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
-
Diocesan Council
To the Diocesan Council for the first time this morning. The average age was a little alarming, however, some of the debate was lively. Has Mission 21 been a success or a failure? That was one of the issues we started to talk about. Lots of local successes I think. Rather like the curate’s egg…
-
Synod Nerd
At the once a year gathering of the SEC Organisational Review Committee today. This is the one which makes recommendations about How the General Synod Works. You have to be a synod nerd to really enjoy this kind of thing and such people are fortunately rather thin on the ground. I tend to wave my…
-
That daring young man
The most exciting thing I’ve seen all week was a daring young man. On a flying trapeze.
-
Veterinarian Bulletin #2
Vet: So, how are things going with the tablets? Are you getting them down her? Me: Yes, no problem. She loves them. Vet: What?! Me: Takes them off the palm of my hand. Vet: I think we need to think about getting her to see a cat psychologist. There is obviously something very wrong.
Leave a Reply