facebook debate

So, evidently there's a Facebook group with a whopping 4 members called "I Don't Support GLBTQIA." It's at
http://wustl.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2200167727

Being the sort of person I am, in reading a post by the creator, I found myself simply itching to reply, so I joined the group long enough to post and here is the result. Am I just out of my mind here or do I know what I'm talking about?

*********************************************

Kristal Matlock wrote on May 13, 2005 at 5:35 PM

I'm a fairly conservative person and I feel like I deserve to have an opinion too. I don't support GLBTIQ because of my faith. In the Bible it says that homosexual activity is wrong and unnatural (Romans 1:18-32). This denounces the activity not the person. I try to treat everyone with respect and kindness. That does not mean I have support your views. I just want to be heard like eveyone else. This is not a personal attack, just a way to show the other side of the issue.

*********************************************

Post #2
1 reply
You replied to Kristal's post on Apr 18, 2006 at 2:51 PM

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.


Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating?

Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22). So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or--at best--unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." Lynne Lavner

*********************************************

Post #3
1 reply
Andrew Wong replied to your post on Apr 19, 2006 at 10:38 PM

I agree with you that there are some commands in the Bible which seem silly to us now, but which may have made more sense back then. There are also some commands which still seem pretty relevant - basic things like "Don't kill," and "Don't steal," which are shared by some other world religions and most governments. I think what you're getting at, though, is not this theological debate. (There are various reasons Christians are no longer bound by some commands. Some only applied to certain peoples, for example. Other things were changed by the New Covenant). Now I may be wrong, but I don't think that stuff is really all that important to you, since this is a group about GLBTIQ matters and not a religious group. The thing is, the Bible says a lot, some of it you might not agree with, some you might. I think it's arbitrary to throw the condemnation of homosexual sex into the "irrelevant category" just like that. That's the way it seems to me. I can elaborate on why I think homosexuality is addressed in the Bible as something which is still relevant for us, whereas some of those things aren't, but if I had to guess, I would say that's not your point.

I think a better way to talk about the issue might be to leave the Bible out of it, since I don't think you and I regard it in the same way. There's no common ground there, so it's pointless to try to stand on it. If we do leave the Bible out, if we remove that as a thing for millions of Americans to lean on, then I think there's still something else. I think a lot of Americans, when talking about homosexual sex ask, "What's good for our country? Our community?" There are some inherent health risks to homosexual activity which can't be made safe. They can be minimized, and that's good, but the risk can't be removed. Now this has nothing to do with homosexuals themselves. Homosexuals are to be respected as the human beings of dignity and worth that they are. But the practice of homosexual sex simply entails health risks, and these risks are shared by everyone. No matter how much homosexuals _don't_ want AIDS to be spread to non-homosexuals (and I don't doubt that we're all against the spread of AIDS), the fact we can't deny is that homosexual activity harms others in this way. I think that reasonable people on both sides of the issue sincerely wish this weren't the case, but it is, and we can't ignore it. I'm not saying we ought to outlaw homosexuality because it presents health risks to the public, but at the same time I don't feel compelled to encourage it. That's why I'm a member of this group.

PS - The little story is actually very, very funny. I laughed out loud when I read it. I'm not gonna lie. Of course I don't agree that all the rules in the Bible are absurd and everything, but it's still very clever. I DO agree with that quotation by Lynne Lavner. Heterosexuals probably do need more supervision, and certainly just as much, if not more, forgiveness.

*********************************************

Post #4
You replied to Andrew's post 4 minutes ago

I feel that you're a genuinely good person and I fully respect your obvious intelligence, ability to argue effectively, and friendly demeanor.
I just wanted that said.

But to my point, I did not mean to say that the Bible is absurd. I was raised Christian and have often found much needed clarity within its pages. I only meant to suggest that one should not denounce something solely on the basis that scripture says it is wrong. This suggests a blind following which is never good in the long run. That is one of the reasons I respect you; I can tell by the way you present your views that you have indeed put thought into them.

As to your case here, you make very good points, and yet I cannot wholly agree. Plainly, I resent the modern spread of AIDS being blamed on "homosexuals." Being gay does not equal having AIDS and having AIDS does not equal being gay. It just doesn't add. Is non-monogamous sex a bit more risky? Sure. Of course. But it is just as easy for a straight person to sleep around and spread STDs as it for a gay person to do so.

On this same vein, I wonder at your overall message here. You state that you would not wish to outlaw homosexuality (which is good since it would involve quite an intrusion on personal life by the government, and would be terribly hard to enforce besides). You seem have this feigned passivity about the subject, isisting that it is only that you "dont feel compelled to encourage [homosexuality]," which your arguments and your very membership in this group seem to speak against. This statement is passive, undeniably meant to disarm your opposition by giving them something they cannot argue with. I certainly cannot find anything wrong with simply refraining from encouraging something. Yet you are obviously actively discouraging both homosexuality and any future possibility of widespread societal acceptance of such, which I cannot so easily accept. The negative attitudes and fears concerning homosexuality that you express here are exactly what keeps the hate and fear and violence going.

Don't you see? Without true acceptance, free of stigmas such as homosexual=AIDS carrier, there cannot be peace. Homosexuals will remain homosexual. They will keep falling in love. And yes, they will keep having sex. And people will go on hating them and hurting them, if for no other reason than for the very fact that they were told that such people spread AIDS and are a risk to society. Whatever risk does exist (which I will again mention cannot be laid on the shoulders of homosexual individuals alone) will not go away by merit of your disapproval. So either we can all sit around with our respective views, passive-agressively approving or disapproving, or we could actually do something about it. So if you're not going to outlaw extra-marital sex (which we have established is pretty much impossible and undesirable in practice) and you want to continue the claim that a threat to society does exist, then perhpas you should give a thought toward making this world safer for homosexuals, making it a place where they can live and marry just like anyone else. I do not, quite obviously, think that you would devote your energies to such a thing. Which leaves you with an issue and no firm solution. Not quite a comfortable place to sit for one who actually cares about the state of our society and country as a whole.

That is really what this is all about for me. I support GLBTQIA because in lack of any support, these individuals will keep on existing and will be subject to years upon years upon decades of ill-will, stigma, and violence. I know you do not support such things; I would not even attempt to suggest you might. I know we reach an agreement on the idea that all of Gods' children deserve to be loved and protected right where they are in life at all times in life. I'm not asking for you to join the fight. I'm not asking you to give up your beliefs. I'm not asking you to support something you don't belive is right; certainly not. But I find it very important for you to realize that the sort of things you say in any kind of public setting which promote homophobic ideas can be very actively harmful to the innocent members of GLBTQIA communities as well as anyone perceived (correctly or otherwise) to be associated with those communities.