• Ben in oakland

    Christianity, black or otherwise, isn’t inherently homophobic. There are plenty of ministers, churches, and whole denominations who have reflected prayerfully that maybe, just maybe, this is just one more very human prejudice that has been given respectability and sanctification as sincerely religious belief. Black people ought to be able to recognize it when they see it, for segregation and jim Crow will justified for 100 years authoritatively by people quoting their bibles.

    Christianity isn’t inherently homophobic.

    But some people are.

  • Philip

    Agreed, this is not a black or white thing and Christianity is not inherently homophobic. I do see long standing attitudes changing, albeit with difficulty, towards the gay lifestyle and this should happen. Still, I suspect that there is only one end game, meaning acceptance/affirmation of the gay lifestyle and anything less than that will still warrant you the homophobic label. I have yet to see anyone in the gay affirming church crowd consider that a person taking a biblical stand against gay marriage and homosexuality can be non-homophobic. For the affirming crowd, being against gay marriage equates to being homophobic, no exceptions.

  • Ben in Oakland

    I will write later when I have more time. But I will say this much right now.
    I don’t think you know any out and proud gay people, and that you get your information only from antigay religious websites. There is no gay lifestyle.

    Perhaps you can get the conversation going by explaining why you are against gay marriage and homosexuality.

  • ronald

    Come on. Even gay black people like Kenyon Farrow know that “gay marriage is in fact anti-black.” Popular black writer Frances Cress Welsing teaches that gayness is a white conspiracy to weaken the black community. Maybe there are some descenters, but the black community as a whole knows what is up.

    I hope RNS’s black contributer Doc Anthony replies to this article. I know he is on board the Jesus Train! You better get on board too! Next stop: Salvation! Toot Toot!

  • Philip

    No, Ben in Oakland. The point of this article and my answer is not about debating gay marriage and homosexuality per se. The point is about stereotypes, black-white-Christian, etc. The author wrote that it is time to dismantle all of those as they relate to homophobia and heterosexism. My point was that as long as anyone, especially Christians, oppose gay marriage and homosexuality that they will always be labeled as homophobic by default, thus we cant get beyond it as desired. As long as you disagree, no matter how benignly, you will get that label. I hope I am one of those people who, as he writes, can “plot a wholesome compassion in a fragmented world.” The question is can the gay affirming churches work with me even as I stand in opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality. The church has wrongly treated and labeled gay people, and I am glad that is changing. Now you are labeling me and assuming I am automatically homophobic, but that will be the next part of this cultural shift that will have to change in the future.

  • Pingback: Black christianity is not inherently homophobic...()

  • Larry

    “My point was that as long as anyone, especially Christians, oppose gay marriage and homosexuality that they will always be labeled as homophobic by default, thus we cant get beyond it as desired.”

    Because they are homophobic by default. They are trying to attack gays under the color of law, in social contexts and trying to deny them a public existence.

    Its like saying you opposed the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s and support segregation, but you aren’t racist.

    You are looking for middle ground, but you want to deny the very existence of those you are seeking it from. You want accommodation for your views but are offering none to others.

  • Ben in Oakland

    Gayness is a white conspiracy to weaken the black community?

    I’m glad to hear you’re not a bigot.

  • Ben in Oakland

    “Now you are labeling me and assuming I am automatically homophobic?”

    I assumed nothing of the sort, other than to note that being gay is not a lifestyle, but a life, and that people who claim there is such a thing as a “gay lifestyle” clearly know neither gay people nor anything about them. I’m not interested in debating either subject with you. I already know that’s pointless. I’m asking you why you are against homosexuality and why you are against gay marriage.

    Big difference.

    somehow, I suspect you actually are homophobic, because you don’t actually wish to present your views. You know what defines a homophobe? Saying something like, “I’m not homophobic, but you don’t have the right to live your life freely and equally as you are made, but must be subject to my religious beliefs.”

    My question to you still stands.

  • Larry

    Go easy on Ronald.

    He is a parody troll.

    A “Poe” who embarrases ultra-conservative Bible thumpers by pointing out their most ridiculous proponents.

  • ben in oakland

    Well, I had no idea. But his ironical comment mean that my ironical comment is true.

    He’s not a bigot.

  • ronald

    I was referencing the work of a popular and influential black Social Justice writer and esteamed psychiatrist who is highly sot after for Social Justice speaches and interviews.

    If I am a bigot than the Social Justice movement must also be bigoted for embracing Dr. Welsing, huh? Her Social Justice bible, The Isis Papers, has hundreds of 5 star reviews on Amazon and that is where she explains that Gay is a white conspiracy. The Ferguson crowd has really imbraced her so if she is bigoted than take it up with them.

  • Doc Anthony

    “Ronald” may be a Poe, but he is not a problem for me. In fact, I think Ronald has made a solid contribution to this thread, by pointing to some black writers who offer clear opposition to the Gay Marriage Religion.

    Most whites are not aware of such writers. They think all blacks have bought into Obama’s messed-up gay marriage crusade. Well, NO we all haven’t.

    “I, as a Black gay man, do not support this push for same-sex marriage.” — Kenyon Farrow (2004).

    What’cha think about THAT, Larry? Turns out he’s not an “ultra conservative Bible-thumper” at all — he’s not even straight — yet he opposes gay marriage. (So your stereotype is wrong. Go figure!)

  • Doc Anthony

    Oh boy, you are nailing Larry good on this one, and yes I think it is appropriate to rub it in (just this once).

    You see, there IS a fellow poster with the name of “Ronald” who DOES appear to be a Poe type. I don’t know if he’s been active lately, but he’s been active enough to make it a little rough on any OTHER people who post by the name of Ronald.

    But then I noticed that you actually named and quoted a couple specific black writers, which is not what you’d expect from a “Poe”, but instead of somebody who has done some real homework and is posting seriously.

    So that’s why I’m rubbing it in — not just as a reminder to Larry, but also as a reminder to myself — to mostly focus on the CONTENT of the posts and deal with that content, rather than just the moniker attached to them.

  • Doc Anthony

    Let me address one other aspect of Broderick Greer’s article. Why should Greer get a free pass on using the words “homophobic” or “homophobia”?

    Such words are seriously FAKE. They are not recognized as actual disorders in the official manual of psychology, the DSM-IV. Even the Associated Press removed the word “homophobia” from their “AP Style Book” of journalism.

    “Homophobia especially — it’s just off the mark. It’s ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don’t have.
    It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case. We want to be precise and accurate and neutral in our phrasing.” — AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn (2012).

    There you go. But it’s even worse than that. Peter Saunders of the “Christian Medical Comment” blog (UK), explains:

    “(More) recently the term has been almost exclusively used to describe anyone who publicly opposes the demands of the gay rights lobby. The aim has generally been to silence and marginalise opposition and to close down rational debate. By labelling opponents as ‘homophobic’, campaigners are able to demonise opponents by implying their views are purely the product of prejudice, thereby avoiding having to engage seriously with their arguments.”

    THERE’s the real deal. Keep that in mind next time you see phrases like “homophobic ecclesiology and theology.” No free passes, baby!

  • ben in oakland

    But they ARE purely the product of prejudice. You, as a black man, ought to recognize it when you see it. But if you would prefer the word homobigot or homohatred, be my guest.

    Can’t let a black man around the white women– you know how those black man are. But do, let’s let the black women hang around the white men. You know what whores they are, how they can satisfy a REAL man. Those are things I have heard many times in my life.

    I have yet to hear one solid reason– i.e., one reason that doesn’t boil down to “oooh! gay! icky! and so does GAWD!”– in the denial of my civil rights and my participation in society.

    But I know it’s pointless as well to argue the issue with you, so I won’t.

  • ben in oakland

    ““Homophobia especially — it’s just off the mark. It’s ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don’t have. It seems inaccurate.”

    It’s no longer accurate, though it was at one time. It doesn’t ascribe a mental disability, it ascribes a state of mind that is demonstrable.

  • Jack

    Philip is about to learn the hard way that his ideological opponents equate fair-minded moderation, articulated in a gentle way, with weakness.

  • Larry

    Hey Jack, how about learning what reciprocity means. You want people to compromise but are unwilling to do so yourself. That is merely hypocrisy. There is nothing fair minded in saying, “I want to deny you a sane and normal existence”.

    You can’t be a “moderate” when talking about civil liberties. The only way possible is not to get involved in the discussion. Once you have taken a position, middle ground is not going to happen.

  • Larry

    Of course he is not a problem for you. You take his references unironically where he is attempting ridicule.

    “What’cha think about THAT, Larry?”

    I think the guy is full of crap.

    I read his essay on the subject. Unlike yourself I can separate my views from a “party line”.

    The guy wrongly thinks the marriage equality movement is deliberately anti-black and misses the whole point of equal protection under the law. He blames the marriage equality activists for the ramping up of efforts by right wing Bible thumpers who also attack his community. Nonsense of blaming victims for making the bullies more abusive.

    That being said, 8 years makes a big difference in the arguments. His is made rather stale by rapid changes in the nation which would have been unheard of in 2004.

  • Larry

    Dr. Welsing is an Afrocentrist nutjob. Of course she is a great reference for you Doc. You are just too dim to realize Ronald is making fun of you. Ronald is referencing some of the most ridiculous “out there” black writers he can find on the subject.

    Welsing thinks black homosexuality was imposed by “The Man”. Nothing she discusses can be remotely related to Social justice beyond saying, “white people are the devil”. The kind of useless nonsense that gets black people thinking that acting like a rude obnoxious dolt is “sticking it to whitey”. The reality is they are just reinforcing stereotypes.

  • Ben in oakland

    Really, jack? I have yet to see where I did that. I asked him to explain himself.
    He chose not to.

    Whenever I hear someone claim they are not homophobic, but are merely religious, yet are opposed to my living my living my life as I, and not they and their faith, see fit, then I think it is reasonable to ask them to explain themselves.

    What I find is that they rarely do. Philip has not. And when they do, they usually reveal they are in fact, homophobic.

    As I have said many times on these pages, It’s one thing to believe homosexuality is a sin, and to oppose marriage equality within your church.

    It’s quite another thing to make up a whole bunch of crap, devoid of fact, logic, experience, and consistency, and then to use the crap you just made up to justify the harm you are willing to inflict on others.

  • Lynda

    Pew Research polls indicate that black Protestants are more likely to support gay marriage than white Evangelicals. Catholics, black and white, are more open to accepting same-sex marriage than either of those previous groups. White mainline Protestants are even better yet at acknowledging the rights of same sex couples.
    The colour of one’s skin is far less important, it appears from these polls, when it comes to homophobia than the religious fanaticism one holds in one’s heart.

  • Pingback: Pastor faces backlash after equating bias against LGBT community with slavery - Faithfully LGBT()