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
-
One line TV Reviews
More a shame than shameless Shilpa to win Right in the thick of it
-
If you want to get ahead roll a hat
I’ve been wearing a hat rather a lot recently, though the day began with the wind whipping it off my head and rolling it down Great Western Road. I rolled after it at great western speed and eventually caught up with it, thus allowing the following snippet of conversation later in the day: Diocesan Secretary:…
-
The London Rally
There is a rally today against the Sexual Orientation Regulations. It seems to be rather an own goal to me – an obvious demonstration of why such regulations are needed. Quite a good response from the TUC about it all here. UPDATE And, whilst we are on the subject, Danny Alexander MP should be ashamed…
-
One of those weeks
I seem to have an insanely busy week. Everyone who ever has meetings in church life seems to have been putting off having meetings for the last few weeks for obvious reasons and then they all have them together now. Still, good vestry meeting last night.
Leave a Reply