Homophobia heteronormativity and homophobophobia.
Anteater
Shipmate
in Epiphanies
Not sure where to put this since I think I missed something about DH which seems to be permanently dead. So I'll try here.
We now have an LGBT Curate, and I'm hoping through him to understand where LGBT Christians want the Church in general to end up to remove the current barrier that still exists.
I suspect their ideal would be for people to stop making it an issue at all, so that it takes its place alongside the right-handedness issue (which at least in my mother's time was coercive), and now is viewed as silly. But that's not where I am currently. Although I have no issue at all with having a openly gay priest, I am at least sympathetic to some views which he views as homophobic - most obviously hetero-normativity (only in part).
So I want to start with definitions.
Homophobia, to somebody coming at it for the first time, would imply a strong aversion to and/or irrational fear of LGBT practices and people.
It seems to have changed to mean any criticism of LGBT practice. So I am concerned to know how LGBT christians view homophobia. Is it consistent with the example of Christ? Do they accept that homophobophobia is real, even it if is a monstrosity as a word? I don't like the idea that I unconsciously find LGBT people disgusting when consciously I rather like them.
Secondly, heteronormativity needs defining. Wikipedia has:
On this:
1. I do not accept "the gender binary". Defining man as xy tout court has never struck me as sensible. And this is not because I believe gender to be exclusively a social construct. Even basic biology is not binary. And the problem with this is that people will tend to class, say AIS people as freaks. Plus of course it is a social construct largely.
2. The only part of this where I have sympathy is in the idea that sexual and marital relations are most fitting between people of opposite sex. Except I would go one step further towards the more RCC position that it is most fitting when oriented towards reproduction. This implies that e.g. gay and straight anal sex are ethically equivalent.
I can see that this becomes homophobic if "most fitting" morphs into "exclusively accepted" and this obviously does happen. It is still the official view of the RCC. This would happen if the only ethical evaluations of any act were good vs bad. Whereas most people work with more categories. I am very deficient in emotional expression, so cannot - literally - "weep with those who weep". Therefore what is desirable has to be put into the context of what is possible.
Hence the C of E has a definite position that where a person is capable of being content in either a straight or gay relationship, they should definitely choose the straight one. I am ok with this. My Curate is not. He believes it to be homophobic.
I do accept that any view of this kind puts LGBT people into a class of disabled, in which they would be joining people who cannot beget children and people who cannot relate to others, such as some ASD people. Because what is being said is that their lifestyle is acceptable only in so far as they cannot manage to attain God's best (deliberately phrase to sound condescending since that is how I think it will be felt).
So my question is: Does acceptance of the gay christian community demand that we reject the view that where both types of relationship are equally possible, the one which leads to kids coming into the world has more going for it?
We now have an LGBT Curate, and I'm hoping through him to understand where LGBT Christians want the Church in general to end up to remove the current barrier that still exists.
I suspect their ideal would be for people to stop making it an issue at all, so that it takes its place alongside the right-handedness issue (which at least in my mother's time was coercive), and now is viewed as silly. But that's not where I am currently. Although I have no issue at all with having a openly gay priest, I am at least sympathetic to some views which he views as homophobic - most obviously hetero-normativity (only in part).
So I want to start with definitions.
Homophobia, to somebody coming at it for the first time, would imply a strong aversion to and/or irrational fear of LGBT practices and people.
It seems to have changed to mean any criticism of LGBT practice. So I am concerned to know how LGBT christians view homophobia. Is it consistent with the example of Christ? Do they accept that homophobophobia is real, even it if is a monstrosity as a word? I don't like the idea that I unconsciously find LGBT people disgusting when consciously I rather like them.
Secondly, heteronormativity needs defining. Wikipedia has:
Heteronormativity is the belief that heterosexuality, predicated on the gender binary, is the norm or default sexual orientation.[1] It assumes that sexual and marital relations are most fitting between people of opposite sex. A "heteronormative" view therefore involves alignment of biological sex, sexuality, gender identity and gender roles. Heteronormativity is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia.
On this:
1. I do not accept "the gender binary". Defining man as xy tout court has never struck me as sensible. And this is not because I believe gender to be exclusively a social construct. Even basic biology is not binary. And the problem with this is that people will tend to class, say AIS people as freaks. Plus of course it is a social construct largely.
2. The only part of this where I have sympathy is in the idea that sexual and marital relations are most fitting between people of opposite sex. Except I would go one step further towards the more RCC position that it is most fitting when oriented towards reproduction. This implies that e.g. gay and straight anal sex are ethically equivalent.
I can see that this becomes homophobic if "most fitting" morphs into "exclusively accepted" and this obviously does happen. It is still the official view of the RCC. This would happen if the only ethical evaluations of any act were good vs bad. Whereas most people work with more categories. I am very deficient in emotional expression, so cannot - literally - "weep with those who weep". Therefore what is desirable has to be put into the context of what is possible.
Hence the C of E has a definite position that where a person is capable of being content in either a straight or gay relationship, they should definitely choose the straight one. I am ok with this. My Curate is not. He believes it to be homophobic.
I do accept that any view of this kind puts LGBT people into a class of disabled, in which they would be joining people who cannot beget children and people who cannot relate to others, such as some ASD people. Because what is being said is that their lifestyle is acceptable only in so far as they cannot manage to attain God's best (deliberately phrase to sound condescending since that is how I think it will be felt).
So my question is: Does acceptance of the gay christian community demand that we reject the view that where both types of relationship are equally possible, the one which leads to kids coming into the world has more going for it?
Comments
So, while I think any society has to be organised around looking after and bringing up the next generation, something that capitalism is not good at, that doesn't mean that only those people who are actually procreating and who are directly involved in bringing them up are contributing something of value. The nuclear family is not I think an ideal unit for thinking about how people contribute to child raising.
And as I say there are probably too many human beings right now. People who choose not to have children of their own are probably being noble not selfish.
The meaning of the word, homophobia has developed from disgust towards same-sex activity to all forms of negative discrimination and dismissal. It's true that this causes (minor) problems if one person is using it without the connotations of disgust and the other isn't, but it's not the only word of which that's true.
And I only ever see it applied in this context. Not in the context of explaining to a post-menopausal woman why she can't marry. Or requiring ANY straight couple to undergo fertility tests.
So if you want to understand why things like that come across as homophobic, this is why. A failure to consistently apply the claimed arguments/logic in other contexts besides the context of trying to politely say that homosexual stuff is inferior.
They don't?
And the analogy of food doesn't, IMO, prove your point, because there are valid objections to eating with no reference to nourishing the body. Generally, the Christian Church avoids food related issues (SDAs apart if you count them), but a Christian ethic of food consumption could well be based on nutrition as the primary purpose, and counsel against certain types of indulgence. And admonitions against gluttony are as common as those concerned with sex, as I read the NT.
A Christian ethic of food consumption could well be based on such things.
Here in the real world, meanwhile, it isn't. Marvin has in fact neatly illustrated for me that it isn't the church leading any kind of moral charge on how to eat. It's the marketing departments of publishing companies.
It seems to me you don't actually understand my point, which is not about what could be argued in theory, it's about what is actually argued in practice. In practice, people raise procreation only in the context of homosexual couples, not in all the other contexts where procreation doesn't occur. In practice, you've said yourself that the church avoids food related issues. In other words, right after saying the analogy didn't prove my point, you actually agreed with my point.
My point being that a theoretical consistency isn't applied. The notions are selectively applied in practice, and they're applied to say that homosexual sex falls short of some norm. Never mind just how much non-procreative sex goes on in the world, when talking about gays people suddenly decide that the point of sex is procreation.
Despite you claiming that's a red herring, it's exactly the angle that is taken because people think that's a way of differentiating homosexual activity. Despite you thinking no-one ever takes that line, I spent a very long time on the former version of the Ship having heated arguments with a guy named Ingo who doggedly insisted on various RC notions of how sex needed to be open to procreation in order to be licit. Most of these arguments occurred in Hell where I was licensed to tear him apart, and did.
Ah but is using whips "most fitting"? I think we should be told.
Yep.
I've suddenly remembered one of Ingo's ridiculous arguments, which is that it was perfectly acceptable to use knowledge of a woman's menstrual cycle to have sex on the days when she wasn't actually fertile (I seem to recall a woman is only fertile for a few days each month?), but that this was somehow still "open to procreation" despite a pregnancy being against all known rules of biology.
Because you see, apparently God is not all-knowing and is actually a bit of an idiot. He knows less about procreation than we do, and He can be conned just by ensuring He sees a penis and a vagina in proximity.
God's reported ability to generate his own incarnation without a penis being present is also somehow irrelevant to these theories about what's required for the right kind of sex.
I think it is, but it's a personal view. Sex is an intense expression of love, for some people, (and I thought this idea is found in some religions). However, I'm not denigrating trainspotting or bridge.
The idea that sex is about procreation can only be maintained by those who haven't had sex. A mores sensible view of what sex is and why it feels the way it does might be got from studying biology and psychology.
Did Jesus ever say anything about sex?
But back to sex and procreation, given that MrJt9 has had the snip (3 children being plenty, thank you) we had best give up sex immediately.
Ha ha. Not bloody likely.
And that I can say that, without any fear of a ticking off from the church, shows how homophobic the set up is. No one cares about my sex life, but they care a lot about the sex lives of gay people. And they only care about them because they’re gay.
(Typos, typos everywhere!)
Because some ideas within Christianity have wanted to take away the pleasure aspects, they have increased the nonpleasurable aspects, particularly power motives, depression and anxiety, aggression. God will ask each of us in our post-life interviews (I hope there are no movies of my life) why we didn't enjoy more sunsets, tasty food, candle light, orgasms. There is a special place in Heaven for the likes of Sts Paul, Augustine, most of the RC popes and TV evangelists, and the entire membership of Temperance Movements, and Legions of Morality, as may exist under various other names, where they wear very tight underwear and drink only herbal tea.
The Bible comments about behavioural standards but none of this consistently relates to how people relate or ought to related towards each other. The spirit determines what is acceptable and we only know with certainty the will of the spirit by completely submitting to God's overwhelming, everlasting love. So you can claim that we reject types of relationship; but I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to God's judgment. You will be able to enter God's presence and the community of heaven ONLY and ONLY IF you are MORE [ie MORE] faithful than those who teach the bible and try to say what God wants.
As a former proponent and defender of it, I am sorry @ThunderBunk.
It was decided that the Christian view of morality is only and exclusively about sex. The Seven One Deadly Sins.
Because why would the church concentrate on a non-sin like gluttony?
They start by implying that human's early diet and health were inherently good. This is rubbish. Early humans often suffered malnutrition and typically died younger. Early man did not get they got enough to survive well enough to breed the next generation. They are selling a myth to sell products.
Our bodies crave fat and sugar because they are calorie dense and that helped our species survive. Sex feels good for the same reason.
One can see food as fuel² and still eat poorly. The problem with our modern world is we do not constantly move around as we evolved to do and because it is easier to obtain food which is calorie dense.
¹ For a site promoting food as fuel, it seems odd that they feel the need to add flavours to their products. Hmmmm...
² I know some people like this, some of whom are fat.
And as to the social aspect, how many friends of yours would accept your invitations if the food you served was merely nutritions and not also tasty?
"John throws a hell of a dinner party, I received just the 650 calories I needed for that portion of my day!"
Isn't it also true that the C of E painted itself into a corner in the 1970s? As I recall, it had been moderately supportive of reform, leading to the 1967 legalization. But then it was outflanked by the more secular gay groups, who in some ways resented Christians, seeing them as patronizing and moralistic, and also conservative Christians didn't like the more liberal position. Of course, this is all hazy now, maybe you have more accurate recall.
Re: IngoB. I have never shared his view on this and still do not. Though I enjoyed his posts and miss him a bit. But as of now, I am not comfortable with denying that " homosexual sex falls short of some norm", for those for whom heterosexual sex it is a genuine possibility.
You may think I am making light of this when I quote "weep with those who weep" as something which, because my character precludes it, I cannot be bound by it. Believe me there are other areas in which this applies. I am not offended by those who believe that inability to express the normal range of emotions is, in and of itself, a disadvantage, but there is no point me worrying about it.
And in that context, it appears mostly about the shape of body parts.
But this type of reasoning doesn't appear to work in many other contexts; the shape of human toes suggests it is most fitting to walk around shoeless. The shape of lower limbs suggests it is most fitting to walk rather than use mechanised transport. The susceptibility of humans to disease suggests it is most fitting for humans to mostly die of easily preventable diseases rather than having medical treatment.
We are not just a collection of things that are "most fitting" based on observable characteristics of the human body.
Literally nobody thinks that.
Or something.
Why?
Sex releases endorphins that trainspotting and bridge do not, if I remember my non-extensive, non-recent reading.
Ofeo is well aware of this, and quoted IngoB on the subject. The RC claim that sex with a condom (98% efficiency in theory, more like 85% in practice) is wrong, whereas natural family planning (which can be 99% effective in theory) is perfectly OK is manifest nonsense.
This view seems to completely ignore the way that people actually behave.
To be clear, we are talking about sex within the context of a committed relationship. I think it's clear that casual promiscuity does not meet the Christian ideal, so we're not talking about people who are looking for some kind of sex at all. If you're looking for someone to have sex with, you're doing the wrong thing regardless of what sex of person you're looking for.
People who are bisexual (those who you seem to be addressing in this comment) do not, as a rule, decide that their next partner should be of a particular sex, and then restrict their search to members of that sex. They meet someone, there's a mutual attraction, and a relationship progresses from there.
What you're really asking here is for bisexual people to reject the possibility of a relationship with a member of the same sex, and hold out for a suitable member of the opposite sex to come along.
Well, bridge, then.
(and for the first time, you lucky people)
Hosts have requested that this thread move to Epiphanies. I have opened the vortex and hopefully I can navigate the warp successfully.
DT
Admin
Can posters not familiar with the slightly different ethos of Epiphanies, please (re)acquaint themselves here.
DT
Admin
If you think children are the dividing line, then on one side of the line you have straight and gay childless couples, and on the other side you have straight and gay families. If you think it's specifically procreation that matters, then the side of the line opposite straight biological families contains straight and gay childless couples, straight adoptive couples, and gay adoptive families.
Maybe it's a case of whatever floats your boat.
Dorothy Riddle of the American Psychological Association (1973-1974) came up with this continuum of homophobia:
Point is, homophobia is not just black or white, you have it or you don't, but that each of us are likely on this scale and, in fact, may move up or down it given different circumstances.