LGBT religious campaign

[Paul1]

So the LGBT comity at my uni are running a campaign week, I believe, to support those, who are religious and gay. I can imagine that being gay and, say, christian can be isolating, because most gay people are critical of religion and most christians are critical of gays. I think there should be support services for these people - but a campaign week to change the attitudes of others surely can't be the way forward.

I have difficulties with the LGBT comity, which represents LGBT students on campus, promoting the idea that it is feasible to be gay and religious when clearly all Abraham based religions condemn it, and religious institutions have been persecuting us for centuries. IMO, supporting these double-standards is helping people to delude themselves that some how they are forgiven for their innate natures.

The campaign is to get rid of scepticism: And why should people change their scepticism? Would we do the same if, instead, we were talking about being gay and a BNP member. Partly also, religion and politics are significant but making firm stances about either seems to me to be beyond the scope of LGBT issues which should be rooted in the real world.

[juːtoʊpiə]

I think that on balance this sort of thing is good. No religion is better than any religion, but liberal, live and let live religion is easily preferrable to fire and brimstone, kill anyone's whos not in line religion. Not to mention the happiness and mental health of gay religious people; while their religion telling them they are evil may cause them to question it and leave, it may not. This sort of thing could help them reconcile this problem, and in my eyes 10 happy, well adjusted (except for the invisible friend) gays practicing a version of religion made more accessible is better than 5 freethinking gays, and 5 fundamentalist, tormented, self-hating gays.

[fuck you & fuck your god]

I think that on balance this sort of thing is good. No religion is better than any religion, but liberal, live and let live religion is easily preferrable to fire and brimstone, kill anyone's whos not in line religion. Not to mention the happiness and mental health of gay religious people; while their religion telling them they are evil may cause them to question it and leave, it may not. This sort of thing could help them reconcile this problem, and in my eyes 10 happy, well adjusted (except for the invisible friend) gays practicing a version of religion made more accessible is better than 5 freethinking gays, and 5 fundamentalist, tormented, self-hating gays.

Maybe, but you still have 10 deluded gays!

I just can't reconcile being gay and being xian or other gay-hating religion. It perplexes. There could be more value in having the 5 sane ones, that way they offset the 5 crazies vs. being stuck with 10 crazies.

[juːtoʊpiə]

I think that on balance this sort of thing is good. No religion is better than any religion, but liberal, live and let live religion is easily preferrable to fire and brimstone, kill anyone's whos not in line religion. Not to mention the happiness and mental health of gay religious people; while their religion telling them they are evil may cause them to question it and leave, it may not. This sort of thing could help them reconcile this problem, and in my eyes 10 happy, well adjusted (except for the invisible friend) gays practicing a version of religion made more accessible is better than 5 freethinking gays, and 5 fundamentalist, tormented, self-hating gays.

Maybe, but you still have 10 deluded gays!

I just can't reconcile being gay and being xian or other gay-hating religion. It perplexes. There could be more value in having the 5 sane ones, that way they offset the 5 crazies vs. being stuck with 10 crazies.

I also struggle to reconcile it, but it obviously does happen. I guess that as for which outcome I find prefferable, I just struggle to see the bigger picture.

[Paul1]

Well I sent an email to the union initially expressing the silliness of it all. But after talking for an hour and a half with a gay christian theologian, I can honestly say I am not qualified to say whether being gay and christian is a contradictory stance. I've sent them a follow up email telling them I take it back - after all I need their support for another campaign and they aren't nearly as realistic as I am.

I guess I'll see how they present the campaign.

[fuck you & fuck your god]

Well I sent an email to the union initially expressing the silliness of it all. But after talking for an hour and a half with a gay christian theologian, I can honestly say I am not qualified to say whether being gay and christian is a contradictory stance. I've sent them a follow up email telling them I take it back - after all I need their support for another campaign and they aren't nearly as idealistic as I am.

I guess I'll see how they present the campaign.

Curious about "I need their support for another campaign"? Are you running for something? And you say you feel you are not qualified, were you raised christian? What qualifications do you perceive you lack, psychological, religious, or ...? Can you mention some of what the theologian discussed that gave you that idea?

I guess my stand comes from my inability to accept that you can be a christian and not anit-gay, because I can't accept that as religion is of a dogmatic, creedal foundation, you can decide to ignore parts of the creeds and dogmas without gutting that foundation. It is wrapped up in my anti-religion feelings. It is a difficult thing to accept, but it would be interesting to argue this with someone like your theologian.

[juːtoʊpiə]

I guess my stand comes from my inability to accept that you can be a christian and not anit-gay, because I can't accept that as religion is of a dogmatic, creedal foundation, you can decide to ignore parts of the creeds and dogmas without gutting that foundation. It is wrapped up in my anti-religion feelings. It is a difficult thing to accept, but it would be interesting to argue this with someone like your theologian.

I think you underestimate the ability of humans to twist reality so it fits their opinion.
I mean, how do you think religious apologists make their money?

[fuck you & fuck your god]

I guess my stand comes from my inability to accept that you can be a christian and not anit-gay, because I can't accept that as religion is of a dogmatic, creedal foundation, you can decide to ignore parts of the creeds and dogmas without gutting that foundation. It is wrapped up in my anti-religion feelings. It is a difficult thing to accept, but it would be interesting to argue this with someone like your theologian.

I think you underestimate the ability of humans to twist reality so it fits their opinion.
I mean, how do you think religious apologists make their money?

So, you are saying I have mis-underestimated . You have accused me of a shrubbery! Egad, have you no consideration for my feelings?

[Ameri Boi]

I was religious for 2 years after coming out; I however, separated my faith from my orientation and tried hard to ignore what it professed, but eventually couldn't. I was called before a group of elders to discuss the matter(former JW), whom concluded that I could not preach while 'living in sin', and I was no longer considered an unbaptized publisher. From then on, I drew the conclusion that one could only be LGBT and not a christian as there are obvious conflicts. It simply seems evident that these people haven't come to that conclusion.

[Paul1]

I went through a similar personal process of becoming less and less religious. Someone gave me the last nudge and I gave up religion. Since then I have been agreeing more and more with the "fundamental" Atheist view, which is that religion creates trouble by just existing.

Most people, especially in this PC age, have this whole "protect people's religious 'rights'!" thing going on, so if you seem heavy handed about religion people look at you as though you are some kind of extreme freak. I can't really force my opinion onto adults anyway, even though I strongly believe the union is damaging these adults psychologically by standing up for religion, and thus the institutions who want to marginalise both me and them.

I told my theologian friend I had sent a letter to the union questioning why they thought this campaign was a good idea, and pointed out that they were indirectly supporting those who wish to marginalise us, but at the same time trying to respect that there are a group of LGBT christian people who are isolated. He told me about eight different stories at length of examples where the bible demonstrates homosexual relationships, some quite erotically. I was brought up christian but never read more than the creation and Sodom and Gomorrah, so I'm not qualified personally to say whether the bible condemns or is mixed about homosexuality. I am however qualified to say how crap the idea of god is but again respect the choices adults make.

I guess I jumped the gun a bit before they had even announced the theme, I can't tell if I was right to express my view or whether I should have been more sensible and waited for the details. Perhaps they'll consider the letter anyway, it is after all only my opinion.

Oh and the campaign of course. I am working with someone else to help create opportunities and safe places for elderly gay people in the UK. If you've been out on the scene, you'll notice the lack of opportunities for them. Current research shows how isolated, discriminated and sometimes depressed they can be, and yet the young LGBT generation appear happy to neglect the very people who fought hard to win our rights.

If I criticise a kiddy fiddling, AIDs spreading, money grabbing, brain washing, sexist, homophobic and etc institution under the banner of "religion" it makes me bigot. If I criticise the BNP for being a racist, sexist, homophobic, white-supremacist and etc organisation, suddenly everyone agrees with me. Had this campaign been about supporting BNP gay people, it would have been protested off the face of the earth.

I can't quite collect my ideas altogether to decide whether I should make a stance against this or not.