tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2688218899576616463.post5916558388347319943..comments2023-10-07T04:19:14.316-07:00Comments on A CHRISTIAN VOICE FOR GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER RIGHTS: ANOTHER DISGRACE TO THE GOSPEL OF CHRISTJerry Manekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00748201321055468172noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2688218899576616463.post-86575503408312584982008-03-16T14:45:00.000-07:002008-03-16T14:45:00.000-07:00Hi Richard: You write, As long as they don't mess ...Hi Richard: You write, As long as they don't mess with the courts or legislature like the Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics." But indirectly they do!<BR/><BR/>They are affirming that they are tolerant of same-sex couples (which is really big of them!), but those couples must remain "chaste." So, they are putting same-sex couples on an inferior basis to heterosexual couples; putting them in a class saying "separate is equal," and that message, especially from a "liberal" church body sends out a message to both "religious" and secular society that Gay couples aren't as legitimate as are heterosexual couples and must live by different rules, except for when they break up, in which case it should be treated as the equivalent of divorce. <BR/><BR/>There are a lot of demeaning messages here: 1. Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married in the same way as heterosexuals are allowed to get married; 2. Same-sex couples are qualitatively different from heterosexual couples; 3. Love between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are qualitatively different (and the subtext means "inferior"); 4. Same-sex couples should be viewed and treated differently than heterosexual couples; 5. There was no mention of same-sex couples deserving the same civil rights (the 1,049 civil rights that heterosexual couples enjoy and that are denied to same-sex couples) as heterosexual couples; 6. Sex between same-sex couples should be forbidden (Which is the subject of a whole other essay.). <BR/><BR/>And this and other destructive messages are proclaimed by "liberals." I don't mind it as much when reactionaries say these things because most everyone sees those messages and their mind-set as being consistent. <BR/><BR/>However, when "liberals" give out these messages, homophobia, both internalized and externalized, is likely to become further entrenched in the institutional Church in in society itself.<BR/><BR/>So, as typical "liberals," they are trying to have it both ways, and choose to come down on the side of the status quo without seeming to be too strident. To me, that is even more offensive than actual homophobes who admit to their homophobia.Jerry Manekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00748201321055468172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2688218899576616463.post-52607176937346410082008-03-16T14:21:00.000-07:002008-03-16T14:21:00.000-07:00Hi Richard: The Cathedrals and other "stately edif...Hi Richard: The Cathedrals and other "stately edifices" were beautiful. However, with the current level of diminished "architectural sophistication," for want of a better term, what passes for "beauty" is quite inferior to those structures. <BR/><BR/>However, whatever "beauty" means to church officials and congregations, that is frequently sought ((e.g., new and more sophisticated sound systems, remodeling, additions to existing structures, etc.), as is "church growth," demands the continuous flow of money into the collection plates. <BR/><BR/>And to keep that money rolling in, the sermons must be non-offensive and appeal to those who have (or think they have) a vested interest in the status quo. Therefore, to enhance church growth and get more "beautiful" buildings and bigger facilities, it's very unlikely, as we have seen, that clergy are going to be any more likely to preach in favor of LGBT inclusiveness in every part of the church and society any more than white clergy in the South (and even in the North) were likely to preach in favor of integration in the 1950's.<BR/><BR/>For the most part, there's far more money to be made by preaching the status quo to those who feel they profit from it than to preach against injustice, discrimination, and oppression. <BR/><BR/>And, as you so correctly point out, the buildings may become larger, the technology may become more sophisticated, but the "beauty" is really not there.Jerry Manekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00748201321055468172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2688218899576616463.post-19942009203971369522008-03-16T12:29:00.000-07:002008-03-16T12:29:00.000-07:00Jerry, I wanted to add that I don't see these chur...Jerry, I wanted to add that I don't see these church beautification projects you speak of. One of my pet peeves with churches is that they are so ugly these days. The stately edifices of yesteryear are no more. I miss them. Catholic and Protestant alike, the church buildings of the 1850's to the 1950's were so much nicer than those built since then. At least in my eyes. Except for St Mary's on Geary in San Francisco ... I like that space ship design. I know this is WAY off your main point, but thought I would mention it.<BR/><BR/>Dagon aka RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2688218899576616463.post-8819656863662528192008-03-16T12:19:00.000-07:002008-03-16T12:19:00.000-07:00I read the article a bit differently. Here they s...I read the article a bit differently. Here they say some congregations DO support gay and lesbians couples monogamous lives:<BR/><BR/>'The task force goes on to describe different responses to gays and lesbians in congregations, noting that some churches require celibacy for them, while others urge gay couples to "establish relationships that are chaste, mutual, monogamous and lifelong." "<BR/><BR/>Of course, this is not enough. Not by a long shot. But that is the business of that church and I will leave it in their hands. As long as they don't mess with the courts or legislature like the Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics.<BR/><BR/>Richard aka DagonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2688218899576616463.post-43276916616142311042008-03-15T12:02:00.000-07:002008-03-15T12:02:00.000-07:00Thanks so much, Howller. Your kind words mean a l...Thanks so much, Howller. Your kind words mean a lot to me. Let's keep up the good fight!Jerry Manekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00748201321055468172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2688218899576616463.post-52328754415372761792008-03-15T11:55:00.000-07:002008-03-15T11:55:00.000-07:00Jerry, yet another thoughtful, insightful, on-the-...Jerry, yet another thoughtful, insightful, on-the-money, and beautifully articulated article. Thank you!howllerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02942746085325051358noreply@blogger.com