I’t helpful to listen to those who disagree with us to hear some of the blindsopts.
Also, on more than one occasion I’ve seen posts here from Christians (presumably Sydney Anglicans) equating homosexuality with rape and paedophilia. This I find offensive so I can only imagine what gays would make of such statements! Anyhow, I suspect this extreme view is held by only a very small minority.
I’m one of the guilty ones. But if you read the comments in context, you’ll see that it’s an invitation to the presentation of a coherent ethics. The assertion by the nasty Sydney Evangelicals is that homosexuality is immoral. Well what’s it based on? Is it consistent, reasonable, evidence based etc etc? Likewise everyone who asserts that homosexuality is neutral or even good. I’m just interested to know what the ethics is. And so far, anything but coherent is put forward.
Further, it’d pretty lame if I were to dismiss Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris et al just because I take offence at their assertion that Christianity is the root of all evil (which I don’t BTW). To be intllectual honest, I’d have to listen to what he has to say and why and see whether what he says is reasonable and true (it might be for all I know).
But when it comes to human sexuality (fr some inexplacable reason), there’re suddenly taboos and no go areas. Hardly open engagement and honest debate.
What would you regard as an acceptable mode of expression for a Christian who genuinely believes that same-sex sexual relationships are proscribed by the Bible (which I am sure you will acknowledge is not a novel conviction)?
Or is the conviction itself so inherently objectionable that any mode of expressing it will be perceived as offensive by most gay and lesbian people?
I write as one who wishes to listen carefully both to the experience of gay and lesbian people AND the voice of God in scripture.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
The latest permutation of reality television is the 'local hero' genre that takes cameras into the…
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
report bugs