Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ok *fascinating* :::off to e-library:::

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yes, Jessie, we certainly do agree on the issue of white racism being problematic with respect to the improvement of the relationship between the mainstream gay-rights movement and the African American community — straight AND gay (actually an argument could be made that there really is NO significant relationship to improve upon…but I’d rather not be that pessimistic)…

But I believe we still remain somewhat at opposite ends of the spectrum on the intrinsic culpability of religions and their philosophical scriptures…

You say:

“But, I would argue that ceding the ground of “Homosexuality is WRONG” to the religious-homophobic bigots and giving them the point that that’s what the scriptures says, is ultimately a flawed strategy on the part of the gay rights movement (and anyone concerned with human rights). Can you imagine agreeing with the notion that “well, yes, the scriptures do say that black people are inferior and meant to be enslaved”? No, of course not. Yet, we (queer people and progressives) often quickly cede the ground of “well, the bible does say that homosexuality is wrong.” Hogwash. It doesn’t say that.”

And Adia said:

“I do know that if you study the Bible it’s pretty clear that it does not say that “homosexuality is WRONG.” Though people often point to chapters in Leviticus, Acts, and the Sodom & Gomorrah stories, if you read these carefully and with an eye for context it is clear that these chapters actually do not condemn homosexuality. (Biblical passages in the New Testament show that Jesus himself has little to say on the subject of sexuality.) What is present in the Bible are passages that have been *interpreted* by contemporary audiences to mean that homosexuality is wrong.”

First, I feel it important that I mention that I am in no way a Christian … or a Jew or Muslim, or any other official adherent to any organized religious theology. However, I am a student of history and philosophy, and as such I’ve done my fair share of research into the history of religions, particularly Christianity… And, I really do resist this conversation morphing into a scripture-translation, literal-context debate concerning religious text, but apparently some flirtation with the subject matter will be required…

I have two major problems with the, “that may be what the Bible says but that’s not what it really means due to faulty translation,” argument… One, in order for the average Christian to adequately critically analyze the bible in such a manner — a book purported to lend itself graciously and conveniently to being cognitively accessible to the common person for the benefit of spiritual salvation and the imparting of divine wisdom — he/she would, today, almost certainly require a degree in the field of ancient languages. Now, how practical or realistic is that?… Two, if the transcriptions and translations of the common Bible are so open to suspicion, so open to interpretation in so many instances, then does it not inherently throw the entire manuscript itself into the realm of the suspect, thus making it dysfunctional as a synchronized coherent philosophical teaching?… I mean, if they manage to get the literal translation wrong about homosexuality, women, and slavery, how can it be argued for certain that they got it right with regard to the Ten Commandments or any other biblical teaching point? You see, it becomes the thread that unravels the quilt (which is cool by me considering I don’t put much stock in any of it)…

To somewhat illustrate my point, I’m certain that despite both your and Adia’s protestations to the contrary, we could easily find qualified theological scholars who would argue that condemnation of homosexuality is exactly what the Bible scripturally conveys. Would you not agree?…

And as to Adia’s claim that, “Though people often point to chapters in Leviticus, Acts, and the Sodom & Gomorrah stories, if you read these carefully and with an eye for context it is clear that these chapters actually do not condemn homosexuality. (Biblical passages in the New Testament show that Jesus himself has little to say on the subject of sexuality.) “, Jesus (whose historical veracity is very well open to debate…but that’s another story altogether), may not have had much to say, but Paul certainly did. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

And in 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”

Now, if the scriptural content of the Bible is believed by the followers of the Christian faith to be the inerrant “word of God” does it matter if Jesus himself did not quote these scriptures? In the mind of the average believer, especially the Black ones that I have had the misfortune to discuss this topic, they are STILL the expressed opinion of their God, because they could not be in the Bible if they were not. Most Christians stand firm on this, translation and interpretation concerns be damned…if they are even considered at all.

The main thing for me on this issue is functionality; how does this whole religion-view on homosexuality play out in the real world of social relations, policy and consequences. Overwhelmingly, it has proved to be extremely detrimental and adversarial to the cultivation and sustainment of a gay-tolerant society.

Bottomline: traditionally religion has been no friend of gay folks (and that’s really putting it mildly). Followers of religion quite frequently use their faith and their religious manuscripts to beat gay people over the head about who and what they are. I have no qualms, if in the act of self-defense, I point out the blatantly intolerant, hateful, hypocritical and arrogantly narcissistic nature of their actions. The truth is the freakin’ truth… Perhaps because we fight from the current position of weakness — politically that is — some degree of compromise along the lines that you mention could prove beneficial, but I kinda doubt it. And I know I ain’t the one to attempt it… My view of the matter more closely matches the one of a brother named Derek who responded to the subject with this:

“If a person’s belief is that the bible teaches against homosexuality and they govern their life by it, why are they expected to be against Prop 8? That baffles me. There is no common ground there. These are diametrically opposing views. Is a person expected to abandon what they hold to be the ordinance of God for the sake of agreement? If they did, their commitment to their religion would be questionable at best.”…

Hard as hell for me to disagree with the brother on this one.

Also, on another note, I don’t get some of the Black BLBT *opposition* to legalized gay marriage… Take for instance, Micah, who seems like an intelligent beautiful brother and from whose website link I found myself directed to your article, he says some people just can’t comprehend how gay marriage may not benefit everyone… Well, exactly how does it NOT benefit Black gay people? Last time I checked no where in this nation, or the world, where same-sex marriage is legal does there exist an exemption clause based on race…

I can understand priority based indifference to same-sex marriage from the issue-ladened Black gay community (although I still cringe at it a bit), but out-and-out opposition? …Because of some racist White folks? It makes no sense at all. It is a classic example of slicing off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

A pro-gay-marriage heterosexual sister had this to say:

“As I said, I was thoroughly pissed off as I read some of the reflexive responses coming from some white members of the gay community immediately following Prop 8’s passage. I decided not to march last weekend because of a story Farai Chideya told on Bill Maher last Friday. She recounted how a black, gay friend of hers who was wearing a “No on 8″ t-shirt, holding a “No on 8″ sign at a “No on 8″ rally, was called a ‘nigger.’ I refused to put myself in that situation.

But I have had a softening of heart. Racists will always be somewhere in every group. I cannot let them decided how or when I will stand with and for people I care about. I have always supported full equality for all people and have always* been an ally of lesbian, gay, bi and transgendered people. So, I’ve purchased my t-shirts and will wade into the next protest I can find. Last weekend I heard the marchers chant “Black or white marriage is a human right.” I like it! “

Like or Dislike: 0  0

and, I see your point. I think that the “I’ll get mine” mentality is a spot on description of HRC’s approach to politics, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in the “I’ll come back for you” part of the equation. I actually don’t agree it’s that big a paradigm shift to make. I think it’s possible to have a political/social movement that addresses these forms of inequality simultaneously within a broader human rights framework that talks about marriage equality as something that provides basic human dignity and should be available to all as a matter of social justice, rather than the only mechanism for accessing “benefits” which only applies to some people.

And, then Kristie you also said (in response to Julie):

having grown up Catholic in a very conservative part of the world… having the ability to take part in the word “marriage” speaks to and satisfies a very core part of me.

I think we can’t diminish the value of that word and that concept for some people, and the potential it might have to reclaim it and expand the definition of marriage to include same-gender couples. It *could* be a profound shift for people, but I don’t think that’s either a given or universal. For me, the potential benefits of the battle for gay marriage as it is currently formulated are offset by what I see as a larger downside. And that downside has to do with the exclusionary race/gender/class politics of the “I’ll get mine”-rhetoric for white, middle-class gay people in this battle. In my view, such a strategy runs the very serious risk of amounting to a Pyrrhic victory in which there is some limited success in some states that benefits a few (already well-off gay people), but any larger goals (of the “I’ll come back for you later” variety) are rendered impossible because of the narrow, elitist tone of this struggle. But then, I’ve been married before (in a previous lifetime), so it could just be that I’m incredibly jaded about the transformative potential of the institution of marriage…it looks a lot like the military to me.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

from my perspective, we are put in an untenable position. i do think that gay marriage offers folks more than the right to pass long their wealth; it offers both powerful social recognition and real, tangible material benefits that are not available to many people through any other means. unfortunately, to access those benefits (social and material), we are asked to enter an institution and a political debate that reinscribes some problematic relationships and politics.

I can see that point. And whenever I think about the possibilities of survivorship rights that transcend traditionally-thought-of relationships like marriage, I always flashback to the 9/11 fund that in the beginning days at least, gave payments to anyone who could show an economic relationship with a victim… such as roommates… parents who received money from children…etc. I remember thinking at the time *that’s* how we need to be thinking about benefits all the time.

I also think the social recognition factor can’t be over-stated… as well as the way the word/action of “marriage” taps into a core feeling for a lot of people because of the “construct” a lot of us grew up in…. I don’t think I know how to phrase this properly… but having grown up Catholic in a very conservative part of the world… having the ability to take part in the word “marriage” speaks to and satisfies a very core part of me.

Anyway. I really appreciate the chance to discuss all of this here.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

In my view, the battle for same-sex marriage is much more allied with this sort of ‘right-to-consumption’ and its attendant class politics than to a broad human rights agenda that recognizes the struggles of queer people who are poor, many of whom are also people of color.

I can see that. It’s kind of a case of this particular issue being about misplaced priorities.

I think it’s also, to be honest, a really difficult paradigm shift for middle-class white queers like me to make. It’s hard to take yourself out of the benefits that you would get and can get from same sex marriage and think about the larger fight that needs to be done. Which I think is just part of that whole “I’ll get mine first and then I’ll come back for you” thing that the HRC et al perpetuate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0