Sunday, 5 September 2010
The LGBT question
Lesbian gay bisexual transsexual. Regarded with sympathy at greenbelt. Even just to write the phrase, it looks creative. Where do you draw the line between valid diversity/creativity, and wrong, against nature? Some things are still taboo, eg paedophilia. So it’s still viewed as ‘just wrong’ to abuse power, prey on the vulnerable. Why in the popular view is that not ok, while homosexuality, say, is? Sexuality has come to be viewed as a valid arena for the display and expression of diversity, in the same way race is. One to ponder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
6 comments:
Why is it "against nature"? Homosexuality (10% or rams)and "transvestitism" (individuals taking on female colouration to avoid agression) DO occur in nature. As does interspecies sex (eg amazon molly where it is absolutely necessary for the species to survive). Using "against nature" is a non starter in moral terms.
Do you think that gays and transvestites are wrong?
I certainly know a few christians who dont think it's OK to accept it
Bruce, one tries not to expect too much, but that is one of the most moronically offensive pieces of crap I've ever read. And one hopes that greenbelt doesn't just traffic in patronising 'sympathy' (I recall that +Gene Robinson spoke last year). Do you really not see why, ethically and objectively, paedophilia is wrong? Hint : children, like animals, can't properly give consent. One is aghast at the 'ethics' of those who can't condemn paedophilia without finding a proof-text to do so. Worth stressing that, in fact, there IS no such proof-text in the bible, one reason that marriages between e.g. 12 years old used to be (like dehumanising misogyny) perfectly ok in the 'Christian' UK that homophobes see as some kind of golden age. And, of course, neither you nor any other evangelical can cite a scriptural verse that addresses loving, monogomous, same-sex relationships. Not - of course - that literal fundamentalism is grounds to overcome our best and most godly instincts. And our own dear Dave McCarthy was married by a ''gay bishop''; naivety is plainly not as bad as overt bigotry but it still warrants correction. I'll leave Billy to provide examples of homosexuality within nature (as the 'no homosexuality within nature' ''argument'' is almost as wilfully stupid as creationism, even if one grants that homo sapiens are not part of nature, which I very much don't)
"I'll leave Billy to provide examples of homosexuality within nature
I think a video speaks better than words. Of many possible examples, I give you lesbian bonobos doing what comes naturally http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zOlPsO6U4
And a chimp doing something with a frog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khwjD-KVQ_Q
The more I think about this, the more shocked I am that you think these people are somehow needing sympathy rathather than being included as equally valid human beings. Somethimes christianity just makes me sick!
I think you're being a little over-sensitive but, ok, sympathy, i cd have chosen a better word there, recognition and ackowledgment perhaps.
I tend just to write out thoughts and questions as they arise, I don’t explore them fully in one piece, so don’t assume this is my whole view, but nice to have a reader back to join billy, who is laudably committed! :)
Never stopped reading, Bruce, just didn't feel moved to comment!
I'm not sure that I'm being oversensitive. Although, if I am, it's certainly preferable to its opposite that is invariably far more manifest in these kinds of debates. I remember Greg d B, when protesting against +Gene Robinson being treated fairly, saying something along the lines of 'evangelicals don't *hate* gays, we just don't think they should be allowed to preach. What's wrong with that?' (!) I'm paraphrasing, but not by much. Is it really a good thing to give obvious bollocks a free pass because the people typing it claim to mean well? Evangelical Christians are surely meant to be outward-looking and concerned with dialogue (hence your blog!) , instead of being accustomed to silly little culty bubbles where intellectual fallacies, cant and bigotry go unremarked on or (worse) taken seriously.
Post a Comment