Reconciling the bible, homosexuality, and liberalism

[Prism]

There's a person. We'll call her X. She's a Christian and a Democrat. Whenever the issue of gay marriage comes up, she'll mention tepid support for gay marriage on constitutional grounds, but then immediately emphasize a great deal how homosexuality is a sin, the Bible is quite explicit on it, etc.

This jars. I'm fairly tolerant of religion and don't seek to denigrate anyone purely on their faith-based beliefs. However, whenever I hear "It's a sin" out of a Democrat, my hackles go up. I realize the President espouses this same attitude, but he's a distant figure and uninvolved in the situation I'm referencing.

Does anyone else have trouble reconciling this dissonance between liberalism and believing LGBTers are against God? It seems like quite a chasm to bridge, and I can't entirely understand how some people manage it.

This person is also always quick to explain how "There are larger issues and gays should wait" kind of attitude in political discussions. I can't help feeling like that "It's a sin" attitude is underlying her every comment on gay politics. I admit, every time we discuss LGBT politics in relation to this administration, I'm starting to hear "You're a flaming bigot" running through my mind.

Is this fair?

[Fire1]

1. Is what fair? n/t

[Prism]

3. That I think the person is a flaming bigot . . ,

. . . even though she expresses some support for gay marriage in secular realm, she's always remarking on its "sinfulness".

[Fire1]

7. I don't think it's fair because both can be acknowledged in

it's own context.

[nosmokes]

2. WTF is a sin in a civil context?

If it ain't agin the law it ain't a sin so keep the bible out of the Constitution.

[RainDog]

6. exactly. get the stupidity of the religious out of public life. it stinks from its staleness. n/t

[donco6]

4. It's like my sister, I tell ya.

She's a fundie Christian. Makes no bones about it. Sends me those dumbass emails about "liberals" this and "war on Christmas" that. You know the type. But she'll keep in touch, sending me birthday cards and a Christmas (explicitly CHRISTMAS) gift. I can just see her in her little fundie church, nodding in agreement to the "Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin" bullshit that they spout every so often. And all the while, I'm thinking, "You know, the only reason she's not selling you down the river is because a) there's no one buying my scalp just yet; and b) she knows if she does she can never stay at the cabin again. And that would REALLY suck."

And that's the same way with politicians of any stripe. I'm done with the lot of them. All they want is something FROM you - they're not interested in GIVING anything TO you. Especially gays, who are - after all - kinda icky around the edges, you know? They are fine with inviting us to their parties, but they don't REALLY want their picture with us. You never know where THAT'll turn up, right? And when we're around, they just HAVE to try to imagine what we do in bed with whom . . . it's in their nature to go right to the gutter. We just don't have anything to offer them - well, except our money, of course.

So, in short, I don't know that they really try that hard to "bridge any chasms." They just believe we are all buying their load of bullshit about "support for the community" and "working hard for GLBT rights" when in reality they'd really rather we just go home and do what we . . . ahem . . . do.

[Prism]

13. I hear you

I've done a pretty decent job of bringing most of my Catholic family around, but there are those who are unassailable and who are precisely where your sister is.

[RainDog]

5. "they should wait" was the classic response by white xtians to civil rights/MLK

it's never a good time to accept others' humanity and acknowledge their oppression.

frankly, "it's a sin" is such a totally fucking stupid argument for any christian to make since, as christians they sin all the time and don't think that means they should have no civil rights under the law.

but then, religion is famous for making hate "safe."

just ask women.

[droidamus2]

8. Just maybe...

That is why so many of us progressives/liberals are really pissed. We have been told over and over since probably the early '70's that the Democratic party given a chance will push our point of view. Yet, everytime we work hard and get Democrats elected we are told 'nows not the time.You just have to wait'. Let them wait it is time to push for progress, to help all the people not just the few money hungry jerks.

[Prism]

15. It reminds me of the theory of relativity

As Democratic administrations move past, time for LGBTers slows to a crawl and we wonder why our rights are suddenly wading through political molasses.

[Prism]

14. Some sins are more equal than others

That's what always gets me. "We're all sinners" but clearly there is something written in the Bible - perhaps on the jacket - that indicates homosexuality is the greater crime.

[lazarus]

31. well, it's clearly important

that's why homosexuality is in the Ten Commandments. And why Jesus spoke about it so much.

Oh.

[LostInAnomie]

9. It's not the government's job to legislate against "sin".

That's not really your question though.

The Bible doesn't really delve into the subject of homosexuality in the terms that we use now. It uses more obtuse language, which some scholars feel was mostly used as a means to demonize the Romans who had more relaxed ideas of sexuality.

That still won't win you an argument though. What is important to remember is that the Bible is pretty specific about the sinful nature of many of the things that are commonplace today. Jesus speaks about the sinful nature of greed, but our whole economic system runs on it. He was VERY specific about divorce being a sin and how second marriages would be considered adultery, but we don't even bat an eye at them anymore. Throw premarital sex, and the saturation of our culture with pornography and other images meant to inspire lust and we are living in a hot bed of sin that very few people care about or are moved to change. To single out homosexuality as sinful and ignore other sins is hypocritical. That's probably one of the reasons Jesus felt that it was important to remove the plank from your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from another's eye. You are responsible for your own salvation, not for forcing others to live what you consider a pious life.

[Prism]

19. Churches don't seem to do a good job of educating

Although, to be fair, a lot of my LGBT brethren also aren't aware of things like the Biblical origins of the Corinthian admonition. There's this entire context about Roman pagan rituals and tradition that are never mentioned. All it does is serve to intensify the authoritarian pose of the religion. It all gets reduced to "Because God said so" instead of "Because Paul, anti-sex martinet that he was, didn't really like what he saw."

[TexasObserver]

10. It's a sin alright. A sin to believe some ancient goat herder's version of God.

[Prism]

16. I try not to argue it, really

Whenever possible, I attempt to move around or under their religious beliefs in a kind of gentle nudging. Organized religion isn't my favorite entity in the universe, but I know a brick wall when I see one.

[caitxrawks]

11. i don't understand it either.

Seriously. I hear it EVERYWHERE. "I have X amount of gay/lesbian/transgendered friends, and I love them dearly, but I let them know that I'm against it because it's in the Bible and God says it's a sin."

BAWWWWWW.

That's like saying "I hang around with tons of murderers and drug dealers, but I constantly tell them how wrong I think it is."

I have the hunch that a lot of people make things up on the internet...

[Prism]

17. It's the strangest thing

I always want to ask people with that dichotomy, "If it's as horrible as you seem to be implying, how on earth did I make it into your home?! My god, save yourself and your children! Run!"

I think much of it is simply reflexive.

[ZombieHorde]

40. Welcome to DU.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. It seems like a chasm because it *is* a chasm.

>>>>It seems like quite a chasm to bridge, and I can't entirely understand how some people manage it.>>>>

X may be a pleasant well-meaning person, but she is playing hide and seek with herself. Anyone who's "against homosexuality" or against equality for GLBTs because she read that homosexuality is evil in a 4000 year-old book (... including the president, if that's what he thinks), is neither liberal nor progressive in the generally accepted use of those terms.

Edit to add: nor kind, nor rational, nor honest.

[Prism]

18. But at least there's some bridge, right?

I haven't entirely worked out what I think. On the one hand, I very much appreciate the recognition that civil law and religious beliefs are separate. That, to me, is definitely progress - especially when we're talking with someone who is obviously religiously conservative. But the almost superfluous, "But the Bible says . . ." trips wiring in my noggin. As soon as I hear it, the secular support almost takes a backseat to an automatic impulse to see a bigot in front of me.

It certainly strikes me as bigotry, but then there's the secular support.

Well, stated secular support. I have no idea what people do in private or in the voting booth. I cannot dismiss out of hand there is a bit of "the liberalism of the public square" where people say what they think is the socially approved response but privately hold vastly different views.

[Smarmie Doofus]

26. The biblical stuff is too silly to argue.

She adheres to this POV for psychological reasons.... and not for political or religious ones. Whether she's a bigot or not is pretty much beside the point. I'd say she is... but she can't help it. At least not as long as she tells herself its a "moral" issue and the bible is somehow involved.

I think poster # 21 is very close to the mark.

Edit to add: re. the bridge: it's indeed better that she at least nominally supports GLBTs on a political level... if indeed that's what she does. People often do the right thing after wrestling with mixed emotions. But frankly, she sounds more than a little confused.

[Odin2005]

20. Yep, she's a bigot.

proof that religion turns good people bad. :(

[jgraz]

22. Yep. Otherwise, she'd be just as threatened by poly/cotton blends.

And shrimp.

[Jamastiene]

24. And lobster and the use of rabbits as food.

They are just using the Bible as an excuse for their bigotry.

[dorkulon]

21. Don't be fooled by the religious veneer; it's simple bigotry.

The bible is quite explicit about a lot of "sins," such as eating shellfish and disobeying your husband. People choose to observe and emphasize the bits that correspond with the way they feel about things. Your friend doesn't think homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so, although it does make an easy, inarguable excuse for her preexisting feelings about it.

A lot of people register a disgust response to their first encounter of the idea of homosexuality, and they take that initial feeling to mean something important. They make biological arguments, as in "that's not how nature intended it" etc. But when it comes right down to it, it's not really a moral judgment they're making, but an aesthetic one, as in, "that's gross." I admit that was my first reaction to the concept of homosexuality as a pubescent boy, but when I found out at 13 one of my teachers--a great teacher--was gay, I thought a little harder about it, and ten minutes later I had realized his preference had no bearing on anything, akin to liking some food that I detested, and I was over it. Some people are just unable or unwilling to think past the disgust response. It has been demonstrated fairly recently that people with a higher sensitivity to disgust tend to be more politically conservative, and I'd say that's fairly obvious. They find anything they're unfamiliar with -- foreigners, for instance -- distasteful, and they take their own distaste to indicate a morally wrong state. They confuse a mental reaction which originally warned us away from bad food with an internal meter of moral rectitude. Then they grasp about for rationalizations to support the feeling, religiosity being the usual candidate. But if you strip away all the arguments, they will still insist that it's "just wrong."

[Smarmie Doofus]

23. Uncommonly perceptive observation:

>>>>But when it comes right down to it, it's not really a moral judgment they're making, but an aesthetic one, as in, "that's gross.">>>

[dorkulon]

33. Thanks :) nt

[Berry Cool]

25. DINGDINGDINGDING! We have a winner.

It is my personal belief that ALL homophobia is, at heart, seated in the "disgust response": i.e., a person getting "grossed out" by thought of the physical act (and you know I'm not talking about women here--but that's precisely it; ask yourself why there's not nearly as much active hatred of lesbians as of gay men and there you have your answer). All the religious stuff some people spew, citing any book from any religion, as their "reason" for being opposed to homosexuality is just window dressing for their real problem with it.

[dorkulon]

32. Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking this.

Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking this. I think it's fairly obvious, but such a touchy subject that it's generally left unsaid. No one on our side wants to admit that they were ever "grossed out" by homosexuality (to be honest, I half-expected to be bashed thoroughly as a bigot for my comment), and no one on the other side wants to admit that that's all it is, and all their sanctimony is just a cover for their irrational visceral disgust.

There is another layer, I think, for the worst, most overt and violent homophobes, and that's suppressed homosexuality. There's a study I've cited around here before that sheds some light on that:

J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5.

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

* Adams HE,
* Wright LW Jr,
* Lohr BA.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Only one study, of course. But tell me it doesn't make sense.

[dmallind]

43. Probably true for many...BUT

without getting too prurient, there is little physiological difference based on gender as regards the body parts subject to penetration in gay male sex. And if we have a female on the receiving end of the equation rather than a male, we have some of the most popular and mainstream hetero porn, widely accepted as relatively vanilla. Since I doubt one man out of 100 could tell the difference between male and female subjects where he blindfolded with his hands behind his back, and since he would almost certainly enjoy the experience regardless, I'm not sure where the "gross" factor comes into it.

[lazarus]

44. You're only thinking one way

The "gross" comes in when you reverse the equation and the man is on the receiving end. Oral enters into it, too.

[dmallind]

45. Well I thought of that but I still can't get the gross factor

Obviously hetero men are fond of women who do those things, and do not consider them gross. Of course gender roles are perceived as being different but still - you would expect only 50% "gross factor" feelings related to gay sex participants on the "receiving end" even so, and I've never heard that differentiation in those folks who think of gay sex as "icky".

[lazarus]

46. before I realized I'm bi

I remember having a bit of that ick factor, but for the life of me I can't remember why. It was just that homophobia infused the culture, I guess. I spent my teen years in fundy Alabama, so maybe that's part of it.

Of course, when that preacher made a pass at me, I still went "ick". :evilgrin:

[DevonRex]

29. Agreed. It's their EXCUSE for the bigotry they love. I've found that

fundies simply love to think they're better than other people. And I've found that for some reason, fundies are bigoted in LOTS of areas, not just the ones about "sin" but race, ethnicity and all that, too.

[lazarus]

35. exactly right

I had the same reaction as an ignorant young person. Over time I moved to acceptance, then I found out I'm bi. Imagine that.

Check out the DVD "For the Bible Tells Me So." It's about several families with grown homosexual children, and how they react. Turns out, the ones who have a problem with it aren't really using the bible, they're just obsessed with the sex part.

[MikeH]

37. I have seen such disgust expressed at something else that is outside the norm in this society

A lot of people register a disgust response to their first encounter of the idea of homosexuality, and they take that initial feeling to mean something important. They make biological arguments, as in "that's not how nature intended it" etc. But when it comes right down to it, it's not really a moral judgment they're making, but an aesthetic one, as in, "that's gross."

I myself am definitely heterosexual; I am not gay and am not bi. I am a male whose sexual attractions have always been toward women.

However I do have a strong liking and attraction for something that is outside the norm in this society. I have always had a liking body hair on women, particularly hair on women's legs, arms, underarms, and in more private and intimate places on a woman's body.

It has often bothered me a lot that just about anything else has been acceptable in this society at some time since the 1960's, except for natural body hair on women.

Even in threads on DU about hairy legs or about body hair on women there have been many responses such as "gross", "disgusting", or "nauseating". In fact one person at one time even said it was wrong. I have considered such responses to be very thoughtless and very small-minded. Even if one might oneself not like or not prefer body hair on women, that does not mean that it is "gross" or "disgusting" for somebody else to have such or to like such. In fact I have pointed out in response to such judgments about female body hair that they are no different from the same judgments made about homosexual attraction, or to gay or lesbian sex.

[jdp349]

42. Great explanation

I encounter this all the time when I debate someone who opposes gay marriage for religious reasons. It doesn't take much to expose the true underlying bigotry.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Is it fair? Meaning; "I'm starting to hear "You're a flaming bigot" running through my mind."?

Yes, that is quite fair. One doesn't need to be Miss Cleo with her tarot cards to know "'dis gal...she be wanting to deny us rights and pretend Jesus is OK wit dat."

Love you, your politics, and your luggage, but, darlin', you have to realize there should be NO trouble reconciling dissonance between liberalism and bigotry. There is none; the issue is "liberals," not liberalism. There is this asinine belief that "liberals" can't be bigots. It isn't true, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are some liberals, including members of this site, who are raging bigots. It may not be against gays, but bigotry is no stranger to this site or any site. There are trolls here who are protected in their bigotry depending on the target group; there are ones who "think" they are victims, and those who take advantage of bigotry to their own ends.

Bigotry knows no bounds. Not religion, not science, not logic, not anything...there always seems to be a "loophole" in every group where bigotry rears its head. All we can do is continue to educate, fight, and defend, and then, then, we will be equal.

When some realize "the gAyTM" is closed, they will panic, because for every "faggot" and "dyke" at this site, there are hundreds of thousands more AND their loved ones that will be unwilling to give away money and things will change**.

** For those who will scream, "OH...Things would be SOOOO much better under McCain/Palin," well, see, you brain-dead uber-fucks, we already know that wouldn't be true. We aren't delusional, unlike you, and know we wouldn't do any better under them. Here's the real test for you: if things wouldn't be better for us OR YOU, then why not support us in our struggle for equality?! Unless, of course, you're a raging bigot too! The "big tent" should include us; you want our money, secure our rights, or do the obvious...CONVERT...McCalin/Palin will need your kind!

[DevonRex]

28. I always tell people like this that Jesus never spoke a single word about

homosexuality. And if it were a terrible sin, like the fundies believe, wouldn't he have mentioned it at least once?

And if that doesn't work, I talk about casting stones. I hate that argument, though. That's why I ONLY use it if the person is absolutely unwilling to budge.

As to the "gays should wait" thing, I ask them to imagine for a few minutes that they live in a world where ONLY gays can marry. And where ONLY gays were welcome in church. And where suspected heterosexuals were followed about to document their orientation. And then were fired because of it. Or were beaten to death and left hanging on a fence because of it.

Unfortunately that argument rarely reaches a conclusion because for some reason they can't imagine a world in which they are NOT the priviledged ones. To them it just couldn't happen because they think they're special.

Of note, I HAVE had a successful conversation with a brother-in-law who's a fundie. He is also a veteran and served with 1 man that he knew was gay. So I asked how he felt serving with him and if he was a good soldier. My brother-in-law admitted that he was a fine person and a good soldier and that he never once felt uncomfortable with him. I count that as my one little victory in the many conversations I've had with my fundie relatives. OTOH, he voted for the Constitution Party candidate in 08. So the victory was short lived.

[Meshuga]

30. Have you ever asked her whether she believes a gay person is born gay or...

...whether she thinks it is a choice?

If she says that gays are born that way (and have no choice) then ask her why God would make such a person just to torture that person whose "god given nature" is to commit this "horrible sin?"

But if she says that it is a choice then I think it is proof that she thinks less of you (if you are gay, of course) and she is probably not a good friend to keep.

[marginlized]

34. Been there too

There are so many chasms between the bronze age desert dwellers and the modern religious. It never makes sense precisely which chasms are ignored or not. But when a chasm is finally ignored, it just ceases to be part of their religion.

I've parted ways with people over this. When you get that "but you're a good person" with the implied "except for that gay part" to your face, it's time.

[Laura902]

36. If god existed....

...then we can assume from all the stories he created EVERYTHING, including human beings and if he created human beings then he created them both heterosexual and homosexual because it has been proved by science and seen in nature by animals who exhibit the same behavior, that homosexuality is not a personal choice but rather that a person is born that way. Saying this is a sin is not only ignorant and homophobic but it can cause damage to gay children, adolescents and even adults who are constantly subjected to intolerance-THAT is the real sin! I believe not letting someone be who they truly are and discriminating against them is a sin that (if we are still assuming god existed)-should be just as punishable as "thou shall not dishonor thy mother and father" or "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor". But of course if god existed he wouldn't have let ancient men create a book so intolerant.

[DeadEyeDyck]

38. Look, too many are missing the point...

someone said it already in this thread but I am going to take it a step further. Whether gay marraige is right or wrong is outside of the law. And most of you would do best to not go after those who do not like it. I know that sounds painful.


You want to earn the respect of those that uphold individual rights? You use their argument. You say that you are the sole property of your existence and have a right to engage in a relationship with any other existence. Don't fight the religious argument. You owe your life and have a right to do with is as you wish. The most reluctant libertarian will agree. Why do you think you have Ted Olsen, Bob Barr and Jonathan Hoenig on your side? They do not have dog in the race but they do see this as a violation of human rights. That must always be the basis of your argument.

Oh yeah, you will have to become Republicans since they believe that rights are universal.

>>>>I will leave the comment stand for the moment<<<<

[DeSwiss]

39. "This person is also always quick to explain how...."

...There are larger issues and gays should wait kind of attitude in political discussions."

- Yes, yes, yes, of course. And I've heard it all before. All the excuses and rationales for delay. Then someone wrote a book explaining:

[ZombieHorde]

41. Some people worship their own world view and call it God.

Person X is a bigot.