This is an update to “Am I homophobic?”, a post I wrote in 2008, in the dying days of President Bush II.
The main points I made in 2008:
- I found sex between men disgusting and immoral, sex between women hot but still immoral.
- I hate the sin but not the sinner. We are all sinners. I am no different.
- I do not believe in same-sex marriage.
- If my son came out, I would be saddened but would not disown him.
- I have to function from some set of moral beliefs. Mine are mainly Catholic for both religious and practical reasons.
Most of the post was spent making the second point. Even when I talk about racism, something I am more used to talking about, it is a difference I have a hard time explaining. Or others have a hard time understanding. I think it is because of the way some people were brought up by their parents, which no amount of words on my part can overcome.
My view has since shifted. Back then I saw gays and lesbians mainly as sinners. Now I see them mainly as a persecuted minority in need of protection.
I believe in pluralistic democracy: live and let live. The law is not there to save souls but to save lives. It is to give us a way to all live together without killing each other. Yes, I know, in practice the law for the most part is used to make theft by the rich respectable. But we are talking about my beliefs and ideals.
A huge danger in any democracy is persecution by the majority. US history is full of that. So is the news – it is still going on. You see that now plain as day with immigration. Politicians will whip up the hatreds of the majority to win public office and then write those hatreds into law. So as a voter I must not give into that.
Therefore I am now for same-sex marriage to protect their rights. It still goes against my own ideas of marriage, but this is not a theocracy nor should it be. It is not my right to impose my beliefs on others.
I do not like saying that – because now I am sounding just like my father. Word for word. In my youth I saw him as what I called a Cuomo Catholic. Like Mario Cuomo, then the governor of New York (and father of the present governor), he left his Catholic beliefs outside the voting booth. Joe Biden is like that too – along with most Catholics in the north-eastern US it seems. It fits the north-eastern belief that religion is a private matter. Someone like Vice President Pence of the religious right is seen as a troglodyte. But I saw leaving your beliefs outside the voting booth as not only hypocritical, but to enter a moral void with no bearings, no way to make decisions.
– Abagond, 2018.
See also:
- Am I homophobic?
- Moonlight – the comment thread has a discussion on homophobia out of which this post came.
- Joe Biden
- Mike Pence
- The 11 nations of North America
557
“But I saw leaving your beliefs outside the voting booth as not only hypocritical, but to enter a moral void with no bearings, no way to make decisions.”
I think maybe you were confusing a lack of religious beliefs with a lack of moral values, which are two different issues. Conservative politicians often seem to confuse the two, like when they say that mass shootings would disappear if we brought prayer back into the schools (as if reciting certain words automatically results in a greater sense of empathy and responsibility).
Religious beliefs can help people to develop moral values, but they aren’t a necessary part of the process. People in many different times and places have grown up with vastly different religious beliefs (including atheistic ones) but have largely arrived at the same basic moral values that “give us a way to all live together without killing each other.” Some societies exemplify productive values better than others, but I believe these values exist everywhere to some degree.
Where I live, there are many “cafeteria Catholics” who choose which doctrines they find reasonable and helpful. Essentially, they are Catholics in name but Unitarians in practice, with their belief in “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning” (that’s a quote from the Seven Principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association).
We all have to find ideas that give us a sense of significance and hope, but no matter which house of worship (or lack thereof) we choose, we need to adhere to a shared set of productive values. Pluralism is fine for other aspects of life, but in terms of values, we must achieve unity if we want to remain a functioning society.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Back then I saw gays and lesbians mainly as sinners. Now I see them mainly as a persecuted minority in need of protection… therefore I am now for same-sex marriage.”
I’m glad to hear this. I used to be way more homophobic too. In eighth grade, I was afraid to borrow a pencil from a gay boy in case he had AIDS. It’s not like I went to middle school in the Stone Age, either. This would have been in late 2005 or early 2006, more than a year after my state got same-sex marriage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“It fits the north-eastern belief that religion is a private matter.”
Thankfully, North-Westerners hold similar attitudes about religion. That is one reason I left the South years ago. Religion was not only a public matter, many Southerners I grew up with felt that regular “testifying” about their errors and shortcomings were necessary to be a “saved Christian” in good standing.
The Northwest is very much a “live and let live” region. Attitudes and practices around religion, sex, money and politics are primarily seen as private. That can be very jarring to migrants from Texas. (I mentioned Texas because there is a lot of exchange between Washington State and Texas in the form of people and goods.) They move from a state where much of their lives are built around church affiliations to a state where being “unchurched” is not uncommon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What a sell out you are.
You let the opinions of Satan and whatever is focused on in the mainstream media, to form your opinions.
How brainwashed.
If the mainstream media focused on how sex with dogs are normal and anyone who doent agree is discriminatory, would you suddenly start agreeing with that idea?
Learn to think for yourself.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Thank you for the updated post.
LikeLike
Abagond you don’t need to prove anything. Everybody that is straight is slightly uneasy with homosexuality one way or another. But if you’re an empathetic person you can sympathize with homosexuality no matter who you are.
LikeLike
The Main Points Abagond made in 2008
I found sex between men disgusting and immoral, sex between women hot but still immoral.
I hate the sin but not the sinner. We are all sinners. I am no different.
I do not believe in same-sex marriage.
If my son came out, I would be saddened but would not disown him.
I have to function from some set of moral beliefs. Mine are mainly Catholic for both religious and practical reasons.
The Main Points Blakksage made throughout his life, up to 2008 and still does today and absolutely for the remaining balance of his life!
I found the thought of sex between two sweating men or mutual bouncing boring; disgusting and immoral. To me, sex between two women conjures up images as something vile; backsliding and not hot at all but quite chilly or even gall.
I hate the sin and the sinners. Yes, we are all sinners to a certain extent, some more than others. And some rebel against the Most High because they hate structure in life; they hate walking a straight line as possible or following established rule.
Same here, I never did believe in same-sex marriage and nor do I expect that my attitude will ever change. Simply because the heathens currently in authority who pass useless laws stating that I follow or believe in their laws. That will never happen!
If my son stood immediately before and told me that he is coming out of the closet; he better hope that Yah snatch him away from me before I could get my hands on him. And then I would pray that the Most High would NOT have mercy upon his soul.
In 2008, I believed that it was better to live life from a set of guiding principles which was the Bible and still do. Personally, I utilize the Book as a set of instructions; as demarcation guide posts to mark the boundaries of what’s holy and what’s secular; of what’s satanic and what’s righteous and blessed with enough scriptural knowledge to know the difference. And to always remember that my body is a temple not to be defiled in any manner. And do my best to always walk the narrow path of righteousness in the name and sight of the Father and His son, the King of Black Israel.
What, … Catholicism, … huh, I wouldn’t even waste my time delving into that garbage or any other man-made religion!
Abagond, judging you from your posts as of late, you seem to be getting soft, but I’d advise you that it is much more rewarding to stay hard bro!
Selah!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is hilarious:
https://www.salon.com/2016/05/21/the_red_state_gay_porn_habit_why_conservative_states_like_mississippi_and_north_carolina_lead_the_nation_in_same_sex_porn_consumption/
Those that shout the loudest……
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Herneith
Those that shout the loudest indeed.
I have seen this passage from the article to be true over and over again:
Paraphrasing Shakespeare: “The hypocrite doth protest too much, methinks”.
LMAO!
LikeLiked by 2 people
IMHO, i felt like the gunman in the tragic Pulse Night Club shootings might have been a closeted gay man. I know i am playing armchair psychologist but there have been many hypocritical Fundamentalist who like to quote bible scriptures and caught in compromising situations. The ones who are always protesting the loudest are the ones getting caught with their pants down buying trade from male sex workers.
LikeLike
After reading that article and others, I just find it bizarre (I understand but still find it weird), that they are vehemently homophobic more so than the rest of the populace in the States. They are homophobic here in Canada but are more covert and polite about it. I think most people are homophobic in varying degrees whether it be positive or negative stereotypes for example. anyone who tells you differently is full of poopie.
LikeLike
The Deep South especially in the so called Bible Belt is very intolerant of the LBGTQ community, especially in states such as Alabama and Mississippi.
LikeLike
How many Christians claim to hate the sin but love the sinner? (And do they know this idea is based on Hinduism and not the Bible? See O-182). Usually, the claim is made with reference to something serious, such as murder or some other repugnant act. It is also used in connection with those who teach against God’s word, or who oppose God in the vilest of ways. In this Article, we will briefly ask three questions:-
It is my personal view, based on observation, that those who say they ‘love’ the sinner who does something vile, are not being entirely honest… they may want to love the sinner, but inwardly, they do not. Rather, they feel as much disgust as does anyone else. Also, scripture does not exhort us to deal in friendly manner with blatant sinners, this being a natural emotional reaction and not a godly one. I also suspect that those who have had no personal contact with things that are horrendous find it fairly easy to say we should ‘love’ those who are wicked.
http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/christian-life/1843-imprecatory-prayer
Hating the sin but loving the sinner came from the mouth of Gandhi. Basically this Christian website says that a sinner really hates God. So can you love someone that does so?
LikeLike
@MB,
I have attended churches in Tennessee and Alabama, and they tend to preach so much hate about
– racial minorities
– foreigners, including “perpetual foreigners”
– sexual minorities
At one point I had to avoid attending those kinds of churches. But, unfortunately, such places include individuals, including church leaders closely related to me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Jefe:
Very true.
LikeLike
@ Herneith
Brazil is like that in regard to transphobia: they have hideous rates of killing trans people, worse than the US, but lead the world in looking at trans porn.
LikeLike
Nobody chooses their race but everyone can choose their actions.
Aren’t the gays and lesbians also imposing their values on society when they seek to redefine marriage?
State recognition and endorsement is a different matter from leaving people alone.
LikeLike
@Anonymous
Aren’t the gays and lesbians also imposing their values on society when they seek to redefine marriage.
The thing is, ‘marriage’ as defined by your (or any) religion and ‘marriage’ as defined by the government for legal purposes should be different. Shouldn’t they? Governmental endorsement of a particular religion’s definition of marriage is against the constitution isn’t it?
So, if you don’t think your religion should perform religious ceremonial weddings for couples other than a man and a woman, then that’s discrimination, but it’s discrimination based on your religion and I can see why you’d think that’s in a grey area. However, if you don’t think your government should provide a legal “married” status to certain couples based on the fact your religion say’s it’s wrong… well then that’s discrimination by our government based on religious beliefs and that’s clearly not ok.
Exactly! The State should not recognize nor endorse any religion when defining marriage for purposes of taxes, custody, power of attorney, and all the other legal reasons that government is involved in marriage at all.
LikeLike
@Abagond
Can you fix the blockquote at the top of that post and delete this one please?
LikeLike
@Open Minded Observer
Thank you for your explanation. “Marriage” for legal purposes should be defined by law (ie, government) and religious definitions of marriage should be confined to religious purposes.
If you can remember, or if you read about Loving v. Virginia and Naim v. Naim, Judges (and by my personal experience, and lot of the so-called Christian people at that time, including many of my relatives) strongly believed that God did not condone interracial marriage. So, they would utilize a false religious argument to justify laws and legal decisions. The thing is, until 1967, it was the law, so there should not have been any need to appeal to religious beliefs, especially false religious beliefs, to justify any decision or enforcement of existing laws.
There are still many laws in the US which violate civil rights with a rationale based on religious discrimination. We need to take another look at them.
@Anonymous
M-m-m-h.
You cannot choose your parents, but you can choose how wish to identify racially, as that is a social identification. Your racial identification might not match what some others may assign you to be. It may not match your parents or your siblings.
You cannot choose what religion was practiced in your family growing up, But you can certainly choose what religious beliefs and practices you personally want to adopt.
You can choose your sexual behaviour. But you cannot choose your sexual
orientation. That somehow seems to choose you, not the other way around.
Gender Identity – I get the impression that you do not choose this either. It is something in your brain. Sometimes your gender identity might not match what you have been assigned by outsiders or match some of your anatomy. What you do about this is of course your choice.
LikeLike
@Jefe
To be clear, I’m no legal authority or scholar of any kind… I was just weighing in with my thoughts. I agree that there are likely many other laws that could use a review to see if they truly support the idea that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.
As for choosing your racial identity, you’re right, it is a social identification, but Rachel Dolezal tried to choose hers and it didn’t work out very well. Like all of the topics you mentioned, society loves to categorize and push people into neat little made-up boxes. Fortunately, we as individuals can choose not to do that anymore either.
LikeLike
@Open Minded Observer
Yes, there are still some laws or legal practices which appear to violate civil or human rights, but which are justified on the basis of religious freedom (or other “freedom”). They tend to remain thorny issues. I can think of a few.
re: Rachel Dolezal, if she really wanted to insist that she was black, then she should have simply stuck to her guns, ie, “I was born into a white family with white parents, but now I identify as black.” and do not allow any other person to tell her otherwise. I don’t think it is right for anyone to dictate what someone else’s racial identity must be, even if you completely disagree with it.
However, this could create a problem later on. For example, if someone benefited from being “black” (eg, a slot created under some affirmative action scheme) but who is not of measurable African descent, did they break the law? Or what about someone who is of measurable African descent, but who has been living with a different racial identity — can they suddenly switch back to being “black”? A legal challenge could result in either requiring a legal racial assignment, or a dissolution of race-based affirmative action programs.
There is something that is official or legal racial assignment, but that is different from racial identity. For example, Singaporeans have their racial label on their national ID cards, and although most residents’ racial identity match their ID card, many do not. A few years ago, citizens were granted the right to specify a secondary racial identity that might more closely match a racial label that they identify with. But in the US, there is no such thing as legal racial assignment. The closest thing would Native tribal enrollment rosters, which indicate who is and is not a member of a particular tribe, but even that does not correspond exactly to racial identity or social identity. Many tribal members do not live or identify socially as native American, and apart from this, the Supreme
Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation must acknowledge that Black Cherokees are part of the their nation, even if they identify racially as black.
I doubt that, at least for the foreseeable future, there will be any way to assign legal labels of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation to any individual.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I never asked such a question to myself or anybody, because I think it’s natural to feel disgust or aversion against any object as long as it goes together with my human nature. For me, it’s ok to have such feelings agains a SSS stupidity.
About twenty years ago I used to think of a female-to-female sex as ‘hot’, too. Now I see that there is nothing ‘hot’ there. Lesbians, the real ones, are normally as cold as a coldest of all the cold hells could be. Some of them used to be my friends in this life of mine, but those connections are lost since I changed my attitude towards SS sexual practicies from indifferent to counter-aggressive.
I believe that someone’s personal tastes are a matter of the personality only. A private one. Unless I’m searching for a new woman, I don’t care about anyone’s sexual preferences, nor do I want to know about it and it is my right not to.
The so-called ‘lbgtq civil rights movement’ is. in fact. a travesty of the sixties’ civil rights movement, wich ruins the very ideas of freedom and civil rights. And it’s even worse than just a harmless travesty; in fact, it opposes the very idea of democracy and a civil society, trying to take control over a natural reaction of aversion and disgust, the instinctive mechanism of which is similar to that of ‘uncanny valley’ and replace it with acceptance of weird patterns through a sence of false tolerance and guilt.
A democracy could be threatened not just a ‘persecution of majority’; in these days, a democracy can also fall under a threat of passive agressivity and taking superficial similarity between a sexual and a racial (or any other biological) minority as a fact, not as a fake or a logical fallacy.
Therefore I am indifferent to the so-called ‘lbgtq civil rights movement’ and strongly oppose it whenever it comes along my personal space, including my informational milieu.
LikeLike
@ A Russian Nagpo
“Some of them used to be my friends in this life of mine, but those connections are lost since I changed my attitude towards SS sexual practicies from indifferent to counter-aggressive.”
Is that any wonder? Why would they remain friends with someone who became aggressively prejudiced against them?
“Unless I’m searching for a new woman, I don’t care about anyone’s sexual preferences, nor do I want to know about it and it is my right not to.”
And yet in this exact same sentence, you’ve made sure everyone knows you’re heterosexual. If you have a right not to know about other people’s sexual preferences, do they not have the same right? Why are you flagrantly advertising your heterosexuality?
“The so-called ‘lbgtq civil rights movement’ is. in fact. a travesty of the sixties’ civil rights movement, wich ruins the very ideas of freedom and civil rights.”
Ah, the old divide-and-conquer technique. How many rubles does Putin pay you to write this horse puckey?
LikeLike
@ A Russian Nagpo
“…I am indifferent to the so-called ‘lbgtq civil rights movement’ and strongly oppose it…”
That is a contradictory statement. Are you “indifferent” or “strongly opposed”?
Which one is it?
LikeLike
Can I just say that I know way too much about Donald Trump’s sexual preferences, it looks likely that I am going to learn yet more in the near future, and no one is protecting my “right not to know.”
Talk about images that have been seared into my mind! And not a soul is standing up for my right not to know about pee-pee tapes, porn stars, magazine spankings, etc.
The same goes for Bill Clinton and his cigar and that blue dress, just to be nonpartisan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
re dolozal? probably free speech even with the dead horse beaten into jelly, and everyone called bs
LikeLike
“it looks likely that I am going to learn yet more in the near future”
Look, I’m psychic!! Yet another Playmate spills the beans! Blecch 😝😝😝
LikeLike
@abagond
Since you mentioned brazilian’s transphobia… One of the candidates that was elected to represent São Paulo in our parliament was Alexandre Frota. Hint: search his filmography in IAFD
LikeLike