7 responses to “Well-meaning but homophobic”
-
Seems to me “well-meaning but homophobic” in these days and times implies vincible ignorance and is no longer useful as an excuse for homophobic language. The leaders of the C of E seem paralyzed, unable to articulate policies to move forward on equality for LGTB persons that are other than laughable. Think “deer in the headlights”.
-
I suppose @RevArun might say that women are welcome for the same reason, eh?
-
Exactly what I thought.
-
-
I’ve removed a previous comment. I’d prefer to retain the focus on the institutional elements of this rather than speculating about an individual.
-
As society changes many people are not sure of the new, and therefore condemn it, without thought. I am safe, with the Devil l know. It’s a way of life, not dealing with changes. If we think about how much has changed; homosexuality was illegal until 1969 in England; Scotland caught up in 1983; women have a right to equal pay; the only job that is still excluded from them is working down a mine:
There are men who are prepared to wait to see a male doctor, especially if it is the genitals.
Racism is not tolerated by most, but it is still used by people who want a reaction. There was, when the world and I were young, a shoe polish, called nigger brown. This wasn’t considered at the time as being wrong. -
I take your point, and I don’t disagree. If we look at another person and only see the gay part as ‘broken’, then that’s homophobic, no matter how well intentioned. Plus I always find something disturbingly patronising when people say ‘We’re all broken’, as if the speaker doesn’t quite believe it of him/herself, while seeing it very clearly in the other.
However, there’s another way of looking at it. The very fact that we are human means that we are broken. If being gay is part of that humanity, then it’s part also of that brokenness. It’s all part of the messy mixture that we struggle with, and build our rickety lives with, but for which we also should praise and thank God.
-
‘Thinking Anglicans’ has a post up about Vicky Beeching’s coming out but does not link to the discussion here. I asked why but they did not reply let alone publish my question.
Previous Posts
-
Lotions & potions, pills and powders
Am living through a litany of lotions and potions, pills and powders. Thus far, the past few days have included: paracetamol lemsip (max strength) vicks vapour rub (v sticky) benylin strepsils tyrozets lightbox (first outing of the winter) multivitamins rhodiola rosea cod liver oil The remarkable thing is that I’ve had to buy none of…
-
Vestry Cancelled tonight
Vestry members – please note that this evening’s vestry meeting is cancelled. (I had been hoping to be well enough, but am still afflicted and don’t want to be passing what I’ve got to the rest of you). Please deal with questions arising from this month’s reports by e-mail during the coming week. I will…
-
All heaven will break out
Here is the sermon that I croaked this morning. Not having much voice, I’ve no idea whether people could hear it or not. The snuffling of the mancold which I’ve been afflicted with prompted me to dip into the file of “old sermons about the rich man and lazarus” and pull this one out. Last…
-
Things that are being said about me
I’ve been called quite a lot online this week. Anglican Mainstream was referring to me as the Provost of Glasgow. I’m not,of course. The provost of a city in Scotland is its civic leader, like a mayor. In any case, Glasgow has a Lord Provost. I’m the Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow. Similarly, I…
Leave a Reply