In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

“Pro-Choice” Americans at a record low

Jill

According to a recent Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who identify as “pro-choice” is at an all-time low of 41%. By contrast, 50% of Americans ID as pro-life.

Of course, the pro-life/pro-choice monikers don’t really say much about one’s actual views on the legality or morality of abortion. Lots of folks who say they are “pro-life” don’t actually want to make abortion illegal — only 20% of respondents believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, while 25% believe it should be legal in any circumstances, and 52% believe it should be legal under certain circumstances. In other words, a heavy majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal sometimes.

And Gallup didn’t just look at abortion — they looked at a range of sex-related “moral” issues. And what Americans find immoral vs. moral is… interesting. We pretty much all agree that birth control is moral; more than 50% of respondents also believe that gay and lesbian relationships are moral, so that’s a plus. However, more Americans apparently believe that the death penalty is moral than believe premarital sex is moral. And only 59% of Americans believe sex between unmarried people is moral, even while upwards of 90% of us have premarital sex. More good news, though, is that while 58% of Americans believe the death penalty is moral, that’s down substantially from last year, when 65% of Americans said the death penalty was moral. Hopefully we’re catching up to the rest of the world on that one.

509 thoughts on “Pro-Choice” Americans at a record low

  3. I am totally pro-choice about whether or not men can wear jewelry.

    Although in this case wouldn’t it be pro-life? Since men wearing man-jewelry are doubtless going to be incinerated as their man-jewelry is killed with fire?

  4. I get that the man-jewelry is now the in-joke for the cool commenters, but at this point I just feel sorry for Jill, and think that the commenters who feel the need to derail with it are being pretty idiotic.

    It used to be that there were a few different regular posters on this site, but now it’s mostly Jill holding this community up by sheer dint of blogging. Day after day she writes thoughtful pieces that stimulate discussion, moderates the comments so assholes who have far worse things to say than “man-jewelry” can’t ruin it, and puts her writing and persona out on the internet in a way that invites ridicule and insults. We all benefit from her effort and risk.

    I don’t come here to listen to Jill’s pearl’s of wisdom, shiny and opalescent as they usually are, but because this is a place where smart people discuss things on a high level that are important to me. If we really don’t like all the stuff wrapped up in Jill’s use of the phrase “man-jewelry”, why are we perpetually letting it get in the way of discussing the things we all purport to care about?

    There’s a whole thread with over a hundred comments about man-jewelry, but I guess the cool kids don’t feel like they stand out enough in that thread.

  5. There’s a longer comment about this in moderation, but simply put:

    Look at all the cool kids beating up on the tyrannical blogger. They’re out for blood, blood I tell you, and they’re not gonna stop derailing ALL the threads until they get some public flagellation.

    You guys are being gross.

  6. Look at all the cool kids beating up on the tyrannical blogger. They’re out for blood, blood I tell you, and they’re not gonna stop derailing ALL the threads until they get some public flagellation.

    I’m a cool kid now? Woohoo.

    Also: I made two funny comments on a thread. My comments on the internet dating thread have been on-topic since the first one that high-fived Donna L for a snark moment of win. If that’s your standard for being out for blood, this must be the Mad Max Internet World by your standards.

  7. A couple people bringing this up in non-related threads isn’t going to hurt anybody. There is no discussion going on anyway, because lots of us are just waiting for Jill to respond. People who want to discuss the actual issue in the post can ignore the off-topic comments and talk anyway. Also, people wanting an explanation for something they see as offensive, and being persistent about getting the explanation, is not beating up on anybody.

  8. Look at all the cool kids beating up on the tyrannical blogger. They’re out for blood, blood I tell you, and they’re not gonna stop derailing ALL the threads until they get some public flagellation.

    When someone posts something racist/sexist/cissexist/homophobic on a feminist blog anywhere, I’m pretty comfortable with the conversation being carried on until they at least acknowledge they did something questionable. You don’t get to just keep posting more threads and hoping it goes away.

  9. Yeah I know, everyone’s got a seat in the coliseum.

    Doesn’t make it any less gross, or prurient, or voyeuristic, or malicious.

    One thing I see as problematic about this type of poll is the framework in which it operates, that being one of absolute morality, and dictating the ethics of other people’s lives.

    I would be a lot more interested in a poll that asked about what decisions the respondent might make under different conditions. “Would you ever get an abortion”
    “Would you support a close relative’s homosexual relationship”

    Casting the questions as being about “other people” encourages the idea that we should be making decisions for other people, and doesn’t at all confront the respondents with the idea that these situations could be a personal reality.

  10. Here I was thinking that people came to Feministe to discuss important issues on a high level with other thoughtful people. I come here because I find these issues to be important.

    But yeah, I guess its more important for you guys to put Jill in her place than to discuss national attitudes towards abortion. You caught her! She wrote something problematic, and it’s a good thing you guys are all around to make sure she knows it.

    Over and over and over again.

  11. But yeah, I guess its more important for you guys to put Jill in her place than to discuss national attitudes towards abortion.

    Yeah, I’ve been participating in threads about US attitudes towards abortion, US attitudes towards feminism, US attitudes towards homosexuality, US attitudes towards war, US atittudes towards fiscal policy and US attitudes towards racism for several days now on this and other sites. So this Indian-born Canadian immigrant who’s never been to the US talked about something that’s unrelated to the glorious Eagleland for two comments, because she wants to focus on general gender issues. I apologise* most humbly.

    *By apologise, I mean lol.

    BTW Jill did put up a pretty comprehensive apology, for those who aren’t following that thread as closely as I am.

  12. I would also be interested in Canadian attitudes towards all of those things. Do you happen to have any information on that macavitykitsune?

  13. Yeah I know, everyone’s got a seat in the coliseum.

    Doesn’t make it any less gross, or prurient, or voyeuristic, or malicious.

    Uh, if it came across like I was recommending Jill as crunchy lion food, as DLL seems to think I was, I’d be sincerely apologetic about that. I admire Jill’s thinking and her writing in general.

    Oh? I just wanted an apology, which Jill herself deemed reasonable to give, and which I almost immediately accepted and then quit posting on the thread? Riiiiight.

  14. @11,

    Yes indeedy. Do you want a list of blogs, individual posts, encyclopedia articles?

    Darth Harper is indirectly backing reopening the abortion “debate”*** which is one reason I’m drowning under choice-related news articles right now.

    (***non-whites, women, uterus-bearers, transfolk, queer folk, poor folk, people under reproductive coercion and anyone not in perfect health need not apply to participate)

  16. There is a reason that I checked this site, and chose not to click on the comment link for the other thread, and clicked on this one instead. It was because I was looking for a certain kind of comment. Please keep the comments on topic.

  17. Darth Harper is indirectly backing reopening the abortion “debate”*** which is one reason I’m drowning under choice-related news articles right now.

    Yeah, I loved the whole innocent ‘Oh, that {back-bencher} doesn’t represent party lines and I don’t really want to open the debate but let’s hear what he has to say..”

    Bullshit. If Harper didn’t want it open, it wouldn’t have opened. I don’t recall a PM that had as tight a rein on his party members as Steve-O seems to have.

  18. You could just pick something you thought was interesting or important and related to the above, post a link, and write a paragraph about it. I’ll read what you post, then read your paragraph, then respond. It’ll be like a conversation.

    I googled Darth Harper and eventually came up with this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/26/abortion-canada-stephen-harper-stephen-woodworth_n_1454678.html

    I’m a little jealous that Canada’s overton window on the abortion debate is so far left of the US’s. Rather than speculating, I’ll just ask. Do you think the abortion furor in the US is supporting the conservatives in Canada like Woodworth and Harper?

  19. Bullshit. If Harper didn’t want it open, it wouldn’t have opened. I don’t recall a PM that had as tight a rein on his party members as Steve-O seems to have.

    QFT. My wife spent a whole day alternately on the verge of tears and ragefrothing when he was reelected. At the time I wasn’t following Canadian politics that closely, but in retrospect… with the control Harper’s got on the Parliament right now, and his slavish adoration of USian internal policies (which, as Feministe, Shakesville etc amply prove by their coverage, is rapidly going for utter shit) I’m fucking terrified.

    The sole consolation seems to be that at least he isn’t reopening the gay marriage debate too. Then I realise how much that’s my gay privilege (hah, you don’t hear that often) talking, because I’m not at foreseeable risk of needing an abortion, and feel terribly guilty.

  20. Do you think the abortion furor in the US is supporting the conservatives in Canada like Woodworth and Harper?

    Yes, yes, absolutely yes.

    Oh, oh! This particular piece of choice garbagefuckery! A Canadian MP (from Saskatchewan) states that abortion is bullying fetuses! Right up there with the fetal food ban in terms of ridiculousness.

    On a more serious note, this is how the debate’s being framed: however, it’s disingenuous at best to suggest that this wouldn’t be happening without Darth Harper being both exquisitely aware and in control of it.

    I live in Alberta, which is as conservative as Canada gets, and the response from people around me (most of whom are personally invested in reproducing but politically pro-choice) seems to be overwhelmingly DAFUCK.

  21. Fucking US fucking ruining everything for North America.

    (And South America)

    (And Africa)

    (Remember when President Bush wanted to nuke the moon?)

  23. It was a rumor back when he was Pres, but I can’t find any sources to confirm that he actually suggested it.

    On an embarrassing side note, could you explain the syntax for quoting? I’m a computer programmer, and should know these things, but I continually screw it up.

  24. Darth Harper is indirectly backing reopening the abortion “debate”*** which is one reason I’m drowning under choice-related news articles right now.

    (***non-whites, women, uterus-bearers, transfolk, queer folk, poor folk, people under reproductive coercion and anyone not in perfect health need not apply to participate)

    Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

    And, for those who are curious, Canada has no law about abortion.

  25. And from Montreal, I’ll concur that we all think the US situation is helping motivate Harper. (He REALLY wants to be a member of the GOP.)

  28. It was a rumor back when he was Pres, but I can’t find any sources to confirm that he actually suggested it.

    Well, thank fuck. Good to know Dubya wasn’t THAT off his rocker.

  29. Another Canadian here.

    Basically, from a position of legislation and rhetoric, we have not gone nearly so far as has happened in the States, particularly in some specific states I could name but won’t bother. BUT one year ago our government went from a Conservative minority that had to at least nominally co-operate with the other parties in order to get things done and not trigger another election cycle (we do things differently up here) to a Conservative majority (our first majority government in a while) with another election not on the horizon until 2015. And in that year our Fearless Legohead Leader has demonstrated his complete and total disdain for listening to anyone but his own self-interest, very much playing his own game and no one else’s, and too much of the country seems to be completely apathetic to it while the rest of us are shitting out collective pants. Looking southward, I think a lot of us feel like it’s 2004 and we just re-elected George Bush and we have no idea how bad things are going to get before the next election cycle and how long it will take to fix the damage, even if we were able to turn the whole bloody country orange (the most viable opposition party) by May, 2015.

    So none of us is sure what’s going to happen, what our neighbours really think, and what tactics will be relevant for that election. As long as enough voting Canadians in the right numbers in the right ridings want abortion, gay marriage, etc., then the Conservative Party will tow that line. But we’re also seeing prolonged economic hardship up here in some places and a lot of internal re-location, so who knows. The Cons are very against us *knowing* anything, hence killing the long-form census and leaving it to universities to pick up the slack on the ever-shrinking budgets, and regularly gagging their own researchers from reporting results of government-funded research. (The environmental stuff is taking the biggest hit there.)

    I live in the Prairies (i.e., Midwest) in a very Conservative riding. The Saskatchewan MP who went on a tear about how out anti-bullying campaigns should be focused on ending abortion because it’s bullying the foetus, as mentioned above, horrified but did not surprise me at all. Anti-abortion protesters regularly gather around a clinic in my neighbourhood. The government cares about strategic votes to keep the necessary ridings and their majority seat of power, and they will look to the US for successful strategies as well as be creative with their own.

    (P.S., Fair Vote Canada for 2015!)

    (This is why I always roll my eyes when USians talk about escaping to Canada as some kind of liberal paradise. Sorry, guys – try Avalon or Narnia or something. Wait, no, not Narnia – theocratic monarchy is probably not what you want.)

  30. Lookit all the Canadians, and hello from Winnipeg!

    While I don’t want to minimize the damage Harper has already done and may continue to inflict on sectors that ought to promote the public good and evidence-based understanding of our wonderful country, I do at least feel okay when it comes to rights-based issues. One of the benefits of a really rather good Constitution and solid Supreme Court.

    Unlike Jadey, I encourage folks south of the border who feel uncomfortable there to come on up. The more voices we can add to the progressive chorus, the better. We may not live in a paradise, but with your help we can build something that more closely approximates one.

  31. Unlike Jadey, I encourage folks south of the border who feel uncomfortable there to come on up. The more voices we can add to the progressive chorus, the better. We may not live in a paradise, but with your help we can build something that more closely approximates one.

    Oh, I have no problem with people coming! Not at all – I think immigration is a great thing and there’s lots we could learn from people coming from the US. Just come with realistic expectations and don’t talk about us like a cartoon fantasyland that will solve all their problems.

  32. That’s totally reasonable. Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize for interpreting you otherwise.

  33. I never know how to answer these survey thingies on morality. Like, if a question asks if I think having premarital sex is immoral I’d be like… yes? But I think it’s immoral for ME, not for YOU. You can do whatever the hell you want. So what do I put on a survey that asks for a yes or no answer? Is that a yes or a no?

  35. The Cons are very against us *knowing* anything, hence killing the long-form census and leaving it to universities to pick up the slack on the ever-shrinking budgets

    They what?!

    OK, I just Googled, and if the Republicans are actually going to get a policy idea from Canada for once, why does it have to be that one?

  36. Question here: Is Gallup still limiting its polling to land lines? If they are, this would skew the results heavily toward advanced age and lower tech, or to higher income. Without Skype, they are ignoring tech-savvy and more educated people; without cell phones, they are bypassing young workers.

  37. I never know how to answer these survey thingies on morality. Like, if a question asks if I think having premarital sex is immoral I’d be like… yes? But I think it’s immoral for ME, not for YOU. You can do whatever the hell you want. So what do I put on a survey that asks for a yes or no answer? Is that a yes or a no?

    But why would the premarital sex be immoral for you but not immoral for others? That doesn’t make any sense. Having a morality that only applies to you and not others is totally pointless and it not a real morality. Things that I believe that are immoral I believe are universally immoral for everyone. That is a true moral conviction.

  38. … I wouldn’t be so assuming to define True Moral Conviction (TM), but I have “tiers” of morality, from the Personal to the Universal.

  39. Having a morality that only applies to you and not others is totally pointless and it not a real morality.

    That is one school of thought on morality. Other perspectives exist.

  40. Why would you claim the death penalty is absolutely immoral? That seems like naive, almost magical thinking. If someone kills, and will continue trying to kill in prison, what’s immoral with putting them down? You’re saving lives.

    Unless you want to lock them in an isolated cell 24/7 and feed them through a slot in the wall. Yah, that seems so much more moral.

  41. Having a morality that only applies to you and not others is totally pointless and it not a real morality. Things that I believe that are immoral I believe are universally immoral for everyone. That is a true moral conviction.

    That’s nice for you. But a complex view of morality changes with circumstances, and “yes” or “no” are not nuanced enough answers to address a thoughtful, considered, complex morality for many people. Other people: not always just like you.

  42. Yes other people are not like me but they should be held to the same moral standards where possible, allowing for the fact that some people should be given more leeway because they are children or something.

    What I mean more is where would one get a morality like that? I mean for most people they either get their morality from two places: religion, or non-religion.

    In religious, the morality is in a book and it always applies to everyone. The religious books don’t give non-believers exemption from their moral rules. In non-religion, the morality comes from logic like ‘it’s moral to do things that cause happiness and good things, it’s immoral to do things that cause unhappiness and bad things in others’, or ‘I should treat others like I would like to be treated’. Which also leads to morality applying to everyone.

    If you believe premarital sex is immoral for you, which I’m guessing you do because of religious reasons, then doesn’t that same religion also tell you that it is also immoral for everyone else? I don’t understand.

  43. Wow, really? It’s news that morality is subjective and complex?

    Which is precisely the problem with these polls. I’m not saying they have zero value, but I wonder if ignoring the complexity of pro-choice issues turns anti-choice numbers into self-fulfilling prophecies. Politicians develop policy with such polls in mind, and the Overton window moves farther and farther to the right because the perception is that it’s already there.

  44. Having a morality that only applies to you and not others is totally pointless and it not a real morality.

    How about this: I’m a Hindu Brahmin. As such, I have religious responsibilities that follow from my caste, and barriers and taboos (and opportunities and exemptions) because of it. It is, by both scripture and personal non-religious choice, immoral for me to eat meat, and perfectly moral for someone of a lower caste to eat meat, and in some of those castes’ cases, actually required that they eat meat. (Soldiers, for example, are told to eat meat as it builds strength; priests are not allowed as it’s forbidden to touch dead things around the time of performing religious duties; businessmen and labourers have no injunctions either way.)

    There you go: an ultra-ultra-traditional example that’s older than Jesus about how morality flexes depending on circumstances.

    ( Note: I don’t really follow Hinduism, but I grew up immersed in it and am fairly well-schooled in it)

  45. In religious, the morality is in a book and it always applies to everyone. The religious books don’t give non-believers exemption from their moral rules.

    This made me laugh!

    I am converting to Judaism, and although I am not an expert (maybe someday) I can comfortably say for a fact that Jewish morality is contained “in a book” and most certainly does NOT apply to everyone. Nor is it expected to. Ever.

  46. In religious, the morality is in a book and it always applies to everyone. The religious books don’t give non-believers exemption from their moral rules. If you believe premarital sex is immoral for you, which I’m guessing you do because of religious reasons, then doesn’t that same religion also tell you that it is also immoral for everyone else?

    No.

  47. In religious, the morality is in a book and it always applies to everyone. The religious books don’t give non-believers exemption from their moral rules.

    Oh hai thar unthinking Christian supremacy!

    Not all religions have A Holy Book. (Hindus, people who follow NA religions and African religions)

    Not all religions apply their teachings to non-believers. (Parsis, Jews, Hindus, Muslims)

    Not all religions have A Book that dictates all morality; some have reams and reams of commentary and the thinkings of religious leaders to go by instead, which are often self-contradictory. (Jews, Hindus again)

    Seriously, google-fu, get you some before you start prattling about what “religious” do, or stick to Christianity in your examples.

  48. Chiara, you’re doing that thing where you make pronouncements about things you don’t know much about again. Remember that thing?

    All moralities are either religious or non-religious? Yes, OK, that covers…everything in the world. But it’s a meaningless statement. It’s true of everything. All meals are either religious or non-religious. All buildings are either religious or non-religious. All novels are either religious or non-religious. I suppose you’re leaving out things that are both religious and non-religious, but aside from that…it pretty much covers everything without saying anything meaningful. All cars are either blue or non-blue. True, but…meaningless in terms of information.

    And non-religious moralities are based on logic? Speaking as an atheist, my morality is based on the values I hold dear.

  49. I dont like interjecting “morality” with laws, human rights aren’t an issue of morality it is an issue of justice. That is how I view many many many legal issues. I think it is unfair to call someone a bigot if they believe homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion, etc etc are immoral according to their religious beliefs so long as that person respects the right of one to be homosexual, have premarital sex or abortions and be treated equally by all. There is a difference between thinking premarital sex is immoral therefore, refusing to engage in premarital sex and thinking premarital sex is immoral therefore NOBODY should engage in premarital sex and those who do are *insert horrible name calling here* and they will go to the equivalent of hell/jail ect ect.

  50. Well I think I know a little more than you think about religion. Firstly I was raised in a Catholic school and then I became an athiest. So I know what it’s like to deal with that, and I therefore have a deep understanding about the difference between religious and non-religious morality.

    For example, a lot of the morality in Catholic I thought was illogical and so I looked for a more logical morality and for me that was the morality of atheism. Like that it’s OK to do what you want as long as you don’t cause other people hurt and if you can do stuff that will make other people happy then do that. There’s some nice simple logic to that, can’t get much better than that really. Catholic has a lot of depressing and annoying stuff in it that just spoils everyone’s fun.

    Anyway I still don’t really understand the point of religion if it doesn’t apply to non-believers. If you believe in a religion where there are no negative consequences to being a non-believer… well why don’t you just become a non-believer? That way you don’t have to do all the stuff associated with your religion.

  51. I think it is unfair to call someone a bigot if they believe homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion, etc etc are immoral according to their religious beliefs so long as that person respects the right of one to be homosexual, have premarital sex or abortions and be treated equally by all.

    I strongly disagree. Bigoted views are bigoted whether or not their source is religious belief; there’s no “religious exemption” from bigotry. Religion is used as an excuse for bigotry far too often as it is. Plenty of people have managed to understand the bigotry inherent in certain religious views, and have abandoned those views accordingly.

  52. DonnaL,

    The essence of my point is to “live and let live”, I think its just wrong to do certain things, thus I will not do them. I would not judge someone else for doing those things (which are not human rights issues but an issue of my own morality). I’m one of those people who beleive premarital sex to be wrong but fucked the brains out of my husband when he was my boyfriend as I had done a couple boyfriends before him. I believed it was a sin, I enjoyed it no less but did feel guilt. Did I think I was a slut? Nope. Do I think other people who engage in premarital sex are sluts? Hell no. Do I think others should think it is immoral? I think people are free to choose what is and isn’t moral. The right to have sex with another CONSENTING adult is a human rights issue, whether or not a third party who is NOT trying to stop you or judge you for it thinks it is immoral is their own personal issue.

  53. I think it is unfair to call someone a bigot if they believe homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion, etc etc are immoral according to their religious beliefs so long as that person respects the right of one to be homosexual, have premarital sex or abortions and be treated equally by all

    I’m kind of with DonnaL on this one. Well, torn a bit. Because I was about to say that people who believe homosexuality is immoral (I’m not one of them) will let their bigoted beliefs seep through in one way or another, but then I realized that I think premarital sex is immoral but I don’t… do that. Or at least no one has ever complained about me letting it seep out in any condescending way. In fact, people have accused me of the opposite, of being *too* sex-positive. I’ve also been attacked (by other feminists) for not having sex. o.O Which brings me to my initial reaction: I don’t think believing premarital sex is immoral is the same thing as believing homosexuality is immoral, so I’m uncomfortable with it being lumped together.

    OR maybe the reason I don’t get preachy about it is because I don’t really believe it’s immoral per se (unless other factors make it harmful, like deliberately weaponizing it to hurt others) just that it’s a sin… a sin is different from immorality. There’s a huge difference between “Don’t commit murder” and “Don’t eat bacon.”

  54. (Disregarding the fact that I would totally get preachy about people eating bacon [in certain circumstances]; not because religion, because animal rights.)

  55. Plenty of people have managed to understand the bigotry inherent in certain religious views, and have abandoned those views accordingly.

    Thank you, Donna.

    Azalea, I think I understand what your point is, but I would argue that the line would have to be drawn somewhat differently to be truly an “argument from choice”, something like this:

    “I think that for me to eat meat would be wrong. I don’t think it’s an immoral choice to eat meat. Thus, I don’t eat meat, and don’t judge others for eating meat.”

    On the other hand, the “religious exemption” argument seems to go somewhat like this:

    “Homosexuality is immoral, therefore I don’t do it. Others can be homosexual and that’s their choice, but it’s still immoral.”

    Do you see the difference? In one, I’m making a personal choice. In the other, I’m attaching a value judgment to the choice. It’s still bigoted.

  56. (Well animal rights is also relevant to my religious beliefs, so that too? But it’s both relevant and not relevant, as something I would do regardless. Like charity and crap. Okay I’m going to stop talking in parenthesis now.)

  57. In fact, people have accused me of the opposite, of being *too* sex-positive. I’ve also been attacked (by other feminists) for not having sex. o.O

    D: That really, really sucks. I’m sorry that happened to you.

    Although I have to point out…

    but then I realized that I think premarital sex is immoral but I don’t… do that.

    What you’re saying there isn’t that premarital sex is immoral in and of itself, you’re saying that premarital sex for you is an immoral decision…? I think? Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s totally how I read it. That’s not the same as considering it immoral per se.

  58. I associate bigotry with judging a person, harming them in some way.

    I know a woman whose son is gay, she thinks homosexuality is immoral because according to her religion it is a sin. Her and her son are VERY close, she loves him, she supports him she has invited her son’s partner to her home they hang out and she’s helping to plan the wedding. Seriously, this woman can be called a bigot *just because* she thinks it is immoral?

    My parents thought living together before marriage was immortal but helped us move in together and threw us housewarming parties.

    There is a difference between abortions are immoral and wanting to criminalize abortions, or the people who perform them, giving the women who get or have had abortions hell about their choices.

  59. I associate bigotry with judging a person

    In what world is “you are immoral for engaging in this act/being this person/holding these beliefs” not a judgment? o.O I’m sorry, but it seems fairly straightforward to me.

  60. Premarital sex is an act. You have premarital sex or you don’t. It’s a choice you make.

    Homosexuality is not an act. The problem with the ex-gay movement is that you can’t just decide to stop being gay on a whim.

    “Premarital sex is immoral” and “homosexuality is immoral” are not comparable. This conversation is conflating apples with oranges.

  61. Who says *thinking* something is immoral means TELLING someone that THEY are immoral for doing it? Just as beng pro-choice doesn’t mean you throw abortion parties and donate to planned parenthood, but it DOES mean regardless of whether or not you think abortion is immoral you realized it is a PERSONAL matter and not your place to judge someone else for doing it. You can have personal feelings about something in general without judging every single person specifically for disagreeing.

    Or are we back at my morals MUST be the morals I enforce and use to judge every single other person on the planet?

    If so, that may be the case with SOME people, but not all. I think premarital sex is a sin, judging people and being judgemental is a sin, not believing is a sin. Do I think people who do/say/think those things are bad people? No. So why the fuck should I be judged by people I refuse to judge because of my morality? This isn’t making sense.

  62. And anyone who is truly Christian knows that everyone sins and does things on a DAILY basis which, according to Christianity, are immoral and sinful. It is accepted fact of Christianity that it will not change, the only thing that changes are the daily sins one engage in which changes from person to person.

  63. Anyway I still don’t really understand the point of religion if it doesn’t apply to non-believers. If you believe in a religion where there are no negative consequences to being a non-believer… well why don’t you just become a non-believer? That way you don’t have to do all the stuff associated with your religion.

    Wow, just…. wow. This is just what I wanted to read right in the middle of my first observance of Shavuot. That every Jew who existed since Sinai was an ignoramus. Good thing you’re here, to tell us what’s what! Otherwise, I might have wasted my life on this whole conversion thing, and Jews might have spent another few thousand years pointlessly practicing an inherently useless religion! Phew.

  64. What you’re saying there isn’t that premarital sex is immoral in and of itself, you’re saying that premarital sex for you is an immoral decision…? I think? Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s totally how I read it. That’s not the same as considering it immoral per se.

    Yes, I think that is pretty much what I’m saying. I think it’s an immoral decision for me, or for anyone who also thinks it’s immoral… but it’s not an immoral act in itself–the act itself doesn’t hurt anyone, directly or indirectly, or if it does it’s because of other factors and not solely due to it being premarital sex*–so it’s only immoral on a personal level and not a universal one, unlike acts like murder. It has the *potential* of being immoral (which is how religions justify making it a sin) but really what doesn’t?

    *Religious people can argue it hurts the people involved in a level they don’t realize (I don’t personally believe that… nonbelievers don’t sin in the same way as believers because they live by different obligations) or an emotional but that would be conflating religion with secular morality to socially police people’s behaviors. But then I think adultery is universally douchey, and I’m totally fine with the fact that people are socially discouraged to cheat because of how much it emotionally hurts someone else, which seems to be an acceptable conflation… I guess because it’s a breach of contract? But really, what’s the foundation?

  65. I know a woman whose son is gay, she thinks homosexuality is immoral because according to her religion it is a sin. Her and her son are VERY close, she loves him, she supports him she has invited her son’s partner to her home they hang out and she’s helping to plan the wedding. Seriously, this woman can be called a bigot *just because* she thinks it is immoral?

    Arreligious queer kid of a Christian mother her. I love my mother dearly and she loves me. She also knows that I would be incredibly hurt if she felt that I was immoral for being homosexual (she does not, for the record). Yes, what she thinks about who I am (beyond what I actually do) matters. Matters to me, at least. Because I fundamentally disagree that there is anything immoral about being queer. My state of being as gay is not and should not be an affront to anyone’s moral sensibilities. There is no justification for that I find persuasive. If she believed I was immoral, she would pray for me to be different, because of what immorality means to her in her religion. If my mother was praying for me to be different than who I am in that way, I would be devastated. Our relationship would be fundamentally weakened. I would tell her she was being bigoted.

  66. Well I think I know a little more than you think about religion.

    *infinite amounts of lol* I sure as fuck hope so.

    Um, I didn’t say you didn’t know anything about any religion. I said your views were hopelessly Christian-centric and that qualified you to talk about Christianity, not Judaism (as kungfulola has already eloquently pointed out) and certainly not Hinduism.

  67. I know a woman whose son is gay, she thinks homosexuality is immoral because according to her religion it is a sin. Her and her son are VERY close, she loves him, she supports him she has invited her son’s partner to her home they hang out and she’s helping to plan the wedding. Seriously, this woman can be called a bigot *just because* she thinks it is immoral?

    Yes. Yes, she can. In fact, “judging others’ lives as inferior because of a value judgment on their innate being” is kind of the definition of bigotry. It’s sweet that you want to defend her, but kind of illogical by the definition of the term.

    My mother is also from a religious tradition that passively rejects homosexuality as immoral. When I, her daughter, brought my wife home, she has done every one of those things and had the grace to reexamine her value judgment of homosexuality. And you’re damn right I called her a bigot, repeatedly, until she did.

  68. Jadey that is your relationship with your mother. My mother-in-law and I have seriously differing views on circumcision and abortion. I dont hate her or think she is a horrible perosn because we disagree. My mother has been disappointed in decisions I have made, thought some of them to be immoral even- when I didn’t. It had no effect on my love and relationship with her. She’s awesome and a disagreement will not change that. She treats me no differently and I’d pray for the person who’d attempt to treat me differently in her presence because I assure you, nothing good comes from the wrath of that woman when it comes to protecting her first born.

    I think it’s ok that you’d not be ok with your mom if she thought it was immoral all while being supportive and loving you as is the woman I know with her gay adult child. But he loves her, they are close. She was a religious woman before he was born and she continued to be one after. The same people who talk shit about her thinking homosexuality is immoral were the same ones who wanted her to abort him (she was high risk). I dont know that she prays for him to no longer be homosexual, that isn’t something she has announced.

    “Let he/she without sin, cast the first stone” is what she’d say to any religious person who had anything to say about her son being gay. It ends the conversation pretty quickly.

  69. And anyone who is truly Christian knows that everyone sins and does things on a DAILY basis which, according to Christianity, are immoral and sinful.

    And yet I don’t see anyone holding up “God hates shellfish-eaters” signs in front of military funerals. Christian, Scotsmen.

  70. Holy cats, we’re STILL hanging on to that stupid notion that pre-marital sex is IMMORAL?? People have been having out-of-wedlock nookie forEVER….when did we wayback machine back into the 1800’s? And HELLS NO, it’s not immoral…unless you’re deliberately trying to emotionally take advantage of someone, but that’s a whole different, um, ballgame. Good gawd, already….

  71. Agree that comparing “premarital sex is immoral” and “homosexuality is immoral” is comparing apples and oranges, but also thinking that insofar as the big three religious moralities play out on the social/political stage, we’re still in the same bowl of fruit. Both themes rely on underclasses deviating from patriarchal moral standards of heterosexual monogamy in a male-dominant/female-submissive marriage. Those who don’t adhere to these sexual restrictions pay a real social and emotional price. Not to mention that the religious concepts of purity, virginity, illegitimacy, and modesty are sexist in essence, and these concepts fundamentally define the Abrahamic religions’ approach to sexual morality.

    Just because they are deeply-held religious beliefs doesn’t mean they’re outside of our critical reach, and certainly doesn’t mean these cultural beliefs aren’t rooted in centuries-old bigotry.

    I know a woman whose son is gay, she thinks homosexuality is immoral because according to her religion it is a sin. Her and her son are VERY close, she loves him, she supports him she has invited her son’s partner to her home they hang out and she’s helping to plan the wedding. Seriously, this woman can be called a bigot *just because* she thinks it is immoral?

    I mean, my dad (a good ol’ boy raised in the Jim Crow South) was always nice to the black people he knew in person, and even once defended a black man in court at risk of losing his job, but those kindnesses meant nothing compared to the way he voted, the way he spent his money, the way he felt in his heart, or the way he talked about black people in white company. There are a thousand excuses I could make for him to make his feelings and actions more palatable, but the fact is that my dad is and was bigoted against people of color, particularly black folks, and I’m not sure what the value is in excusing that with a dozen complicated qualifications to appeal to his humanity. Bigotry is rarely — never — consequence-free.

  72. macavitykitsune:

    I am no more responsible for the actions of all Christians as I am responsible for the actions of all WOC, or mothers, or sisters, or best friends, or legal professionals, or women who went to women colleges. Simple as that.

    Democrats were the biggest supporters of slavery, white people were the biggest benefactors of slavery should they all be viewed as bigots by me?

    I’m pro-grun and pro-death penalty does that make me less pro-choice and pro-civil rights?

    There are a myriad of sins in the bible, enough that EVERYONE is guilty of at least ONE of them. Jesus says sinners can’t judge other sinners and EVERYONE is a sinner. Those Christians holding their signs, and shaming others are being bigger sinners than the ones they are trying to bully. Simple as that.

  73. Seriously, this woman can be called a bigot *just because* she thinks it is immoral?

    So she’s doing the gay equivalent of “the only moral abortion is my abortion”? And that’s supposed to convince me that she’s not a bigot?

  74. Lauren,

    That’s vastly different from the woman I know. She’s actually PLANNING her gay son’s WEDDING not actively trying to criminalize it. She accepts him and loves him not shun and shames him. She has her beliefs and she does not judge him for not being perfect. There are countless women who vote pro-choice but think abortion is a horrible thing and would NEVER get one and think it is immoral. But they believe it is your body, thus your choice, your life thus you are held to your own moral standards. Respecting that people have different moral standards does not mean that you have no opinion or that your own moral standard does not exist beyond it, it means you will not FORCE it on others and you wont judge the person who disagrees.

    If your dad was one of those people who thought times were better during slavery BUT he would never vote that way, he’d never try to make it happen again or treat black people differently, if he never showed racism in public or prvate but simply felt that times were better. I wouldn’t call him a bigot and I say that as a WOC with a black caribbean parent where a REVOLT is what gained freedom for slaves so yeah, shit is real. I mean what I said.

  75. There are a myriad of sins in the bible, enough that EVERYONE is guilty of at least ONE of them. Jesus says sinners can’t judge other sinners and EVERYONE is a sinner. Those Christians holding their signs, and shaming others are being bigger sinners than the ones they are trying to bully.

    That’s nice if you’re a Christian. From the outside, however, I pretty much couldn’t care less about the petty internecine squabbles that have characterized Christianity from the git-go. If Christians want to run around judging each other, that’s their business, but as a non-Christian, I don’t care about which Christians are bigger “sinners.”

    I fundamentally disagree that homosexuality is a sin; condemning a person’s harmless sexual activities is indeed justifying bad treatment of that person. That’s the real world.

    If you want to condemn all white people as bigots, I think you have ample justification. But the better parallel would be whether or not it would be reasonable to condemn all white people who consider being black to be sin–perhaps the mark of Cain and evidence of a sinful nature–as bigots. Even if they then followed it up by saying “oh, but we’re all sinners, of course.”

  76. There are a myriad of sins in the bible, enough that EVERYONE is guilty of at least ONE of them. Jesus says sinners can’t judge other sinners and EVERYONE is a sinner. Those Christians holding their signs, and shaming others are being bigger sinners than the ones they are trying to bully. Simple as that.

    So…to someone like me, who doesn’t really care what Jesus thinks, or believe that everyone is a sinner by default…. what reassurance is that? Someone telling me “you’re gay, but it’s okay, because I murdered someone and that woman over there is wearing polyester, so we’re all equally sinners and I totes don’t judge you ♥ ” is isn’t ridiculous?

    I love who I love. That woman over there is wearing polyester. Woman trying to make me feel better murdered someone. One of these things is not like the other. Also, am I supposed to feel better that my consensual sexual activities are supposed to be judged exactly as sinful as child rape and mass murder and mowing the lawn on Sunday?

    Wow, your cognitive dissonance. I’m glad the woman in your examples is being The Bigger Person, but I’d rather have honest opposition than “you’re filth and a sinner but I love you anyway”. I’ve already ridden that emotional abuse roundabout, thanks.

  77. Democrats were the biggest supporters of slavery, white people were the biggest benefactors of slavery should they all be viewed as bigots by me?

    I’m pro-grun and pro-death penalty does that make me less pro-choice and pro-civil rights?

    Except that you can’t judge white people today as bigots because white people 150 years ago were bigots. If the white person in question is expressing bigoted beliefs, then yeah, they’re a bigot, but you can’t inherit labels. You can, however, say things like “the only homosexual I’ll support is the one I gave birth to” and be immediately, right-now, no-justifications bigoted. And I never said you were responsible for all Christians, I merely pointed out that No True Scotsman’ing the conversation ignores present realities.

    I’m perfectly willing to stand up and say that people of my religion are deeply bigoted, and an increasing number are refusing to be, and that my religion supports both stances. Since, as far as I know, Christianity isn’t incompatible with homosexuality or being an ally to QUILTBAG people (if it is, I’ve got a lot of Christian friends I need to go tell they’re doing it Wrong), what’s stopping you from doing the same with this oh-so-tolerant woman with exactly two Get Out Of Icky-Homosexual-Status Free cards to offer?

  78. You can’t even judge Democrats today by the Democrats of 150 years ago, because it’s not the same party since the Civil Rights Act and Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

    I mean, where do you think all those Southern Democrats went?

  79. You can’t even judge Democrats today by the Democrats of 150 years ago, because it’s not the same party since the Civil Rights Act and Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

    QFT.

  80. There is no such thing as sin. So being judgmental is not sinful, nor is it necessarily even bad. Judging things is a natural human thought process. And I judge the shit out of fools who have dumbass moral convictions like “homosexuality is wrong” or “abortion is wrong.” Just because your pastor quoted you something out of a 3000-year-old, error-riddled book written mainly by a bunch sexist, straight guys DOES NOT make it true. **Gasp!!** Shocking, I know.

    If someone thinks “homosexuality is wrong,” but it isn’t something they ever communicate and it doesn’t influence their behavior, then, fine, whatever. I don’t really care. But at the point that they make this belief known to me, it starts being a problem. No, you’re wrong, asshole. And just because you are too much of a coward to do anything really drastic about your supposedly deeply held moral convictions doesn’t make communicating them and sometimes acting on them OK. Think for yourself and don’t believe any old dumbass, marginalizing, oppressive, heteronormative rubbish that your pastor shoves down your throat.

  81. Agree that comparing “premarital sex is immoral” and “homosexuality is immoral” is comparing apples and oranges

    Um, how is it? They’re both ultimately about making sure the ‘right people’ are having the right kind of sex and preserving a certain kind of social hierarchy and keeping brothers and sisters down.

    Respecting that people have different moral standards does not mean that you have no opinion or that your own moral standard does not exist beyond it, it means you will not FORCE it on others and you wont judge the person who disagrees.

    Well your bible tells you that those people are going to burn in hell for eternity, so it really makes no difference if you force your beliefs on them during their brief stay here on earth does it?

    Seriously you’re sitting here with this BS about how we should be grateful that there are so many nice christians not actively forcing their beliefs on us and that they’re just judging us immoral in their minds… How dare we call them bigoted?? Well fuck that shit, I’ve been around enough church of england types to know that this ‘non-judgemental’ religious stuff is a total sham. Everytime they open their mouth they make it perfectly clear what they think of whole groups of people. Not bigoted my ass.

    I’m pro-grun and pro-death penalty does that make me less pro-choice and pro-civil rights?

    Pro-death penalty? Seriously? The only pro death penalty person I met in my life was this girl’s creepy dad who beat the fuck out of her. Isn’t there something in your bible about like, not throwing the first stone of something? Isn’t killing a person kinda the opposite of that?

  82. There’s not shit you could say to change my mind about being pro death penalty. I’m not an abusive jerk-fuck of a human being so your comparison between me and your friend’s father makes about as much sense as me comparing you as an atheist to Jeffrey Domer.

    Everyone sins, I’m a Christian- I believe in Christ and Christ’s teachings. There is a HUGE difference between the old an dnew testaments. The death penalty is NOT Christ-like, but neither is abortion, neither is homosexuality or gay marriage, neither is divorce. If YOUR morality makes you anti-death penalty than golf clap and kudos to you. My logic says a dead murderer can’t kill again and money spent on keeping a murderer alive could be better spent OUTSIDE of the criminal justice system. I don’t inject my religious belief into my political views/beliefs, on all accounts.

    Throwing the first stone is about judging a person for sinning, although murder is a sin my issue with murderers is a human rights concern not religious based morality.

    If I can respect that you’re an atheist you can respect that I’m a Christian and save the condescending bullshit for someone who is a disrespectful ass.

  83. There is no such thing as sin.

    I disagree, being feminist doesn’t make me anti-Christianity. It is *your* belief that sin doesn’t exist, I vehemently disagree with you. I guess the rest of the conversation is moot.

  84. You can, however, say things like “the only homosexual I’ll support is the one I gave birth to” and be immediately, right-now, no-justifications bigoted.

    My oldest son is a toddler so that wasn’t about me but the woman I know is not going around supporting total strangers the way she supports her son. She does however have a general sense of giving a damn for all people and not judging them just because they are not Christians, make different decisions, or live a different life. I think it takes a real asshole to play thought police on someone else’s morality.

    I have no gripe with a racist who simply hopes or prefer their kid marries within their own race. Who cares what they hope or prefer? There are shitloads of “liberals” even some on this very fuckign site who have shown more racism on this site in the comment section than people who are racists by virtue of hoping or having a preference that their child dates/marries within their own race.

    The reality is, many things ANYONE does is viewed as immoral by another, but many people aren’t trying to police your morality or force their morality on you by treatign you differently, judging you or criminalizing your “immoral” actions. Those people aren’t bigots, those are people who disagree with you. Plenty of people will say ” Oh I would NEVER have casual sex, but if YOU want to, I wouldnt stop you, or I’d support you all while saying they think it is immoral…for them” If I think something is not good enough for ME but perfectly fine for YOU is that really any better than saying I dont think *insert something* is good enough for ANYONE, I wont use it but if you do I will not hold it against you, judge you or treat you differently for it.”

  85. Agree that comparing “premarital sex is immoral” and “homosexuality is immoral” is comparing apples and oranges

    Um, how is it?

    Premarital sex is an act. Like picking up a spoon or crossing the street.

    Being gay is not a thing you *do*, it’s a facet of who you *are*. Like being a woman.

    It’s one thing to police people’s actions. It’s another thing entirely to police people’s identities.

  86. First, Azalea, there are people on the website who have been chatting who aren’t of the Judeo-Christian-Islam flavor of religious background, and I’m not even speaking of those of us who have parted ways, so let’s keep that in mind when we talk about religion. (I tend to think even Atheists have some privilege in the US compared to followers of Hindu)

    Second, really, do you identify as queer? Because if you don’t, you really don’t have a dog in the fight as to whether or not the woman you reference is a bigot or not. I, however, self ID as queer. And where I’M sitting, any person who thinks that homosexuality is immoral, no matter how forgiving they might be of an individual, is a bigot.

    And hell, even if you do ID as queer, I would think you would respect other queer people’s voices as they speak of their discomfort with the idea that this woman, simply because she accepts and loves her son as any parent should, makes her magically free of the bigotry she would hold of a random queer person walking down the street. That is what it comes down to. She makes an EXCEPTION for someone she loves and cares about, and even so, sees him as fundamentally flawed in a way he cannot correct. That’s bigotry, and that’s fucked up.

    But hey, clearly it’s no skin off your nose.

  87. I, however, self ID as queer. And where I’M sitting, any person who thinks that homosexuality is immoral, no matter how forgiving they might be of an individual, is a bigot.

    QFT.

  88. Shfree,

    I’m a Christian so I am speaking about Chrsitianity. The woman I gave an example of is Christian. If someone of another religion wants to show which parts of their own faith they threw in the trash so as not to be called a bigot by others (and I do not mean, not follow but threw it away as in chose not to believe it) please share.

    Let’s make a deal, this will be my LAST post about whether or not this woman is a bigot so long as the next time we have a post and someone says something I think is racist, no one who isn’t black or biracial (black and _____) has a dog in the fight to dispute it either. Because seriously MANY white women on this board has told ME what was and was NOT racist.

    Where are you getting that she’s being a bigot? Thos epeople walking down the street or who have seen her at the pride parade with her son see her as a bigot? Really? “Black older woman in DC who is religious MUST be a bigot because…well she just MUST be because she isn’t taking me and MY partner to dinner like she does for her SON?” Being Queer makes someone a mind reader now? Again, EVERYONE sins, no sin is above another (she isn’t of the homosexuality is the worst sin ever mindset, all sins are equal). THEREFORE, she sees NO difference between one law abiding sinner and another. She no more judges someone for premarital sex than she does for being homosexual or having an abortion or lying, or being jealous, etc etc etc. So essentially this woman is a bigot because she wont give her religion the finger for perfect strangers. I say that’s unfair.

    She isn’t doing ANYTHING to hurt you. But if it hurts your feelings that she is a Christian I don’t think there is anything she could do about that. How do you say “go to hell or be called a bigot” and honestly say that is fair? It’s your right to call her names, even if we disagree. I know her enough to know she isn’t a bigot but if you want her to be a bigot because she believes her religious teachings when they listed sins and homosexuality was one of them, that’s on you.

    I eat shellfish, I beleive in Christ and if a person is Jewish the teachings say Christ has NOT arrived yet. Do they not think I am going to hell? Do they get to override what their religion teaches them be blasphemous and declare that because we’re friends they just KNOW I will make it to heaven? Do I get to call everyone who isn’t a Christian whose teachings say I’m going to hell for not believing what they believe a religious bigot?

    There are people who pick and choose which sins listed in the bible are “real” sins and which are not. I dont know where they got their information from but there is no “revised” list of sins outside of the bible in Christianity. The new testament DID reverse a few sins from the old testament but not all of them and not as many as people like to think. At some point you’re pretty much calling this woman a bigot which to me is like calling her KKK simply because she actually believes in her faith and it’s teachings. Which means that ANYONE who has more loyalty to their faith (as a Christian) than they do to strangers would be listed as a bigot. The issue you have is with God himself for making that a sin in the first place, as a Chrsitian she isn’t going to follow suit with taking an issue with Him because there are sins you or anyone else doesn’t like.

  89. My oldest son is a toddler so that wasn’t about me but the woman I know is not going around supporting total strangers the way she supports her son.

    If “I consider you equal even though your choices are not mine” is too much support to give another human being, boy is she short on empathy.

    I think it takes a real asshole to play thought police on someone else’s morality.

    From a (presumably) straight Christian to a lesbian-leaning Hindu WOC. You heard it here, guys.

    I have no gripe with a racist who simply hopes or prefer their kid marries within their own race. Who cares what they hope or prefer?

    Why do you have no gripe with someone who’d prefer their kid married within their race? o.o I’m in an interracial marriage, and that’d be extremely offensive to me.

    Those people aren’t bigots, those are people who disagree with you. Plenty of people will say ” Oh I would NEVER have casual sex, but if YOU want to, I wouldnt stop you, or I’d support you all while saying they think it is immoral…for them”

    As I said in a much earlier comment, Azalea, making a personal choice to do X is not a condemnation of Y. Thinking that people who do Y (especially when Y is integral to who they are – religion, sexuality, culture, language, etc etc) are immoral simply because you do X is in fact bigoted.

    You don’t have a problem with gay people? You’re straight? Cool, no worries.

    You think God Hates Fags but you don’t actually behave like an asshat? Bigoted, but decent.

    You’re holding up a Protect Marriage poster and kicking your gay kids out of your house? Bigoted fullstop.

    Why is it so fucking hard to accept a sliding scale?

    If I think something is not good enough for ME but perfectly fine for YOU is that really any better than saying I dont think *insert something* is good enough for ANYONE

    Yeah, except the “not good enough” isn’t in fact an ally statement. It attaches worth and creates an hierarchy of morality in relationships. A nice, considerate reply that doesn’t give off this arome de jerkwad would be “I don’t choose it, but that’s me, not you.” (You know, kind of how I feel/talk about straight marriage, Hindus who stick spears through their cheeks, big weddings and long hair.)

  90. I, however, self ID as queer. And where I’M sitting, any person who thinks that homosexuality is immoral, no matter how forgiving they might be of an individual, is a bigot.

    QFT again.

    Also, Azalea, I wouldn’t presume to ‘splain to you about the history of WOC in the States (I think that’s where you’re from, yes?), as a recently arrived immigrant. Please try not to do the same about what constitutes and doesn’t constitute bigotry against QUILTBAGS. I spent 22 years of my life in a country which still criminalised homosexuality. I think I know what I’m talking about.

    1. If YOUR morality makes you anti-death penalty than golf clap and kudos to you. My logic says a dead murderer can’t kill again and money spent on keeping a murderer alive could be better spent OUTSIDE of the criminal justice system. I don’t inject my religious belief into my political views/beliefs, on all accounts.

      Just as an aside, it costs a LOT more money to execute someone than it costs to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.

    2. There are people who pick and choose which sins listed in the bible are “real” sins and which are not. I dont know where they got their information from but there is no “revised” list of sins outside of the bible in Christianity. The new testament DID reverse a few sins from the old testament but not all of them and not as many as people like to think. At some point you’re pretty much calling this woman a bigot which to me is like calling her KKK simply because she actually believes in her faith and it’s teachings. Which means that ANYONE who has more loyalty to their faith (as a Christian) than they do to strangers would be listed as a bigot. The issue you have is with God himself for making that a sin in the first place, as a Chrsitian she isn’t going to follow suit with taking an issue with Him because there are sins you or anyone else doesn’t like.

      Azelea, can you point to where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is a sin? Because I’ve actually read the thing, and it’s far from clear on that point — and the focus on homosexuality, even from a Christian perspective, seems cherry-picked at best.

  91. Oh I would NEVER have casual sex, but if YOU want to, I wouldnt stop you, or I’d support you all while saying they think it is immoral…for them” If I think something is not good enough for ME but perfectly fine for YOU is that really any better than saying I dont think *insert something* is good enough for ANYONE, I wont use it but if you do I will not hold it against you, judge you or treat you differently for it.”

    I’m sorry but that’s total rubbish. You wouldn’t hold the opinion that casual sex is immoral but you’re totally not going to judge or hold it against anyone. Let’s face it there’s judgement going on their even in what you said.

    “It’s not good enough for me” well if it’s not good enough for you ergo there’s something wrong with it. Ergo if there’s something wrong with it ergo there’s something wrong with the people who do engage in it. You can’t separate this thinking things are immoral from thinking that the people who do them are also immoral. I’ve been around these types of religious people and they ALWAYS let that shit slip through in what they say and how they talk to you. IMO this soft, internal bigotry thing is still bigotry, motherfuck that shit yeah.

  92. There’s not shit you could say to change my mind about being pro death penalty.

    The US has executed innocent people?

  93. LibraryGoose, a young black man’s entire future was ruined when he was falsely accused of rape, convicted and imprisoned. I still think rape victims should be given the benefit of the doubt and rapist should go to jail.

    The U.S. convicting innocent people of crimes they didnt commit is an issue with the judicial system not the legislation.

  94. Chiara, I think premarital sex is a sin because according to my religion there are actions which are sins and premarital sex is one of them. I would no more judge a person for having premarital sex than I would a wife for sleeping in the same bed as her husband while on her menstrual cycle (also a sin). YOU can’t dictate what I mean when I say something, that’s all there is to it. You can take it and twist it and make it mean what you *want* it to me and that is your twisted perception of my words.

  95. The U.S. convicting innocent people of crimes they didnt commit is an issue with the judicial system not the legislation.

    Truthfully, I don’t really feel like discussing this here will really change much either way. I just figured I’d take a swing. I’m not really invested in the argument.

    1. The U.S. convicting innocent people of crimes they didnt commit is an issue with the judicial system not the legislation.

      Well sure. But wrongful convictions are going to happen no matter what – there’s no way to ensure that the judicial system is 100% perfect, which is why we have a series of safeguards in place to decrease the wrongful conviction rate (an “innocent until proven guilty” standard, an appeals system). But even with those safeguards there will be wrongful convictions. Which is one reason why opponents of the death penalty are opponents of the death penalty — because it’s too final a penalty to level in an imperfect world.

  96. Goddamn but homophobia is just as fucking tedious as it is deadly.

    To the other queer folk and allies: I understand that covering each others’ backs is really important, so I’d just like to take a minute to explain that the reason why I have not contributed more to this thread than a simple agreement with someone else, and why I will not be contributing any more past this comment, is because I am totally fucking done engaging homophobic arguments with civil discourse, and I don’t do flamewars.

    For future reference, all of the following bigoted arguments are arguments that I will generally refuse to dignify with even as much as a simple acknowledgment: whether or not I have a right to exist; whether or not I am, by merely existing, categorically immoral/disordered/dysfunctional/sinful/some sort of “biological mistake”; whether anyone who categorically judges queers in any negative manner is a bigot, regardless of whether they’re using their religion as an excuse for their bigoted beliefs; whether or not I should have civil rights; whether or not my civil rights ought to be CALLED “civil rights”; and anything else remotely resembling any of these homophobia pre-101 topics. I’ve hit my lifetime threshold on all of that shit.

  97. Why do you have no gripe with someone who’d prefer their kid married within their race? o.o I’m in an interracial marriage, and that’d be extremely offensive to me.

    Because YOU are not me. You don’t get to decide what is and isn’t ok for me just as I dont get to decide what is and isn’t ok for you. I dont care about other people’s preferences and hopes, I care about what they do. A person who is attracted to children who never so much as allow themselves to enjoy a fantasy of a child is someone I would not harbor ill will towards. A person who is attracted to children who will go to a playground and masturbate, yeah BIG issues. That applies to everything across the board.

    There are plenty of white people who hope their sons and daughters marry another white person. Hoping or having a preference that your child marries white is NOT the same as disowning them if their union is interracial. If you see it as one and the same, feel free to lump all people with hopes and preferences in the same group as people with prejudice. As a WOC I’m not doing that shit.

    If “I consider you equal even though your choices are not mine” is too much support to give another human being, boy is she short on empathy.

    LOL!!!! It isn’t, she considers herself a sinner, she considers EVERYONE a sinner and if you’re a homosexual she considers you a sinner too. She does not go around disrespecting random strangers, finger pointing calling people sinners. but if she were given a survey on whether or not homosexuality was moral she’d say no. If she was voting on civil rights for homosexual marriage, she’d vote yes. What is there that so many of you are not understanding? I said she isn’t taking random gay couples out to dinner and planning THEIR weddings as she is doing for her son and future son-in-law. WTF does she have to go fucking broke to prove she’s an ally on top of denouncing her religion????? SMH

  98. You think God Hates Fags but you don’t actually behave like an asshat? Bigoted, but decent.

    Where did I say she called anyone anything derogatory?

    It isn’t simply that she “thinks” God hates homosexuals. Christ hates the sin not the sinner. God hates homosexuality according to the bible and if you’re a Christian you believe what the bible says to be a testiment to what God wants/says/thinks/did/does. This isn’t her making shit up, it is her and other Christians like her accepting the teachings of her religious text.

    1. It isn’t simply that she “thinks” God hates homosexuals. Christ hates the sin not the sinner. God hates homosexuality according to the bible and if you’re a Christian you believe what the bible says to be a testiment to what God wants/says/thinks/did/does. This isn’t her making shit up, it is her and other Christians like her accepting the teachings of her religious text.

      Wowwwww we’re already hate “love the sinner, hate the sin”? Impressive!

      Look: Yes, the Bible has a small (SUPER SMALL) handful of passages on homosexuality. But the most quoted ones also, for example, come right around the same passages that say you can’t have period sex. And yet I don’t see entire movements and organizations trying to criminalize period sex. I would bet that most parents who vocalize their belief that homosexuality is “immoral” but claim to love and support their gay children anyway don’t also mention their view that period sex is immoral (and that Leviticus requires that men who have sex with menstruating women be “cast out” of their communities). I would bet that most parents who vocalize their belief that homosexuality is “immoral” but claim to love and support their gay children anyway don’t also mention their view that harvesting the edges of a field is immoral; I’ll bet they don’t say they oppose wine producers who don’t leave fallen grapes in the fields for the poor. I’ll bet they don’t lecture their children on the immorality of planting multiple types of seed in the same field, or wearing clothing made with different kinds of cloth (I’ll bet lots of them have diverse gardens and wear cotton-poly blends). I’ll bet some of them even trim their beards, and don’t wax on about how beard-trimming is a sin, but they love the sinner anyway.

      So yes, it is bigotry. People can hold bigoted views and still not act on them or be total assholes. But “the Bible says so” doesn’t make the viewpoint any less bigoted. And the Biblical directives people choose to follow — because really, no one follows all of them — and the Biblical points that people even choose to categorize as “immoral but I love you anyway” say a whole lot.

  99. I’m sorry but that’s total rubbish. You wouldn’t hold the opinion that casual sex is immoral but you’re totally not going to judge or hold it against anyone. Let’s face it there’s judgement going on their even in what you said.

    Oh for crying out loud. As someone who believes premarital sex is immoral for myself and not for people who don’t believe it’s immoral I have never thought I was BETTER than anyone who has casual sex. I don’t think I’m “too good” for casual sex. It’s just not my decision.

  100. Just FYI, since everything said here seems to be measured to Christian standards, I’m not Christian.

    In Islam you CAN’T sin by having premarital sex UNLESS you are Muslim. There are also a crap load of other things you can’t sin with if you’re not Muslim. Like praying five times a day. Miss those prayers? Not Muslim? No sin.

  101. YOU can’t dictate what I mean when I say something, that’s all there is to it. You can take it and twist it and make it mean what you *want* it to me and that is your twisted perception of my words.

    No, I can’t. But you can’t dictate what you mean when you say something either. The words that you use and the order that you use them in dictate what you mean when you say something.

    For example here’s a definition for the word sin, from Google: “An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.”

    So if your religion tells you that premarital sex or whatever is a sin then that means, by definition, that you believe it be an immoral act. And that means that you believe the people who engage in it are immoral people. If you think something is a sin, then the judgement of people who do it is like, implicit, you know? You can’t skirt around that fact.

    If someone of another religion wants to show which parts of their own faith they threw in the trash so as not to be called a bigot by others (and I do not mean, not follow but threw it away as in chose not to believe it) please share.

    OMG!! poor oppressed Christians you know these days they cant even go around hating on homosexuals and people that have premarital sex without getting called bigots! how dare people hold them accountable for their views? they’re just blindly following their faith after all! yeah my heart bleeds for the plight of the christians like.

    yeah guess what I threw away my whole religion that they tried to teach me as a kid not because i didnt want to get called a bigot like you seem so scared of but because I actually cared about NOT BEING A BIGOT

    Which means that ANYONE who has more loyalty to their faith (as a Christian) than they do to strangers would be listed as a bigot.

    gah give it a rest like. these people were born in to that faith and indoctrinated in it as kids. and then as they grow older they find it gives them a nice cushy blanket so they can feel good about themselves and judge other people because of who does and doesn’t do some fucking arbitrary ‘sins’ and shit. people having loyalty to their faith is not some kinda enviable trait. people having critical thinking and thinking for themselves, now that’s an enviable trait.

  102. Jill:

    Leviticus 18:22
    Romans 1-30

    Those are a few.

    Sodomites are also known as biblical references to homosexuals and people who engage in oral and anal sex, also sins.

    It is also sin to be supportive of homosexuals and “sodomites.” But there are people who beleive this to be a sin (because the bible says so) but as a human rights issue still support them and their rights without judgement.

    1. Jill:

      Leviticus 18:22
      Romans 1-30

      Those are a few.

      Sodomites are also known as biblical references to homosexuals and people who engage in oral and anal sex, also sins.

      Right. And the sections of Leviticus you reference also include a host of other abominations that no one seems to talk about or really say are sinful (not leaving fallen grapes in vineyards for the poor; wearing clothes of mixed cloth; farming the edges of your field; planting multiple crops; etc). Priests aren’t allowed to be “deformed” or have eye defects or sores or damaged testicles.

      So why the focus on homosexuality? Why the cherry-picking of that one? Do the people who “love the sinner hate the sin” say the same thing about men who trim the sides of their beards? Do they think it’s wrong for a priest to wear eyeglasses?

      Also: Those sections of Leviticus are clear on what the punishment should be for committing a litany of sins. Adulterers should be killed. So should mediums and spiritists. So should people who have sex with those of the same sex. How can we justify following God’s command to regard homosexuality, adultery, spiritism, etc as abominations, but not his commands as to what to do with those people in order to cleanse the land? Could one say, “Well I believe homosexuals should be killed because the Bible says so, but I love my gay son so I won’t be the one to kill him”? Does that still count as not-bigoted?

      And the term “sodomite” is a reference to the story of Sodom & Gommorah, which is highly disputed, and has only in fairly modern times been considered a story about homosexuality. I’d suggest if you haven’t actually read the text of that story that you do, because, having read it, I’m not really seeing it as about butt sex. Just because we use a Biblically-derived word to describe something doesn’t mean that’s what the Bible actually says.

  103. It isn’t simply that she “thinks” God hates homosexuals. Christ hates the sin not the sinner. God hates homosexuality according to the bible and if you’re a Christian you believe what the bible says to be a testiment to what God wants/says/thinks/did/does. This isn’t her making shit up, it is her and other Christians like her accepting the teachings of her religious text.

    Azalea, have you read the Bible? there is no evidence that God “hates homosexuals”, and “hate the sin but not the sinner” doesn’t show up anywhere. there’s also no mention of pre/extramarital sex as being wrong. like, literally. nowhere does it say that sex is for marriage or straight people only. you’re engaging in really poor hermeneutics. the idea that you’re just “doing what God wants/what the Bible says” cannot exist the way you’re framing it. You’re refusing to contextualize a collection of texts that needs to be contextualized if it’s going to be understood.

  104. Oh for crying out loud. As someone who believes premarital sex is immoral for myself and not for people who don’t believe it’s immoral I have never thought I was BETTER than anyone who has casual sex. I don’t think I’m “too good” for casual sex. It’s just not my decision.

    Yes I understand now that Islam is different in that non-believers are not held to the same moral teachings — my comment there was in reference to Christianity.

  105. I dont hate her or think she is a horrible perosn because we disagree.

    That’s nice. Where did anybody say that being a bigot meant that you had to hate someone or think she is a horrible person? How is this point at all relevant to the conversation?

    Everyone sins, I’m a Christian- I believe in Christ and Christ’s teachings. There is a HUGE difference between the old an dnew testaments.

    You know what? I’m sick of this shit from Christians. No matter what you people think you’re saying, what it means is “We’re good and kind and understanding, not like those primitive barbaric JEWS.” If the “Old Testament” isn’t a major part of your religion, why is it 75% of your goddamn holy book, with the precious New Testament being about 100 pages of add-on? This is an offensive, anti-semitic bullshit statement. If your religion is dependent on the Bible, you need to own what that Bible considers important and not blame the Jews for every ridiculous thing in it.

    if you want her to be a bigot because she believes her religious teachings when they listed sins and homosexuality was one of them, that’s on you.

    I don’t want her to be a bigot; her religion does. And following a bigoted religion makes you a bigot. Being gay is not comparable to lying; being gay is comparable to being straight. Any religion that considers homosexuality to be a more sinful orientation than heterosexuality is indeed bigoted, and anybody who decides that following that religion is more important than considering real people’s real lives is a bigot. All you have demonstrated is that bigoted religions create bigoted followers. Well, congratulations. I knew that.

    You haven’t addressed the question I raised: the issue is not whether all white people are racist, but whether all white people who believe that blackness is a sin or a sign of sin are racist.

    I eat shellfish, I beleive in Christ and if a person is Jewish the teachings say Christ has NOT arrived yet. Do they not think I am going to hell? Do they get to override what their religion teaches them be blasphemous and declare that because we’re friends they just KNOW I will make it to heaven?

    That is not how Jewish belief works. Do not project your Christian paradigm onto other religions. I have never met a Jew who thinks that Christians are going to “hell”–you know what? Hell is your concept. If you want to go suffer for all eternity, be my guest, but don’t claim that my people think that’s a good idea. It is not our concept.

    At some point you’re pretty much calling this woman a bigot which to me is like calling her KKK simply because she actually believes in her faith and it’s teachings.

    Really? The KKK is the only standard of bigotry? That’s the kind of bullshit I usually here from racists babbling about how they aren’t really racist because they don’t advocate slavery.

    The issue you have is with God himself for making that a sin in the first place, as a Chrsitian she isn’t going to follow suit with taking an issue with Him because there are sins you or anyone else doesn’t like.

    First of all, the issue I have is not with any of the so-called gods, because I’ve seen nothing to indicate they exist. My issue is with people who feel that loyalty to some figure for which there is no evidence is more important than loyalty to other people who definitely do exist. At best, I consider that to be misplaced priorities; in this case, yes, it’s bigotry. Putting “God says so” in front of it doesn’t make it less so. This is not Simon Says.

    t isn’t, she considers herself a sinner, she considers EVERYONE a sinner and if you’re a homosexual she considers you a sinner too.

    Except that she considers gay people sinners by virtue of their homosexuality alone, and not straight people. That is bigotry. She can be following bigoted teachings all she likes; they’re still bigoted.

  106. This isn’t her making shit up, it is her and other Christians like her accepting the teachings of her religious text.

    sorry for the quick post succession… I don’t comment on here very often. but it really grinds my gears when I see statements like this. Nobody can just “accept the teachings of [the Bible]”. It’s not something you can just read and then be like “oh! so this is exactly the way to live my life!”
    None of the biblical texts were written in a vacuum. to say that you’re just “doing what the Bible says” takes the onus entirely off of you, the reader, to read critically and to recognize your own biases.
    plus, for crying out loud. saying that you’re just “living the way the Bible tells you to” is pretty much the same thing as saying 1st century mediterranean culture is divinely inspired and we should live like they did then.

  107. I have a long, quote-filled comment in mod. I want to pull these pieces out of it and hope they go through because I’m so fucking sick of reading them:

    Everyone sins, I’m a Christian- I believe in Christ and Christ’s teachings. There is a HUGE difference between the old an dnew testaments.

    You know what? I’m sick of this shit from Christians. No matter what you people think you’re saying, what it means is “We’re good and kind and understanding, not like those primitive barbaric JEWS.” If the “Old Testament” isn’t a major part of your religion, why is it 75% of your goddamn holy book, with the precious New Testament being about 100 pages of add-on? This is an offensive, anti-semitic bullshit statement. If your religion is dependent on the Bible, you need to own what that Bible considers important and not blame the Jews for every ridiculous thing in it.

    The New Testament is so kind and loving and forgiving? Well, while we’re on the topic, guess who’s idea Hell is?

    I eat shellfish, I beleive in Christ and if a person is Jewish the teachings say Christ has NOT arrived yet. Do they not think I am going to hell? Do they get to override what their religion teaches them be blasphemous and declare that because we’re friends they just KNOW I will make it to heaven?

    That is not how Jewish belief works. Do not project your Christian paradigm onto other religions. I have never met a Jew who thinks that Christians are going to “hell”–you know what?

    Hell is your concept.

    If you want to go suffer for all eternity, be my guest, but don’t claim that my people think that’s a good idea. It is not our concept.

  108. Azalea, I note with curiosity that although you’ve said that you’re Christian, you haven’t yet said whether you yourself view homosexuality as immoral, or a sin. Do you?

    And please don’t forget, to the extent that you’re relying on the Hebrew Bible (to Jews, it’s not the “Old” Testament!), that it says nothing whatsoever about lesbians, and does not forbid women to have sex with women. (Apparently, God, like many straight guys, thinks lesbians are hot. Or else, like Queen Victoria, he refused to believe that women did such things with each other.)

  109. I eat shellfish, I beleive in Christ and if a person is Jewish the teachings say Christ has NOT arrived yet. Do they not think I am going to hell? Do they get to override what their religion teaches them be blasphemous and declare that because we’re friends they just KNOW I will make it to heaven? Do I get to call everyone who isn’t a Christian whose teachings say I’m going to hell for not believing what they believe a religious bigot?

    Azalea, please stop this nonsense. Do you have any idea whatsoever how supremely ignorant about Judaism this statement is? News bulletin: Jews don’t think like Christians, and most religions aren’t nearly as obsessed as Christianity with condemning those who don’t follow their religion to hell.

    First, Jews don’t talk about condemning people to hell; it isn’t an important part of Jewish theology. And certainly not for failing to follow Jewish law. Non-Jews aren’t expected to follow the dictates of Jewish law (and certainly not rules about food or clothing!). Even in a hypothetical completely theocratic Jewish state, non-Jews would be exempt from all but the handful of basic “Noahide” commandments (because everyone is supposedly descended from Noah), such as the prohibitions of bloodshed, robbery, adultery and incest, and eating the flesh of a living animal.

    More importantly, it’s very clear in Judaism — unlike Christianity — that the righteous of all nations go to Paradise. You don’t have to be Jewish. (Talmud, Sanhedrin 102b; Maimonides, Repentance 3:5)

  110. but if she were given a survey on whether or not homosexuality was moral she’d say no. If she was voting on civil rights for homosexual marriage, she’d vote yes

    But wouldn’t she still be giving much of her time, energy, and money to an organization that, in some way, is affiliated with the systemic limiting, restricting, and out right denying of those “civil rights”? It’s not just a matter of personal belief, how she would or would not treat a stranger in a face-to-face interaction, or even her personal vote: What does her church support? What does her church suggest to its parishioners about voting for/against social issues? Has the church ever funded, directly or indirectly, any actions towards “fighting” these “immoral actions” and/or persons (e.g. “degayification” camps or lending support to anti-rights candidates)? Is the church a part of any of the large religious organizations that actively speak out and fund anti-rights movements and voting blocks? If not, is her church silent on those matters because they tacitly support the restriction of rights? By supporting a collective structure that seeks to accomplish these goals, her personal belief does intersect with my life through the medium of her support for a Christian way of life, no matter how she may vote on any particular issue.

    For those of us who have been hurt, or seen loved ones hurt, by the actions of this collective religious will, its very, very hard to see comments like “She isn’t doing ANYTHING to hurt you…she believes her religious teachings when they listed sins and homosexuality was one of them, that’s on you” in a neutral light.

  111. Sorry, EG, I didn’t see your comment about Azalea’s ridiculous assumptions concerning Jewish belief in Hell until after I posted my similar comment. I find that kind of Christian-centric assumption that all religions are as exclusivist and triumphalist as Christianity to be incredibly infuriating.

    Not to mention the fact that Christians appropriated the Hebrew Bible for what seems like the primary purpose of denigrating it, and denigrating Judaism (even in the very act of naming it the “Old” Testament, meaning that it has been superseded), except insofar as they like to pretend that its verses contain prophecies about Jesus.

  112. even in the very act of naming it the “Old” Testament, meaning that it has been superseded

    Well, if it is any comfort, I have been known, in my more pissed-off moments, to refer to the New Testament as fan-fiction.

  113. Isn’t premarital sex only a ‘sin’ if you’re female, based on biblical law? Thinking of that charming bit in Leviticus where a girl who is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night gets taken to her fathers house and stoned to death. Nothing about it being wrong for a man to engage in it. Adultery is also only defined as a man sleeping with a married woman, interference with another man’s property being the crime. ‘Traditional marriage’ is such fun!

    I love that homosexuality-as-sin was so important that Jesus mentioned it so many times…

    It’s well worth reading the bible. I’ve only read sections rather than the whole thing but the Old Testament genocides definitely put paid to my former Christian leanings. Numbers 31 in particular (the slaughter of the Midianites, ‘sparing’ the unmarried girls so they could be taken as the spoils of war. Charming)

  114. I know a bunch of gay Christians. They don’t think that homosexuality is a sin. I know straight Christians that don’t think that homosexuality is a sin. Those people didn’t abandon parts of their faith to get to that position, they chose to abandon the parts of their churches’ biblical teachings they considered incompatible with their faith. And in doing so they’ve kinda ruined it for the rest of you. If a whole bunch of Christians I know manage to not be bigots in viewing non-heterosexual orientations as inherently immoral, then other Christians don’t get to use “but Jesus/Leviticus!” as an excuse.

  115. Don’t forget that by the time that what became the Talmud was being discussed by the sages and rabbis and then written down, beginning 2,000 years ago and more, capital punishment was essentially argued out of existence in Judaism, and (even in the realm of theory, since Jews didn’t have control over the administration of criminal law under the Ptolemies or the Romans or the Sassanians) became essentially impossible to apply. And it was made clear that “an eye for an eye” was not meant literally, but referred to monetary compensation proportionate to the crime.

  116. Comment in moderation pointing out to Arkady, in case he doesn’t know it, that capital punishment was argued out of existence in rabbinic Judaism, and became essentially impossible to apply.

  117. “Well I believe homosexuals should be killed because the Bible says so, but I love my gay son so I won’t be the one to kill him.”

    Is it wrong that I hear the above comment in the voice of the actor who played “Kurt’s Dad” in Heathers?

  118. Sodomites are also known as biblical references to homosexuals and people who engage in oral and anal sex, also sins.

    I don’t want to pull an R. Dave and “lol your reading comprehension,” but, seriously?

  119. You know, once I walked away from feminist-site commenting for a few years, and it was in part because of a “Yay New Testament” commenter who compared keeping Kosher to owning slaves and stoning one’s children to death for disrespect and then asked how, without the moral guidance of Jesus, Jews had ever managed to arrive at the conclusion that slavery and stoning children to death were wrong.

  120. Azalea, Macavatykitsune is the poster who was raised outside of the Judeo/Christian/Islam triad, please stop silencing zie’s voice. And I’m not at all going to tell you how to see bigotry wrt your status as a WOC, I’m white, so I have no fucking right to do so. So you have no fucking right to tell me how to see bigotry wrt my status as a queer to do so.

    Now, I’m gonna give a little anecdote. When I was pregnant, I was on Medicaid. Sometime afterwards, when I was all done with that, I was causally, and friendly acquainted with a few people that I met at a gaming convention, and we stayed in contact and we would chat online. At some point, they started bemoaning poor women who would take advantage of the system for monies. When I brought up the fact that I was on Medicaid, they were all “Oh, I’m sure you needed it, so it’s okay.” That made me extremely uncomfortable, because if I was just some poor person they didn’t know, I was somehow unworthy. They wouldn’t say it to my face, but the judgement would still be there. I stopped talking to those people, because I couldn’t stand the hypocrisy.

    Obviously it’s different when it’s family, and there is a loving relationship involved. And rah rah rah that she hasn’t kicked her son out of her life, she falls on the hugely tolerant side of the spectrum of bigotry that exists. (And don’t pretend you don’t know that it isn’t an A. You believe that women should be completely subservient to men in every aspect in their lives and are entirely property or B. Women are totally equal in every way shape and form for ever and ever with no shades of gray in between in how men see women, just as an example) But you seem to focus on how SHE has dealt with his homosexuality. Have you spoken to him about his mother’s views on the fact that she views a very vital part of who he is as immoral? Because you seem to forget who is really important, and that is him.

  121. I wonder which version of the Bible Azalea is working with.

    And by “working with,” I mean, “Vomiting up stuff she heard about once.”

    What a good Christian.

  122. Do not project your Christian paradigm onto other religions. I have never met a Jew who thinks that Christians are going to “hell”–you know what?

    Good for you but I sure as fuck have! They exist, just because you aren’t one of them doesn’t mean you speak for every person in your entire religion.

    You know what the issue is here? You see “homosexuality is a sin” and you think of people who hate homosexuals, who want to take away their rights, who want to hurt them. That isn’t her fault, that is the fault of those bigots who actually pose a fucking threat to the LGBT community.

    Not a single one of have taken what I said VERBATIM and told me what the hell the issue was, everyone has inserted a derogatory name in here or there (as if you speak for this woman you do not fucking know) and proclaim her to not be supportive of gay rights (when she in fact IS) and continue to attack her because she disagrees with you. That’s all there is to it.

    DonnaL,

    The bible DOES address women having sex with women. It forbids it.

    QLH,

    What the fuck are you talking about? If you disagree with me that references to Sodomites were not generally references towards homosexuals I ask you to cite the bible on who Sodomites are, what they did to call for the destruction of their land and what they were known for. I’d be interested in knowing.

    Zuzu,

    I gave verses obviously you didn’t read what the fuck I wrote so you’re just typing out of your ass bullshit because you just fucking feel like it. 🙂

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    I guess you think womankind is a different species than mankind? Perhaps to you this is a reference to beastiality? I don’t know wtf you got out of that but it obviously wasn’t the intended message for you to type the bullshit fuckery that you did to me.

    1. Good for you but I sure as fuck have! They exist, just because you aren’t one of them doesn’t mean you speak for every person in your entire religion.

      I mean… sure. And I’ve met a Christian person who believes that the universe was created by aliens. But is it then fair to say that it’s a Christian belief that the universe was created by aliens?

    2. Not a single one of have taken what I said VERBATIM and told me what the hell the issue was, everyone has inserted a derogatory name in here or there (as if you speak for this woman you do not fucking know) and proclaim her to not be supportive of gay rights (when she in fact IS) and continue to attack her because she disagrees with you. That’s all there is to it.

      The issue is that believing someone’s existence is a sin is pretty fucked up. Believing that some classes of people are “less than” because of their identities — even if you support their right to exist, even if you like some of them as people, even if you don’t think they should be treated differently — is still bigotry. It is bigotry, for example, when people like Charles Murray write books about how black people are less intelligent than white people, even as he says that black people should have the exact same rights and freedoms as white people and shouldn’t be treated differently according to the law. Or in your view, is that not bigoted at all, because he’s not suggesting that we bring back Jim Crow, and because he has some black friends who he loves very much?

    3. Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

      I guess you think womankind is a different species than mankind? Perhaps to you this is a reference to beastiality? I don’t know wtf you got out of that but it obviously wasn’t the intended message for you to type the bullshit fuckery that you did to me.

      A few more quotes from that exact same section of the Bible:

      Leviticus 18:19: “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.”
      Leviticus 19:9-10: “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.”
      Leviticus 19:19: “‘Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
      Leviticus 19:26: “Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.”
      Leviticus 20:9: “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.”
      Leviticus 20:18: “If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.”
      Leviticus 20:13: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
      Leviticus 20:27: “A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.”

      Azalea, I’m curious, and haven’t seen you answer these questions yet:

      -Do you think that having sex during a woman’s period is a sin?
      -Do you think that women are unclean during their periods?
      -Do you think it’s a sin for farmers to harvest the edges of their fields?
      -Do you think it’s a sin to pick up grapes fallen in a vineyard instead of leaving them for the poor and the foreign?
      -Do you think it’s a sin to mate different animals?
      -Do you think it’s a sin to plant a field with different kinds of seed?
      -Do you think it’s a sin to wear clothing of mixed materials?
      -Do you think it’s a sin to eat a rare steak, or a tartare?
      -Do you think people who curse their parents should be killed?
      -Do you think people who have period sex should be socially shunned?
      -Do you think gay people should be killed?
      -Do you think that mediums or spiritists should be killed?

      And if not, why not? After all, if Leviticus says homosexuality is a sin and that’s legit and must be followed because the Bible says so, why do we not have to follow (or, apparently, even believe) the other decrees that are right next to it? Do the good kind non-bigoted Christians who don’t discriminate against homosexuals but have made it clear that they believe homosexuality is a sin also make it clear that they believe eating rare meat, mixing seeds, mixing fabrics, harvesting field edges, etc are also sins? Do they regularly tell farmers or gardeners or wearers of mixed-cloth clothing that while God loves them he hates their sinful behavior?

      Why not? Why the focus on homosexuality? Why has no Christian ever tut-tutted me about my cotton-poly blend jacket?

  123. Those people didn’t abandon parts of their faith to get to that position, they chose to abandon the parts of their churches’ biblical teachings they considered incompatible with their faith.

    That’s called cherry-picking the bible. There is a difference between not thinking homosexuality is wrong and not thinking it is a sin. A sin is defined as something you do, say or think that does not pleases God. Saying something is NOT a sin when it has been defined as such by your religious text is a lie. Plain and simple. There are Christians who don’t beleive in anything except that Jesus existed. That’s there own interpretation of Christianity, they do not speak for the religion as a whole they don’t even believe in the religion in whole.

  124. [QUOTE]how, without the moral guidance of Jesus, Jews had ever managed to arrive at the conclusion that slavery and stoning children to death were wrong.[/QUOTE]

    Wow. How many times did Jesus, or the New Testament in general, condemn slavery? Zero.

    There were Jews who managed, as early as the Essenes, to figure out that slavery was wrong, without Jesus, thank you. And I’m the furthest thing from an expert, but I know enough to be aware that, as I pointed out above, the Talmud (which Christians tended to view as evil, and loved to burn en masse from time to time) makes capital punishment essentially impossible to apply. As the famous quotation puts it, the wayward son (who must be stoned to death) “never was and never will be.” Why does the Torah (the Hebrew Bible) mention the punishment, then? So that the subject can be studied and expounded. (BT Sanhedrin 71a.)

    I

  125. I mean… sure. And I’ve met a Christian person who believes that the universe was created by aliens. But is it then fair to say that it’s a Christian belief that the universe was created by aliens?

    Hence why i said “they,” most people are polite enough not to proclaim whether or not they think you are going to hell. You want an honest answer from a religious person on what they think is right or wrong according to their religion, ask them in a place of worship in front of other beleivers, particulary theologists. When someone is trying to kiss ass, they say nice things, when someone is being honest, the truth often isn’t so kind. The bible calls for some very very harsh punishments for what is generally considered tiny discretions and in some cases, not bad things at all as viewed by the world at large. The bible does not recognize self defense as you are instructed to “turn the other cheek” but most people recognize and would fight tooth and nail for their right to self defense. Saying the bible thinks it is wrong to ever hurt another person, even if they first hurt you isn’t saying domestic violence is ok, it’s quoting the bible. Saying homosexuality is a sin is quoting the bible. It isn’t bigotry, it’s citing.

    1. Saying homosexuality is a sin is quoting the bible. It isn’t bigotry, it’s citing.

      Some parts of the Bible are intensely bigoted. Since when is citing a religious document a “get out of bigotry free” card?

  126. Azalea, you’re speaking nonsense again. I don’t care about your so-called “New” Testament or what it says. The Hebrew Bible does not say one single word about sex between women. The Leviticus verse you quote refers only to MEN, and prohibits them from lying with men as they do with men.

    Every time you open your mouth about Jews and Judaism, or any religion other than Christianity (I’ll let others comment on your views of Christianity), you say something else that isn’t true. So please leave Jews out of your comments until you learn something about them. And any Jew who told you they think that Christians go to “hell” simply because they aren’t Jewish, knows as little about Judaism as you do.

  127. I meant, of course, “prohibits them from lying with men as they do with women.” Many scholars, of course, don’t even believe that this was intended to refer to male homosexuality in general.

  128. They exist, just because you aren’t one of them doesn’t mean you speak for every person in your entire religion.

    A Jew claiming that all Christians go to hell is like a Christian claiming that the universe was created by aliens. Hell is not a Jewish belief; the idea that non-Jews should follow Jewish law is not a Jewish belief. You know jackshit about Judaism, and need to stop referencing some dude you met once as an authority. Even Wikipedia is more reliable.

  129. That’s called cherry-picking the bible. There is a difference between not thinking homosexuality is wrong and not thinking it is a sin.

    And you’re not guilty of cherry-picking the bible? As far as I remember there is some pretty whack shit in there. Something about children being stoned to death for speaking back to their parents?

    Do you advocate the stoning of children? If not, that’s some pretty egregious cherry-picking you’re doing right there! You’re obviously not doing the whole Christianity thing right.

  130. But apparently Azalea has no idea what the Talmud is, and thinks that Jews are all Karaites!

  131. Saying the bible thinks it is wrong to ever hurt another person, even if they first hurt you isn’t saying domestic violence is ok, it’s quoting the bible. Saying homosexuality is a sin is quoting the bible. It isn’t bigotry, it’s citing.

    Fuck right off. You don’t get card blanche to say/do whatever you fucking want because it’s in the bible. That’s the weakest ass excuse ever.

    Just become some it was written down thousands of years ago in a book by powerful men and then repeated throughout the centuries by other powerful men in order to keep sisters and brothers down doesn’t mean it should be magically free from any criticism or critical thought.

  132. Saying homosexuality is a sin is quoting the bible. It isn’t bigotry, it’s citing.

    No, it means that your Bible, at least the way you interpret it, is bigoted. Fullstop. If you believe that me being gay is not morally equivalent to you being straight, then I consider you a bigot.

  133. The issue is that believing someone’s existence is a sin is pretty fucked up.

    The reference to homosexuality in the bible isn’t the existence of the person but “homosexual acts” (anal and oral sex). The sin isn’t the person it’s the sex. But as I have said countless times, according to the bible, everyone is born into sin.

    Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

    So, EVERYONE initially exists in sin and because no one is perfect:

    Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

    everyone continues to exist in sin but

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    a belief in Christ is enough to enter the gates of heaven and be forgiven of your sins (granted that you recognize the sin and ask for forgiveness)

    Psalm 86:5 You, Lord, are forgiving and good, abounding in love to all who call to you

    Daniel 9:9 The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him

    and the bible calls for forgiving and loving one another, thus this whole call for believing homosexuality is a sin is just like hating homosexuals is BULLSHIT plain pure and simple:

    Ephesians 4:32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

    Judging others and condemning them or their actions? Not cool, only God can judge:

    Deuteronomy 1:17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.”

    Luke 6:37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

    So yeah, all this people taking the word of God and twisting it so that they can be jerks to others? That isn’t Christ-like AT ALL. There have been countless horrors done in His name but it was not with His blessing according to the word. So all of this condemning sinner sbullshit is just that, bullshit. Christianity is about being humble, kind, forgiving, loving not condemnation, judgement, bullying, hurting.

  134. This is the third time I’ve asked the question. Azalea, would a religious person who, as a tenet of their religion, believed that blackness was sin or a sign of sin or a punishment for sin, be a bigot? Because that was a Mormon belief until the 1950s or so.

  135. So yeah, all this people taking the word of God and twisting it so that they can be jerks to others? That isn’t Christ-like AT ALL. There have been countless horrors done in His name but it was not with His blessing according to the word. So all of this condemning sinner sbullshit is just that, bullshit. Christianity is about being humble, kind, forgiving, loving not condemnation, judgement, bullying, hurting.

    What happened to “By their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16)?

    The Bible is a capacious, self-contradicting text, like most pieces of literature. You can pick out a bunch of quotes, and so can Jill. Your quotes don’t make hers not exist.

    The issue is not whether or not everybody is a sinner. The issue is whether or not they are sinners by virtue of their sexuality.

  136. Judging others and condemning them or their actions? Not cool, only God can judge:

    Really? There are numerous places in the bible where there are instructions about what to do to people who commit various sins. All that stoning bullshit. Seriously you can’t go ten pages in the book without there being someone getting stoned. Are you cherry picking again?

  137. I mean, if that’s the game we’re going to play, Azalea, how are you any different from my father, who insists that Marxism is the best, most just, and only way to properly organize a society, and that all the depredations and human rights violations carried out in its name are just examples of people not doing Marxism right?

    I don’t buy it about Christianity, and I don’t buy it about Marxism.

    The reality of Christianity is what it is on the ground, not what you wish it were. If you want to change what it is, and you want others to think it’s not hateful, you might want to get rid of its bigotry.

  138. -Do you think that having sex during a woman’s period is a sin?
    -Do you think that women are unclean during their periods?
    -Do you think it’s a sin for farmers to harvest the edges of their fields?
    -Do you think it’s a sin to pick up grapes fallen in a vineyard instead of leaving them for the poor and the foreign?
    -Do you think it’s a sin to mate different animals?
    -Do you think it’s a sin to plant a field with different kinds of seed?
    -Do you think it’s a sin to wear clothing of mixed materials?
    -Do you think it’s a sin to eat a rare steak, or a tartare?
    -Do you think people who curse their parents should be killed?
    -Do you think people who have period sex should be socially shunned?
    -Do you think gay people should be killed?
    -Do you think that mediums or spiritists should be killed?

    I think any and all things mentioned as sin in the bible, are sins. My definition of what is an isn’t a sin comes from the bible.

    No, I do not think people should be killed for sinning.

    No I don’t think people should be shunned for sinning.

    I think everyone has committed at least one sin, most people commit many and many commit most on a regular basis.

    As far as unclean during periods? I feel messy, but we had a thread before on blood and bodily waste; endometrial matter and blood is not something I’m too fond of. There are plenty of people who have “happy” periods and feel powder fresh, I’m not one of them. The bible calls it being unclean because it’s a time where waste is exiting the body, I definitely do not consider endometrial matter to be comparable to typical vaginal secretion because it isn’t. I wouldn’t tell a menstruating person that they are nasty, disgusting etc. I wouldn’t call them unclean, but if you’re asking me if the bible says so? It does, it says they are “ceremonially unclean” as in this isn’t a good time for sex. Period sex is messy. It just is. If you want it and you like that is your right to do so.

    Yes, I do support the death penalty for people who have killed innocent people. As I stated upthread, that has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. The laws of the land and the laws of God are separate for a good reason.

  139. Azalea, would a religious person who, as a tenet of their religion, believed that blackness was sin or a sign of sin or a punishment for sin, be a bigot?

    I thought I addressed this concept? If not, here goes:

    Unless the person used their belief to treat me or any other POC (because biracial w/ black people tend to just be viewed a sblack by th epoublic at large) as less than human, or unfairly then no. It’s their religion and they have a right to believe as they wish. As I said before, there are COUNTLESS fake ass allies who will be QUICK to call a POC stupid or dumb the moment one of us disagrees or not do as we are told. So actions speak louder than words.

    If you religion calls for the destruction of another group and you go by trying to carry out that destruction, you’re more than a bigot you’re a criminal. Being religious dictates your life and your actions, when you use it to hurt others, you’re a bigot and in the US, you’re a criminal.

  140. Why is the Bible right about sins (homosexuality, period sex, planting a variety of crops in one field) but wrong about punishments (stoning to death)?

  141. Well, at least Azalea has answered the question of whether she herself believes that homosexuality is immoral and sinful. Clearly she does, no matter how much she couches it with statements that such beliefs don’t affect how she treats people.

    And I’m still waiting for evidence that the Hebrew Bible says anything about women having sex with women (it doesn’t), and an explanation of why God forgot to mention that particular commandment despite remembering 613 others.

  142. No, it means that your Bible, at least the way you interpret it, is bigoted. Fullstop. If you believe that me being gay is not morally equivalent to you being straight, then I consider you a bigot

    According to the bible, it is a sin. My bigoted ass gives to the Human Rights Campaign and is supportive of gay rights and LGBTIQ issues but hey, I’m no different than Romney, the KKK or Hitler right? I’ve often been gender neutral when tlaking about pregnancy and periods because I’m including trans men and trans women but not excluding them. But no, I’m a bigot because I cited the bible. Nothing I can do about that, I didn’t write the book.

  143. Jadey ,

    P.S. I am a sinner, I’ve said so countless times so there is no morality contest of sins.

  144. Christianity has always engaged in massive cherry-picking concerning which prohibitions in Leviticus apply to Christians and which don’t. They simultaneously quote Jesus’s statement in Matthew that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, and argue that that doesn’t apply to *all* 613 commandments. Because, you know, some are confined to time and place, but some are eternal. With the distinction based on entirely subjective standards.

    As I said, cherry-picking. There is no Christian denomination or sect (except perhaps for Azalea herself and some so-called Messianic Jews) that teaches that Christians are obligated to follow all 613 commandments and commit sin by not doing so.

  145. My bigoted ass gives to the Human Rights Campaign and is supportive of gay rights and LGBTIQ issues but hey, I’m no different than Romney, the KKK or Hitler right?

    Yes, that’s absolutely right. There are no degrees of bigotry. It’s an all or nothing game. It’s not like anybody on this very thread has articulated a rough continuum or anything.

  146. Exactly, EG. Nobody in this entire thread has suggested that all degrees of bigotry are the same. All people are arguing is that believing that sex between two men or two women is a sin (but heterosexual sex, at least within marriage, is not a sin) is itself a form of bigotry, whether or not the person holding that belief ever repeats it to anyone or allows it to influence their actions or their treatment of others (assuming for the sake of argument that that’s possible). Not the worst kind of bigotry, obviously, and I’m more interested generally in people’s actions than their stated beliefs, but bigotry nonetheless. The fact that the belief comes from a religious source makes no difference.

  147. Why is the Bible right about sins (homosexuality, period sex, planting a variety of crops in one field) but wrong about punishments (stoning to death)?

    The bible defines what sin is for me as a Christian. As a member of society, the actions towards other people are dictated by a sense of what is right and wrong outside of religious text and a matter of human rights. I’ve stated this at least 5 times before in this thread.

  148. As I said, cherry-picking. There is no Christian denomination or sect (except perhaps for Azalea herself and some so-called Messianic Jews) that teaches that Christians are obligated to follow all 613 commandments and commit sin by not doing so.

    Where in the bible does it say to cherry pick? I’ve given biblical quotes as basis for what I’ve said here in this thread. This isn’t “my” Christian sect, it is simply what the bible says, verbatim. That I have not decided, as some Christian sects have, to cherry-pick does not make me the spinoff Christian.

  149. Zuzu,

    I gave verses obviously you didn’t read what the fuck I wrote so you’re just typing out of your ass bullshit because you just fucking feel like it. 🙂

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    I guess you think womankind is a different species than mankind? Perhaps to you this is a reference to beastiality? I don’t know wtf you got out of that but it obviously wasn’t the intended message for you to type the bullshit fuckery that you did to me.

    Bless your heart.

  150. FYI, I believe that the Catholic Church’s official position is that the rules prohibiting sex during a woman’s period are among those prohibitions from Jewish law that no longer apply, and that period sex is, therefore, not a sin. Pursuant to the mysterious authority that God gave the Catholic Church to make such decisions, of course!

    Perhaps to replace that rule, however, the Church did take the position, in medieval times or even earlier, that Jews are “unclean” sexually at all times — both literally, given the well-known foetor judaicus (Jewish stench) and figuratively. So remember, boys and girls: no sex with Jews!

  151. The reference to homosexuality in the bible isn’t the existence of the person but “homosexual acts” (anal and oral sex).

    Where does the Bible specify anal and oral? And where does it specify that anal and oral are specifically homosexual acts?

    But no, I’m a bigot because I cited the bible. Nothing I can do about that, I didn’t write the book.

    You can choose not to believe it.

  152. Azalea, as I said, perhaps you’re a church of one, but I don’t think even the most fundamentalist of Protestant churches takes the position that Christians commit sin by failing to observe — for example — the food and clothing restrictions in the Hebrew Bible. The universal Christian position is that some of the 613 commandments theoretically applicable to Orthodox Jews apply to Christians and some don’t. Cherry-picking by definition, regardless of the rationale.

  153. OK, enough for me for now. I’ve been doing this most of the afternoon instead of getting work done. One of my own most common sins.

  154. So remember, boys and girls: no sex with Jews!

    I dumped the Catholic Church instead. Problem solved!

  155. Perhaps to replace that rule, however, the Church did take the position, in medieval times or even earlier, that Jews are “unclean” sexually at all times — both literally, given the well-known foetor judaicus (Jewish stench) and figuratively. So remember, boys and girls: no sex with Jews

    That isn’t my belief, it doesn’t say that in bible. That’s just bigotry and gross.

  157. That would be cherry-picking my beliefs.

    I think we’ve established that you already do that, particularly when it comes to punishments.

    Hey, in for a penny, in for a pound. If your Bible says to stone an adulterer or a kid who talks back, you stone them. I mean, who are you to cherry-pick which words of God you follow?

  158. Shit God Says:

    Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee

    Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

    Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

    Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

    But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

    Charming.

  159. I think we’ve established that you already do that, particularly when it comes to punishments.

    Hey, in for a penny, in for a pound. If your Bible says to stone an adulterer or a kid who talks back, you stone them. I mean, who are you to cherry-pick which words of God you follow?

    John 8:7 “So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

    I’ve already posted hwere it says not to judge, to be loving and forgiving. I hope that answers your question. Because I’ve already stated this, way too many times for you. If you don’t get it; Christians are to be Christlike. Christ stoned no one for sinning. He did not punish someone with death for sinning. Christ forgave and encouraged forgiveness. Christ loved and encouraged loving. That may make you angry but I have no control over how much Christianity and Christ pisses you off.

  160. The bible defines what sin is for me as a Christian. As a member of society, the actions towards other people are dictated by a sense of what is right and wrong outside of religious text and a matter of human rights. I’ve stated this at least 5 times before in this thread.

    So… the Bible defines what’s a sin for you as a Christian, but actions toward other people are dictated by a sense of right and wrong which is why gay people shouldn’t be killed, even though the Bible, in your reading, explicitly says they should be. But if people who are not Christians engage in homosexual behavior, they are still sinning, despite not believing that the Bible is the actual word of God — so the Bible isn’t just defining what’s a sin for you as a Christian, it’s defining what Christians should believe is a sin for everyone. But because the idea of killing people for sinning is squicky, then ignore that, because the actions of other people are dictated by a sense of right and wrong outside of religious text.

    So God was serious about believing homosexuality is a sin and you can’t escape that, it’s not your fault, you aren’t a bigot, it’s right there in the text… but he was just kinda JKing about the punishment.

    How can you say that being gay is a sin because the Bible says so, but the punishment that the Bible metes out for gayness shouldn’t be enforced because that’s for Christians Only?

    Or should gay Christians be killed then? If they also accept the moral black-and-whiteness that the Bible supposedly presents?

  161. Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

    I read somewhere that for this passage context really matters.. It wasn’t so much a proscription for all women’s behavior but more advice to women traveling in a particular place where customs were different… Sort of the equivalent of advising someone visiting an unfamiliar culture about dress codes and ettiquette.

    I wish I remember where I read that.

  162. So… the Bible defines what’s a sin for you as a Christian, but actions toward other people are dictated by a sense of right and wrong which is why gay people shouldn’t be killed, even though the Bible, in your reading, explicitly says they should be.

    The bible says punishment for sins are executed by God himself. I’m not God. No one knows who He will and will not punish and how. The bible says there is a chance for forgiveness, No one knows who He will and will not forgive, for what and why. Jesus says not to hurt another person. I don’t know what more is there to explain on that. I quoted that text to you specifically Jill. It was a rather long post with fancy shmancy blockquotes and EVERYTHING, I hardly ever do it pleassseeeee don’t ask me to do it alll over again.

  163. I’ve already posted hwere it says not to judge, to be loving and forgiving. I hope that answers your question. Because I’ve already stated this, way too many times for you. If you don’t get it; Christians are to be Christlike. Christ stoned no one for sinning. He did not punish someone with death for sinning. Christ forgave and encouraged forgiveness. Christ loved and encouraged loving. That may make you angry but I have no control over how much Christianity and Christ pisses you off.

    Ah, but see, herein lies the cherry-picking. Yes, the Bible says to turn the other cheek and not to judge. It also commands judgment in certain areas — it commands God’s followers to lay down certain punishments on people who sin. The Bible is a big book! It contains a LOT of contradictory stuff! Sometimes you do have to make a choice in what to believe and what to disregard. And when there’s an emphasis on homosexuality as a sin, and a total disregard of all other sins, that’s telling.

    Also? I don’t think the Christian rule is, “Everyone sins, so don’t worry about it!” You have an obligation to try not to sin. Human beings are imperfect and so the Bible is clear that living without sin is impossible, but you’re still supposed to give it a good go. And yet I have literally never heard a single Christian tell another Christian that they shouldn’t wear mixed cloths, or plant mixed seeds in their gardens. I do not know of one national political organization dedicated to the stopping of picking up dropped grapes; I don’t know of any religious boycotts of cloth-makers who use multiple materials. And yet there are all kinds of Christian writings and sermons on the sinfulness of homosexuality; there are all kinds of organizations dedicated to fighting that particular sin.

    So no, I don’t think it’s enough to just say, “Welp, the Bible says so, and so anyone who believes that homosexuality is a sin isn’t a bigot!” The Bible says a lot of things that even devout Christians don’t believe (or don’t even realize, or disregard, and certainly don’t advocate against). The fact that someone chooses to speak up about their opposition to homosexuality — even if they love X homosexual person — is incredibly telling.

  164. Charming.

    I already said much of what it is said in the bible is harsh and no one can abide by it all and no one would want to abide by it all. But does it say that? Yes. If th equestion is: is homosexuality a sin and you’re asking a person who is a Christian, the answer according to the bible is yes. There are a myriad of sins in the bible that people violate as a matter of human rights. I didn’t deny that.

  165. The bible says punishment for sins are executed by God himself. I’m not God. No one knows who He will and will not punish and how. The bible says there is a chance for forgiveness, No one knows who He will and will not forgive, for what and why. Jesus says not to hurt another person. I don’t know what more is there to explain on that. I quoted that text to you specifically Jill. It was a rather long post with fancy shmancy blockquotes and EVERYTHING, I hardly ever do it pleassseeeee don’t ask me to do it alll over again.

    Oh I read it. But no, the bible does not say that punishment for sins is executed by God alone. In fact, God is pretty clear sometimes that he wants his people to act to punish sinners:

    Leviticus 18:29: “Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people.”

    Leviticus 20:1-2: “The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him.”

    Leviticus 20:27: “A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.”

    13 Then the Lord said to Moses: 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

    17 “‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution —life for life. 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God.’”

    23 Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him. The Israelites did as the Lord commanded Moses.

    Pretty clear that God wants his followers to carry out these punishments, no? How else is there to read the text?

  166. Oh and one more…

    Leviticus 25:44-46: “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    The Bible is pretty a-ok with slavery. But hey, word of God! Can’t argue with that!

  167. And when there’s an emphasis on homosexuality as a sin, and a total disregard of all other sins, that’s telling.

    Not my emphasis. I’ve called out Christians like Romney et al who put emphasis on homosexuality being a sin all while being sinner themselves and trying to criminalize other people sins while not saying a word about their own or the others. I have no control of the people who do that.

    Also? I don’t think the Christian rule is, “Everyone sins, so don’t worry about it!” You have an obligation to try not to sin. Human beings are imperfect and so the Bible is clear that living without sin is impossible, but you’re still supposed to give it a good go. And yet I have literally never heard a single Christian tell another Christian that they shouldn’t wear mixed cloths, or plant mixed seeds in their gardens. I do not know of one national political organization dedicated to the stopping of picking up dropped grapes; I don’t know of any religious boycotts of cloth-makers who use multiple materials. And yet there are all kinds of Christian writings and sermons on the sinfulness of homosexuality; there are all kinds of organizations dedicated to fighting that particular sin.

    It isn’t “don’t worry about it” it’s dont judge, don’t condemn, don’t hate, don’t hurt. In a person’s imperfection they WILL sin. That’s all there is to it, they will no way around it. But as a Christian it is no other Christian’s place to dictate the life of another with regard to sin. You encourage being Christlike by simply *being* Christlike. The organizations aren’t me they are not a representation of Christianity as a whole anymore than al Qeada is a representation of Islam as a whole.

    The fact that someone chooses to speak up about their opposition to homosexuality — even if they love X homosexual person — is incredibly telling.

    The woman I referenced spoke up when asked about it. When I was asked about my beliefs I spoke on them. I have no emphasis on one sin over the other. It’s a lot but the most controversial ones, the ones people like to discuss include homosexuality, fornication, adultery, abortion, etc. I brought this up because I know there are many many women who probably said abortion is immoral because their religious teachings declare it to be so but they are not pro-life in the sense that they want abortion rights eradicated and I could understand that stance. What oen thinks is moral is often influenced by their religious beliefs. What one thinks is just is often influenced by their experience as a human being living in their society. Most people do not adhere to every single teaching text of their religion, it does not mean they do not believe it. Nobody is perfect.

  168. Azalea, you seriously have no idea how to read the Bible. I don’t even know what to do with the cognitive dissonance of “Well I think it’s a sin for everyone but I’m going to do it anyway” re: premarital sex or eating bacon or whatever else you’d like to put there.
    yeah, lots of the Bible is harsh. because a lot of things in the ancient world were harsh. but to insist that it’s harsh and cruel and that’s okay because it’s “true” or something. You don’t seem to have any idea how to interact with the Bible, or how to deal with parts of it that are irrelevant to our current context besides to say “Well I’m choosing to ignore that part because of reasons.” Your understanding of these texts is so narrow and so uninformed, which is probably why a lot of the people on this thread are fed up with you. I’m usually a lurker and don’t really post but the biblical studies student part of me is tearing her hair out at your abysmal reading of the biblical text.

  169. The Bible is pretty a-ok with slavery. But hey, word of God! Can’t argue with that!

    Slavery as it was in North America was extremely brutal and ruthless. Doesn’t even begin to apply.

    Also Christ had no slaves, the thing with Christianity was being Christlike.

    Slavery existed in Central and Western Africa before European slave trade began. The slavery that existed was vastly different than the slavery introduced by the European slave trade and had a different basis, it was not race based for one.

    1. Slavery existed in Central and Western Africa before European slave trade began. The slavery that existed was vastly different than the slavery introduced by the European slave trade and had a different basis, it was not race based for one.

      According to the Bible, it is ok to enslave people from other nations, as long as they aren’t Israelites. Do you think that still applies? Would slavery be ok today if it was practiced the way it was in Biblical times? (Because yikes you are fooling yourself if you think that brand of slavery wasn’t brutal as all hell).

  170. Re: Sodom

    “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

    Their sin is grievous. What is their sin? God doesn’t say.

    The encounter between Lot and the angels and the townspeople is about hospitality. Hospitality, as you’ve probably noticed, is HUGELY IMPORTANT throughout the Bible. It gets harped on in one book after another.

  171. You don’t seem to have any idea how to interact with the Bible, or how to deal with parts of it that are irrelevant to our current context besides to say “Well I’m choosing to ignore that part because of reasons.”

    Hop off the bandwagon, read what i actually wrote then come back. Right now, you’re making zero sense. There was a question about whether or not something was a sin, the answer was yes. That answer has remained yes to EVERY SINGLE THING that is listed as a sin in the bible. When asked about actions to take (where there are contradictions in the bible) I defer to what is Christlike (I know, that surprises you Christianity being focused on or deferring to Christ’s teachings) which include sinners not throwing the first stone, loving, being humble and forgiving. So digest that FIRST then come back with your “aha!” moment, k?

  172. Donna L, if you’re still reading?
    just re: “Old Testament” vs “Hebrew Bible”
    I was talking to a girlfriend the other day, we’re both biblical studies students, about the terms. I’ve been using “TaNaK” fairly exclusively for the past few years, I’m not very comfortable with making that kind of value statement . but she still makes the distinction, mainly because of differences in organization between the HB and the OT. would that be a fair distinction?

  173. Hop off the bandwagon, read what i actually wrote then come back.

    I’m not on a bandwagon. I’m just pointing out that you have terrible hermeneutics. You’re refusing to contextualize a collection of ancient texts and insisting that because “the Bible” says x, y, and z are “sins” then obviously that must hold true in our present context. It’s not good reading.
    and, if we’re being honest, most of Christianity doesn’t defer to Christ as much as it defers to Paul.

  174. From Jill:

    Leviticus 20:27: “A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.”

    I’ve already cited the word of Christ that calls for he without sin to cast the first stone. Since everyone is a sinner, no one is in a position to stone anyone. You know how in the Consitution one part says slavery is ok and then AFTER that it says it isnt and what was written later is what everyone defers to? Same concept applies here.

    From DonnaL:

    But apparently Azalea has no idea what the Talmud is, and thinks that Jews are all Karaites!

    Where did I make that claim?

    From fifthpevensie:

    I’m usually a lurker and don’t really post but the biblical studies student part of me is tearing her hair out at your abysmal reading of the biblical text.

    Seriously? Your interpretation is different than mine so that makes my readin abysmal? You dont want to recognize certain things as sin, good for you, I recognize every sin listed in the bible as a sin. Don’t insult my intelligence because we disagree. You can disagree without going there with me, please try to stay on the polite side of that line because I’m not the one to be meek about that shit.

    1. You know how in the Consitution one part says slavery is ok and then AFTER that it says it isnt and what was written later is what everyone defers to? Same concept applies here.

      Hahaha ok. How do you figure? Also: I recognize that the Constitution is the law of the land, but I’m not under the impression that it’s 100% correct or infallible.

      And where exactly in the Bible does it say that slavery isn’t ok? Because you keep coming back to “be Christlike,” which is fine, and I guess the conclusion is that since Christ didn’t have slaves slavery isn’t ok. But Christ also didn’t say a single thing about gays. So… does that make homosexuality no longer a sin?

  175. Slavery existed in Central and Western Africa before European slave trade began. The slavery that existed was vastly different than the slavery introduced by the European slave trade and had a different basis, it was not race based for one.

    And the slavery that existed in the ancient world, the kind of slavery that Jesus “Slaves, obey your masters” Christ would have been familiar with was Roman, and was nation-based. While slaves could hope to become citizens if they were lucky, it was a miserable existence, full of all the horrors we associate with the term.

  176. k seriously, the perspicuity of scripture is a ridiculous doctrine. bless the Reformation’s heart and all but that is a TERRIBLE idea. I’m not saying you’re not intelligent, but I’m saying that you (general you not specific you) can’t just pick up the Bible and assume that you
    a) know what it means.
    b) can directly apply it to your life.

    I also don’t agree that the Bible is open to interpretation. We don’t treat any other historical document that way. It was written by real people in real times who had real goals/agendas in mind/stories to tell. We don’t read anything else and go “Oh, well to me this sounds like x, so I’m going to believe x.”
    the Bible is not black and white like that.

    and also, when it comes to sin? if you recognize something as sin but keep doing it anyway? then you don’t actually think it’s a sin.

  177. I’ve already cited the word of Christ that calls for he without sin to cast the first stone. Since everyone is a sinner, no one is in a position to stone anyone.

    So why is it Christian for your friend to be a bigot and cast stones on homosexuals?

  178. fifthpevensie, I think it makes sense to refer to the “Old Testament” rather than the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh (which, for those who don’t know, is the collective Hebrew acronym for the Torah [the five books of Moses] plus the other two portions of the Hebrew Bible) if someone is specifically referring to the text as Christians have organized and numbered it, so long as that’s made clear. But the problem is that most Christians just seem to use the term indiscriminately in all contexts, as if that’s what Jewish people call it and/or that’s just what it “is”; some Christians are probably not even aware of the value judgment inherent in the term, and, if they think about it at all, think “Old” is simply a chronological term.

    I know that some Christians who do understand what it means take the position that it’s OK to call it the “Old Testament” so long as only Christian theology and Christian interpretations are being discussed, and I guess I understand that approach historically, but I wonder if it’s really necessary and appropriate for Christian denominations that see themselves as *not* being supersessionist, to use all the time.

  179. fifthpevensie, my much longer answer to your question is in moderation. I think it’s fair to use OT in limited contexts, but certainly not as much as most Christians do!

  180. So why is it Christian for your friend to be a bigot and cast stones on homosexuals?

    Exactly what stone is she casting on homosexuals? That when asked whether or not she thinks it is a sin she says yes? That is not casting a stone that is quoting the bible.

    1. Exactly what stone is she casting on homosexuals? That when asked whether or not she thinks it is a sin she says yes? That is not casting a stone that is quoting the bible.

      Does she quote the part of the Bible where it says homosexuals should be killed? If she quoted that part, would it make her a bigot yet? Or would she still just be citing?

  181. From zuzu:

    So why is it Christian for your friend to be a bigot and cast stones on homosexuals?

    Exactly what stone is she casting on homosexuals? That when asked whether or not she thinks it is a sin she says yes? That is not casting a stone that is quoting the bible.

    From fifthpevensie:

    and also, when it comes to sin? if you recognize something as sin but keep doing it anyway? then you don’t actually think it’s a sin.

    Says who? You? On what authority? I follow Christ, not man.

    From EG:

    And the slavery that existed in the ancient world, the kind of slavery that Jesus “Slaves, obey your masters” Christ would have been familiar with was Roman, and was nation-based.

    The bible says to not be ruthless to your slaves. Christ does not make reference to slavery but DOES make reference to loving your neighbor, treating people the way you would like to be treated. The existence of brutal slavery is moot as to whether or not that was ok according to the bible, the bible says it isn’t. Christ’s teachings would not allow for slavery.

    From Jill:

    Hahaha ok. How do you figure?

    Because Christ. Because John 3:16, because of all of the scripture I have quoted concerning forgiveness and loving and not judging. Because what you said contradicts that.

  182. Thanks DonnaL!

    that makes a lot of sense. when I was doing my undergrad our biblical studies/theo classes were either “OT” or “NT” but the more I studied the less comfortable I was with that particular distinction. I’d first encountered the idea when I’d read Marva Dawn, who refers to the First and Second Testaments, but the more I’ve read I find myself leaning much further to a wider distinction between the two and so TaNaK or Hebrew Bible seems much more correct.

    I wonder if there really are far too many problems (in both church and Christian scholarship) with the history of Christian interaction with the HB and with Jewish people, to use the term “OT” at all?

  183. If she quoted that part, would it make her a bigot yet? Or would she still just be citing?

    Depends on context, several people HERE actually quoted that, are they bigots?

    If she was quoting it as justification to take those actions she’d be a bigot and a criminal. I made it clear that bigots are those who harbor hate, hostility and wish harm upon others based on specific prejudices. Calling for the stoning of sinners (as it pertains to homosexuality et al) and quoting the bible to do so makes one a bigot and not Christlike.

  184. Says who? You? On what authority? I follow Christ, not man.

    says logic.
    when people truly believe something is wrong, then they will not do it. I believe that running people over with my car is wrong, and I have managed to refrain from running over anyone with my car. if you believe something to be true, you will live as if that thing you believe is true.

    which is why when you say this:

    I’m one of those people who beleive premarital sex to be wrong but fucked the brains out of my husband when he was my boyfriend as I had done a couple boyfriends before him.

    I can’t be convinced you actually think it was wrong.
    are you Pentecostal? you sound Pentecostal.

  185. I follow Christ, not man.

    I see. Except for the death penalty. That’s not on, according to Christ, but you’ve decided you like it.

  186. From fifthpevensie

    says logic.
    when people truly believe something is wrong, then they will not do it. I believe that running people over with my car is wrong, and I have managed to refrain from running over anyone with my car. if you believe something to be true, you will live as if that thing you believe is true.

    You’ve got to be joking! People do things they KNOW are wrong ALL the time! That’s called human nature.

  187. Christ does not make reference to slavery but DOES make reference to loving your neighbor, treating people the way you would like to be treated. The existence of brutal slavery is moot as to whether or not that was ok according to the bible, the bible says it isn’t.

    So what does the existence of slavery in Africa have to do with it?

    Christ’s teachings would not allow for slavery.

    So let me get this straight: homosexuality is a sin because your “Old Testament” says so, but when it comes to the New Testament–you know, the one that’s supposed to replace it–only the words of Christ count? And not Colossians 3:22? Which tells slaves to obey their masters, but doesn’t have anything to say about how the masters themselves should behave?

    And you don’t think you cherry-pick?

    If only the words of Christ count, please show me where he condemns homosexuality.

  188. I see. Except for the death penalty. That’s not on, according to Christ, but you’ve decided you like it.

    Yup. Somewhere a billion times ago, I’ve said I’m not perfect.

    I support gay marriage, I support abortion rights, I support the right of people to have premarital sex, I’m against criminalizing adultery. I’m waiting on your complaints there too. Yeah, I didn’t fucking think so.

  189. Azalea, one last response to a question you asked. You’ve been talking throughout as if you think that Jews interpret and follow the Hebrew Bible literally, and you seem not to be familiar with rabbinic Judaism, the Talmud, etc. Which does make it appear that you think Jews are like Karaites — a “denomination” of Jews, rather popular in medieval Egypt and Iraq and elsewhere in the Islamic Near East, that didn’t follow the Talmud and tried to follow the Tanakh, although they built up their own system of commentaries and interpretation. (Back then, both major denominations considered the other to be Jewish, and they lived side by side and sometimes married each other. At one time, 1000 years ago or so, Karaites may have comprised as much as 30% or more of Jews, and often held high positions in the Muslim government; now there are about 50,000 left. Most either became rabbinic Jews eventually, or converted to Islam. There’s a lot of material about them in the Cairo Genizah, of course.)

    Also, I’m still waiting for you to (1) point out the prohibition of lesbian sex in the Hebrew Bible, and (2) name one single Christian denomination, no matter how fundamentalist, that believes it’s a “sin” for Christians to fail to observe all the commandments in the Hebrew Bible relating to food, clothing, and other subjects (like period sex!) that Christianity has mysteriously and arbitrarily decided aren’t required for Christians. Even though the sin of male homosexuality is eternal, and God apparently remembered lesbians just in time to add them to Christianity.

  190. The bible says punishment for sins are executed by God himself. I’m not God. No one knows who He will and will not punish and how. The bible says there is a chance for forgiveness, No one knows who He will and will not forgive, for what and why. Jesus says not to hurt another person. I don’t know what more is there to explain on that.

    … and that’s why you’re pro death penalty?

  191. Azalea, where do you get your information on the Bible from? do you know about “culture bound” statements and “universal” statements? do you know about the Ancient Near East, or 1st-century Mediterranean culture? Deuteronomistic redactions? the Synoptic problem? undisputed vs disputed letters?
    I’m not making a judgement call on your intelligence. but these are the subjects that help readers understand the Bible. as long as you keep insisting that it’s all meant for you to read and understand without any context or difficulty you’ll keep being challenged on your logic and consistency.

  192. @Andie

    The context is a letter to the church about regulating fellowship. I’ve heard that argument before but it doesn’t ring true to me. seems like another example of people contorting the text to fit their values.

    Azalea,

    How do you square your values with Christ’s treatment of the Canaanite woman I referenced above?

  193. So what does the existence of slavery in Africa have to do with it?

    If you’re going to try to bait me with slavery (knowing I’m a WOC) and you don;t understand why my first answer was with regard to European slave trade and slavery in Africa..I seriously can’t help you.

    So let me get this straight: homosexuality is a sin because your “Old Testament” says so, but when it comes to the New Testament–you know, the one that’s supposed to replace it–only the words of Christ count?

    Do you know there is a difference between defining something and following something? The bible is crystal clear on defining sins. The actions to take contradict between old and new testaments. As a Christian (see how CHRIST is right there in the name?)the goal is to be more Christlike but it is understood that Christ was perfect and no one can POSSIBLY be *just* like him but you are suposed to try to be. There are some very specific rules and one of them is to treat others how you wish to be treated , no judging and he without sin cast the first stone. One sinner is not in a place to judge another.

    My bible defines what is and is not a sin. I have the freewill to decide on which action I will or will not take. I try to be Christlike, I fall short because I am a sinner. Just because I’ve done or do things that are sinful does not mean I do not recognize it as a sin. I dont understand why that is so hard for you to understand.

  194. … and that’s why you’re pro death penalty?

    I already stated why I’m pro death penalty. Im not repeating that shit for the umpteenth time. Sorry, you’re way too late to the rodeo. Want to know why? Read through every single comment I’ve posted, it’s there. I’m not typing it again for you, nah.

  195. You’re not addressing the issue, Azalea. The NT quite clearly approves of slavery. Why do you get to disregard that while accepting that homosexuality is a sin?

    As for “baiting” you with slavery…you think I spend far more time thinking about how to annoy you than I actually do. I find the failure of any part of the Bible to condemn slavery, even while it rabbits on about not worshiping idols and not casting stones to be evidence of its utter moral bankruptcy and always have. It is actually possible to have a history of thought about Christianity and its shortcomings that has nothing to do with you. I bring up Colossians 3:22 in every discussion of Christianity I can. In short: it ain’t all about you all the time.

    In a discussion of Biblical views of slavery, the ancient Roman practice is relevant; the sub-Saharan African practices are not. And your assumption that you told me anything I didn’t already know about them is, well, incorrect, to say the least.

  196. I can’t be convinced you actually think it was wrong.
    are you Pentecostal? you sound Pentecostal.

    It was a sin. I didn’t deny that one step of the way. It’s not my fault you can’t be convinced and I owe you no convicing. Question asked and answered.

  197. The context is a letter to the church about regulating fellowship. I’ve heard that argument before but it doesn’t ring true to me. seems like another example of people contorting the text to fit their values.

    Kristen J, I’m gonna go ahead and take your word for it on that one. I’m admittedly lacking in the theological knowledge department. Thanks for the clarification.

  199. You’re not addressing the issue, Azalea. The NT quite clearly approves of slavery. Why do you get to disregard that while accepting that homosexuality is a sin?

    LOL I addressed that, you just dont like my answer. It says to not be brutal to your slaves. My ancestors were slaves and you and Jill fucking knew that, which is undoubtedly why you brought that up. They were brutalized or dare you fucking say differently and that shit was not ok according to the bible. What exactly was the answer you were looking for? Some coonery on my part? I’m not sorry that I disappointed you if you were looking for some “yes massa” bullshit.

    If you knew, what was your point exactly? The bible condemns the brutal treatment of slaves, Christ condemns the brutal treatment of ANYONE. What was your point in bringing up slavery then?

    1. LOL I addressed that, you just dont like my answer. It says to not be brutal to your slaves. My ancestors were slaves and you and Jill fucking knew that, which is undoubtedly why you brought that up.

      Uh… how the hell would I know who your ancestors were? Actually, I brought it up because I was flipping through Leviticus and the slavery thing came up. You’ll note that I have quoted Leviticus extensively throughout this entire thread, and yet I have not done it because I somehow “knew,” for example, that your ancestors were farmers or vintners.

      If you knew, what was your point exactly? The bible condemns the brutal treatment of slaves, Christ condemns the brutal treatment of ANYONE. What was your point in bringing up slavery then?

      My point in bringing it up is that the Bible actually does condone slavery. Perhaps it’s not ok to “brutalize” slaves (although I actually don’t know the part of the Bible where it says “no treating slaves like slaves”), but slavery itself seemed to be a-ok. Honestly I would say that slavery is by definition brutal. The Bible does not agree, since it does say that slavery is acceptable. So I guess that’s the question: Is slavery ok as long as you don’t “brutalize” the person you own?

  200. Re: Sodom

    “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

    Their sin is grievous. What is their sin? God doesn’t say.

    God says later (through Ezekiel):

    Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)

  201. where does the Bible say premarital sex is a sin?

    and what about 1 Corinthians 7:8? does that mean marriage is a sin?

    Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

    Fornication is premarital sex.

    No, the scripture you reference addresses celibacy or marriage as an alternative to fornication. Do you honestly think that scripture says marriag is a sin? Seriously? If you read the beginning of that chapter it talks about marriage being a good thing.

  202. What was your point in bringing up slavery then?

    First of all, I didn’t. I responded to your point about slavery. So to claim that I brought it up because I knew your ancestors were slaves is just…bizarre. You were already discussing it. I guess responding to your completely irrelevant comment about African slavery was somehow disrespectful?

    My point was that in the simplest moral equation I can imagine, the Bible gets it wrong. Slavery is not moral as long as you don’t treat slaves brutally. Slavery is immoral. Period.

    They were brutalized or dare you fucking say differently

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. Yes, because I disagree with the strange mental contortions you go through in order to use the Bible to justify bigotry against gay people, I’m probably a slavery apologist. Sterling logic skills, there.

  203. From KristenJ:

    Azalea,

    How do you square your values with Christ’s treatment of the Canaanite woman I referenced above?

    You must have a comment in mod because I dont see a comment where you’ve mentioned Christ and a Canaanite woman.

  204. I mean, I’m probably a slavery apologist because I disagree with Azalea, but the NT’s stance on slavery is good.

    That makes perfect sense.

  205. If you knew, what was your point exactly? The bible condemns the brutal treatment of slaves, Christ condemns the brutal treatment of ANYONE. What was your point in bringing up slavery then?

    Paul writes repeatedly about slave/master relationships. unless you don’t think Paul’s words are as important as Christ’s (I don’t, but I’m guessing you do since they’re part of the Bible) then it’s an important thing to talk about when talking about the Bible and its relevance and “sin” and what have you.

  206. Azalea: I don’t want to add another question to your queue, but you keep saying that personal belief is the only thing that matters–the bible is the only thing that matters–and what the church does is different from the bible. You have been very specific, that for you and your friend, what church doctrine says or does is different from the personal “hate sin, love the sinner” of your politics. But you refuse to acknowledge the problem that all the institutions to which you, as a Christian, adhere don’t follow your mantra of just “being Christlike.”

    The institutions you support, as a Christian, are aggressively bigoted, aggressively forceful in their goals of a reducing rights for LGBT people, and aggressively unapologetic about it. You support them by your very membership in their congregations on Sunday, no? How do you square this circle?

    Just saying, I believe “the bible says X” doesn’t elide the the damage done by the institutions that impose the “says X” on secular society.

  207. I bring up Colossians 3:22 in every discussion of Christianity I can.

    I prefer the Canaanite story myself. Nothing like Christ himself being a racist shit to highlight the problem of Christianity

  208. Fornication is premarital sex.

    No, the scripture you reference addresses celibacy or marriage as an alternative to fornication. Do you honestly think that scripture says marriag is a sin? Seriously? If you read the beginning of that chapter it talks about marriage being a good thing.

    there’s no evidence that “fornication” (πορνεία (porneia) in Greek) means premarital sex.
    and of course I don’t think the Bible says marriage is a sin. but there are people who think that being unmarried is “holier”, which is also really poor exegesis. not as poor as yours, but still pretty poor.

  209. Just saying, I believe “the bible says X” doesn’t elide the the damage done by the institutions that impose the “says X” on secular society.

    QFT

  211. one of them is to treat others how you wish to be treated

    You do know that that comes from the Hebrew Bible — in Leviticus, actually! — and doesn’t originate with Christianity, right? (Never mind that it’s present in other religious traditions, in Asia and Egypt, for example, even earlier.) And that Hillel’s famous statement “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; go and learn,” predates Jesus? So please don’t cite that as some kind of example of how the New Testament differs from what you insist on calling the “Old Testament.”

    Just noting: my questions. Still no answers.

    PS: I agree with everything you say about the Atlantic slave trade and its conduct by Europeans. But the trade in slaves from sub-Saharan Africa existed already in the Middle Ages, in Egypt and elsewhere in the Near East. As well as in Rome, although, as you say, there wasn’t the same kind of racial distinction made then. Even though Rome really was dependent on slavery; the majority of the population in Italy consisted of slaves, and most of them weren’t the kind of urban household slave (like Cicero’s Tiro) or government bureaucrat who ended up as a freedman. The vast majority lived and died in horrifying conditions, in chains, working in mines and on ships and on huge agricultural estates belonging to the wealthy. Both before and after Christianity took hold, by the way.

  212. Paul writes repeatedly about slave/master relationships. unless you don’t think Paul’s words are as important as Christ’s (I don’t, but I’m guessing you do since they’re part of the Bible) then it’s an important thing to talk about when talking about the Bible and its relevance and “sin” and what have you.

    Christ words trump.

    If the question is what is sin, I refer to the bible’s definition of sin as my beleif of what is and isn’t sin is based on my being a Christian. I do not adhere to every piece of teaching but not adhereing to it and saying it isn’t in the bible as a sin are two very different things. That has been lost on most of you.

  213. not adhereing to it and saying it isn’t in the bible as a sin are two very different things. That has been lost on most of you.

    That difference is meaningless unless you are willing to say that the Bible is wrong on that point.

  214. not adhereing to it and saying it isn’t in the bible as a sin are two very different things. That has been lost on most of you.

    That difference is meaningless unless you are willing to say that the Bible is wrong on that point.

    you’re still adhering to a really uninformed and context-free reading of the Bible. it’s not the Borg. there’s no handy index to look up “sins”. it doesn’t work like that. you keep expecting everyone else to just accept an understanding of the Bible that you may as well have pulled out of your ass. just because you think the Bible says something doesn’t mean it says what you think.

  215. DonnaL:

    I want to start by saying I’m not ignoring you or refusing to answer your question(s). There are a lot of comments directed at my comments and I’m trying to keep up but I’m not multi-tasking. My Daddy is a marine and it’s memorial day so there is a lot of multi-tasking going on. I don’t know which question you’re talking about but I’m going to look for it in a bit.

    RE: The golden rule

    It is in the new testament too.

    Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    As far as slavery; yeah I know. I don’t even want to discuss that any further, it pisses me way off.

    EG,

    I didn’t call you a slavery apologist but I did go off. I apologize but on that note, unless we’re no longer discussing slavery I’m going to stop here.

    fifthpevensies

    there’s no evidence that “fornication” (πορνεία (porneia) in Greek) means premarital sex.
    and of course I don’t think the Bible says marriage is a sin. but there are people who think that being unmarried is “holier”, which is also really poor exegesis. not as poor as yours, but still pretty poor.

    I Corinthians. Just read the entire thing. There are people that think being unmarried and celibate is “holier” because it is more Christlike. Those who live a life of celibacy are abstaining from sins of the flesh, namely lust and sexual desire. Marriage is an alternative to celibacy. Fornication and adultery are sins because though being unmarried and celibate is best, being married and monogamous is better than being unmarried and sexually active.

  216. I Corinthians. Just read the entire thing. There are people that think being unmarried and celibate is “holier” because it is more Christlike. Those who live a life of celibacy are abstaining from sins of the flesh, namely lust and sexual desire. Marriage is an alternative to celibacy. Fornication and adultery are sins because though being unmarried and celibate is best, being married and monogamous is better than being unmarried and sexually active.

    you missed my point.
    there is no evidence that the best way to translate πορνεία is “premarital sex”.

    but I’d be interested in evidence that proves that being unmarried and celibate is somehow the best way to live…

  217. just because you think the Bible says something doesn’t mean it says what you think.

    Just what exactly does the bible mean TO YOU when it says for man not to lie with mankind as he does with womankind? Because when you no longer take something for what it says verbatim you are talking about your intrepretation of something which is open to opinion and perception.

  218. I do not adhere to every piece of teaching but not adhereing to it and saying it isn’t in the bible as a sin are two very different things.

    So, then, what does the bible leave you with, if you are choosing not to adhere to parts of it? If you just ignore so much of it, why do you give it such existential weight? Why are you willing to fight for all of it? Why are you willing to say it’s truth? Why are you willing to pledge your support to institutions that want to impose it’s rules on believers and non-believers alike? If you’re not going to say all of the bible is truth, what’s the point of vehemently arguing that what the bible says is so important and not bigotry? You’re not going to follow it anyway.

  219. Just what exactly does the bible mean TO YOU when it says for man not to lie with mankind as he does with womankind? Because when you no longer take something for what it says verbatim you are talking about your intrepretation of something which is open to opinion and perception.

    that for heterosexual men to engage in homosexual acts as forms of worship of gods other than the God found in the HB is a sin. not because of the acts, but because of the idol worship. and that’s not my opinion. well, I guess it is, but heavily influenced by Israel Finkelstein and others.

  220. Azalea, I know the “Golden Rule” is in the New Testament; my point was that it was taken straight from the Hebrew Bible, and can’t be used as evidence of some sort of huge qualitative difference between the two.

    For my questions — and I do understand that you’re multi-tasking here! — see comment # 202, in which I also tried to answer a question of yours.

  221. Because when you no longer take something for what it says verbatim you are talking about your intrepretation of something which is open to opinion and perception.

    Taking something for what it says verbatim is also about your interpretation and also open to opinion and perception, particularly when you’re talking about a text that is both in translation and originates thousands of years ago, when practices of both reading and writing were very, very different.

  222. just because you think the Bible says something doesn’t mean it says what you think.

    Just what exactly does the bible mean TO YOU when it says for man not to lie with mankind as he does with womankind? Because when you no longer take something for what it says verbatim you are talking about your intrepretation of something which is open to opinion and perception.

    EG

    That difference is meaningless unless you are willing to say that the Bible is wrong on that point.

    And that would be blashpemous so no thanks. Sins are defined by the bible, my knowledge of sins come from the bible. When talking about sins I am speaking in a biblical context not my own personal view of what is bad. I do not think homosexuals are bad people, I do not think they deserve to die or be stoned. My stance on human rights issue contradict many teachings on the bible on what to do based largely in part because the bible contradicts itself as well. There are lessons of love, forgiveness, humility and there are doctrines for stoning, judging and killing. There are sins listed throughout the bible and many of them are things that from a human rights perspective are NOT bad things, homosexuality is definitely one of them. That does not undo the fact that it is listed as a sin.

  223. My ancestors were slaves and you and Jill fucking knew that, which is undoubtedly why you brought that up.

    Nah, dude. My ancestors were slaves too. Almost every single religious debate I’ve had the displeasure of witnessing – especially the ones that have to do with being gay – brings up the slavery thing. Cuz it’s, you know, inconsistent. And it don’t look good on Christianity, not at all.

    Also, as a queer woman of color, I resent the fuck out of the fact that you think the fact that I fuck women is something that needs forgiving. That shit is fucked and it makes you a fake as hell ally.

  224. Also, as a queer woman of color, I resent the fuck out of the fact that you think the fact that I fuck women is something that needs forgiving. That shit is fucked and it makes you a fake as hell ally.

    Another queer woman of colour seconding you at high volume. Thank you, tmc. this was what I was trying to convey all of yesterday, and what I finally had to leave this conversation because it was getting tiring and frankly enraging.

    I mean, I’m probably a slavery apologist because I disagree with Azalea, but the NT’s stance on slavery is good.

    EG, I love you. Also for that comment about the New Testament being fanfiction.

  225. Because when you no longer take something for what it says verbatim you are talking about your intrepretation of something which is open to opinion and perception.

    I also just want to reiterate:
    the perspicuity of scripture is terrible doctrine. we are dealing with an ancient collection of texts written in dead languages by a variety of people over centuries. it is unbelievably arrogant to insist that we can be so sure of our understanding because we’ve read an English translation (also if you’re reading from the King James then you have that to deal with since it’s a pretty poor translation compared to more recent ones like the NRSV). it’s necessary to take into consideration things like the person who wrote the text and why, and the people who originally read the text, and what it meant to them in their own context. like we do with every other historical document. this is why we, you know, read Job differently than we read Matthew differently than we read Romans differently than we read James. context matters

    ps answered your question at #233

  226. DonnaL

    Also, I’m still waiting for you to (1) point out the prohibition of lesbian sex in the Hebrew Bible, and (2) name one single Christian denomination, no matter how fundamentalist, that believes it’s a “sin” for Christians to fail to observe all the commandments in the Hebrew Bible relating to food, clothing, and other subjects (like period sex!) that Christianity has mysteriously and arbitrarily decided aren’t required for Christians. Even though the sin of male homosexuality is eternal, and God apparently remembered lesbians just in time to add them to Christianity.

    I dont know of all denominations. So I can’t answer that question. I can only speak for me and my belief in Christ and His teachings.

    As for lesbians in the old testament I’d have to search but I know it’s in the new testament Romans 1:26-27.

    1. Interesting… from Romans, which Azalea cites:

      26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

      28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

      Emphasis mine. Sounds like (a) God is saying again that fornicators and homos deserve death, and (b) God also has some choice words for people who approve of homosexual lust.

      Azalea, are you sure to repent after you give to the Human Rights Campaign and declare your support for homosexuals?

  227. Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)

    That totally sounds like a righteous rant against homosexuality, right?

  228. tmc

    Also, as a queer woman of color, I resent the fuck out of the fact that you think the fact that I fuck women is something that needs forgiving. That shit is fucked and it makes you a fake as hell ally.

    So I suppose I should stop being so fake and end my donations to HRC, don’t defend gay marriage, and disown my gay friends and family members..because *you* say I’m a fake ally. “Nah, dude” that’s not happening. You’re entitled to that opinion, I’m not going to denounce the bible for your approval.

    1. So I suppose I should stop being so fake and end my donations to HRC, don’t defend gay marriage, and disown my gay friends and family members..because *you* say I’m a fake ally. “Nah, dude” that’s not happening. You’re entitled to that opinion, I’m not going to denounce the bible for your approval.

      Oh you don’t have to denounce it. It has enough in there about God’s view of hypocrites.

    1. Re Sodom and homosexuality:

      Gensis 18 and 19, read the chapters in their entirety.

      Read some Bible scholars about Genesis 18 and 19 — there are some serious interpretation and translation issues. That aside, apparently the path to righteousness is for a good, godly man to offer his virgin daughters to be gang-raped — that, according to the King James English translation of the Bible, is the good Godly option that the evil homos reject.

      Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom —both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

      6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

      9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

      10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

      12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”

      14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city! ” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

      15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished. ”

      16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them.

      So um, even if you buy that translation, Lot offered up his daughters to be raped by strangers and was rewarded for being righteous. You wanna argue in support of that?

      Oh and then Lot has sex with his daughters. He’s still considered a very righteous man.

  230. Jill

    You didnt say anything I hadn’t already said with regard to the punishment for that sin (but for the record, the punishment for EVERY sin is death. I gave you that scripture already.)

    We’ve already established that I don’t think homosexuals should be killed as a matter of human rights and that I DO think murderers should be killed as I am pro-death penalty. I’ve already stated that what I think one should do and what is a sin are not always of one accord the bible is not consistent on what you should do either. I dont see why we go back to this circle, I’ve already addressed that point bunches of times over.

    1. We’ve already established that I don’t think homosexuals should be killed as a matter of human rights and that I DO think murderers should be killed as I am pro-death penalty. I’ve already stated that what I think one should do and what is a sin are not always of one accord the bible is not consistent on what you should do either. I dont see why we go back to this circle, I’ve already addressed that point bunches of times over.

      Your point is not logically consistent. Your arguments make very little sense. That’s why we keep going over them a bunch of times. I think what we have established is that you are an enormous hypocrite who cherry-picks your beliefs and then holds up The Bible as a defense to any criticism. It’s fascinating at least.

  231. I have. The whole deal is about hospitality. Lot won’t give up his guests because they have the protection of his roof. In fact, he’s willing to surrender his daughters to gang rape rather than give up his guests.

    There’s Biblical morality for you. Lot’s willingness to subject his daughters to gang rape rather than some random guests makes him righteous in the eyes of that particular god.

    And that’s the kind of thing that makes his pronouncements on morality and sin are worthless.

  232. My bigoted ass gives to the Human Rights Campaign and is supportive of gay rights and LGBTIQ issues but hey, I’m no different than Romney, the KKK or Hitler right?

    Now who’s putting words into people’s mouths? I definitely don’t think you compare to any of those people or groups. In fact, up until today I would have put you on my top ten list of Feministe commenters I respect and admire the most. But your attitude on this thread has torpedoed any particular respect I had for you, because you are way more interested in defending your own position of straight privilege then you are in listening to the people you’re hurting and whose oppression you are reinforcing.

    You said waaay upthread that as a WOC here at Feministe, you have had White commenters turn around and tell you what your thoughts and experiences are or should be, and you implied that those of us who were calling you on your straight privilege condoned that. Well I don’t – I’ve seen people behave as racist bigots toward you and other POC commenters here, and nothing will lead me to support or condone that kind of behaviour. It’s wrong. I wish that you felt the same about your privilege here. (Also, bullshit considering that there are queer WOC here too calling you on your crap.)

    I think that what this comes down to is that you have a very particular definition of the word “sin” and what it means to you. What you should have picked up on by now (if you cared less about being defensive and more about challenging queer marginalization) is that what you think you are saying is not what everyone is hearing. For the rest of us, “sin” is a weapon-word, that’s been used against us in conjunction with violence and alienation. Whatever magical intent you think you have to redefine this word that we all have to share and live with, it’s not enough to counteract all of the very real bullshit baggage that this word has.

    We aren’t putting words in your mouth. We are telling you about what these words mean in the world after they leave your mouth/keyboard. What you should have done, if you were being a true ally, about 200 comments ago, was recognize when you were doing more harm than good, using your privilege to walk over others, and step the fuck off. Has it really been worth it, to figuratively slap us in the face so many times, to fight this fight with people who don’t even share your religion? Whatever “sin” means in your particular Christian circle, fine, whatever – but it’s not going to translate in a world where by force of majority (including a large number of Christians) it means something very, very different and incredibly hurtful. Just because being called a “sinner” is something that for you is benign and okay and just part of your beliefs does not make it so for the rest of us.

  233. Trust me: it’s not there, not in the Hebrew Bible. So I guess God must have liked lesbians until Jesus came along.

    I dont know of all denominations. So I can’t answer that question. I can only speak for me and my belief in Christ and His teachings.

    In other words, you don’t belong to any church? You’re stricter than every single Christian church that’s existed in the last 2000 years in defining what commandments are and aren’t “sinful” for a Christian to ignore, among the 613 commandments in the Hebrew Bible? So, you not only know more about the Bible than everyone else here, but you know more than every Catholic or Protestant church in defining sins? According to you, they’re all sins, for Christians and non-Christians alike, but it’s OK for you to ignore them, because either (1) you’re able to compartmentalize your religious and non-religious lives completely, or (2) Jesus will forgive you, so it doesn’t matter anyway.

    So, if it’s OK for you to make personal decisions, entirely on your own and without even being able to claim that you’re following the doctrine of any organized religion, about what is or isn’t sinful according to the Bible, then it should be OK for everyone else to make similar judgments. Unless you think you’re uniquely able to ascertain the intentions of God?

    Or unless you really are a Messianic Jew: all the commandments, plus Jesus too. I think I know someone with a Messianic Jewish cousin; maybe she can put you in touch.

  234. And Re: Supporting homosexuals being a sin too

    Yeah, it says so in black and white. YET those who do while acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin are labeled bigots anyway! Go figure! I am surprised that tidbit isn’t being used as a way to entice Christian supporters against supporting gay rights.

    1. And Re: Supporting homosexuals being a sin too

      Yeah, it says so in black and white. YET those who do while acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin are labeled bigots anyway! Go figure!

      People who hold bigoted beliefs are called bigots?! Go figure!

  235. DonnaL,

    Organized religion has agendas, they cherry pick based on those agendas. I follow the bible as a directive on what is and isn’t sinful, I dont claim to know MORE than organized religions.

    You’re criticizing me because I allow the bible to dictate what is and isn’t a sin. I didnt say I follwoed every sin in fact I have said ad NAUSEUM ugh, that I am not perfect and I sin. I dont see what your point is about this except to criticize me for not following man.

    1. Organized religion has agendas, they cherry pick based on those agendas. I follow the bible as a directive on what is and isn’t sinful, I dont claim to know MORE than organized religions.

      You’re criticizing me because I allow the bible to dictate what is and isn’t a sin. I didnt say I follwoed every sin in fact I have said ad NAUSEUM ugh, that I am not perfect and I sin. I dont see what your point is about this except to criticize me for not following man.

      Actually you don’t. The Bible is pretty clear that the whole point of labeling something as a “sin” is that you shouldn’t do it. But you’ve been clear that even while you label things as “sins,” you do them — consciously, purposely. We’re all on the same page that everyone sins. But you’re at least supposed to try not to. It’s a big load of bullshit to be like, “Well everyone sins, so whatever, I will do what I want!” Pretty sure that’s not Bible-ok.

  236. Also, re: being an ally

    Consistency matters. Doing one good thing doesn’t cancel out doing bad things. When I am an ally, I try for 100%. I’m not saying I succeed, but I don’t turn around and say, “Well, I wasn’t bigoted yesterday, so it’s okay if I am today.” And making a manipulative statement about how you’re going to stop supporting queer organizations because you aren’t getting sufficient cookies for being an ally shows that your true priority is your own vanity, and not a genuine desire to help. If you’re doing something on principle, then you should do it when it’s least convenient and rewarding, not the other way around.

  238. Jill,

    It doesnt need to make sense to you, none of you are dictators of my life. I said the bible defines what is and isn’t sin, it isn’t my fault that using a book to find definitions is different than doing everything the book says (especially when the book itself contradicts). In what world does that make sense?

    I’m not going to be say something isn’t a sin when the bible says it is just to appease someone else. But when the bible contradicts on how to treat someone and there is a humane way to treat them referenced in the bible (scripture I have cited already) and I defer to that where exactly am I this horrible person you’re making me out to be?

    It’s your opinion, you’re entitled to it. But apparently there are more and more people who do see certain things as sin but unlike me are trying to criminalize it. Those people aren’t hypocrits though right?

    1. It doesnt need to make sense to you, none of you are dictators of my life.

      Ah, the “you’re not the boss of me!” argument. I see we’ve devolved into third-grade rules.

      I’m not going to be say something isn’t a sin when the bible says it is just to appease someone else. But when the bible contradicts on how to treat someone and there is a humane way to treat them referenced in the bible (scripture I have cited already) and I defer to that where exactly am I this horrible person you’re making me out to be?

      Well, you’re the one who is all about definitions, and the Bible is fairly clear that the word “sin” has a meaning — something you shouldn’t do. A transgression of divine law. A reprehensible action. I’m very happy for you that in Azalea-world, committing transgressions against divine law and acting reprehensibly are fine and dandy, but for the rest of us? We try to avoid acting reprehensibly! Which is why “homosexuality is a sin” — translated, homosexuality is a reprehensible thing — is kind of a fucked-up idea, and one many of us reject. You can shrug your shoulders and say, “Well the Bible says so!,” but the Bible says a whole lot of fucked-up shit, and the fact that you would choose to support all of that fucked-up shit says a LOT about you, even if you sometimes send donations to LGBT organizations.

      And what’s the point of defining sins if you don’t think that the definition of “sin” offers any moral guidance? I think that’s where I’m lost. You seem to be arguing that the Bible is just categorizing a bunch of things as sins, but since we all sin and we’re all forgiven anyway (as long as we accept Jesus), no biggie! Sin away! But really, what is the point of defining “sins” if not to point out that the “sinful” behavior is bad and morally wrong and should be discouraged?

      So fine, you think that we shouldn’t burn homosexuals at the stake, even while you think their existence is reprehensible. Congratulations! Your gay friends must be very proud.

      It’s your opinion, you’re entitled to it. But apparently there are more and more people who do see certain things as sin but unlike me are trying to criminalize it. Those people aren’t hypocrits though right?

      Actually, most of them are — because like you, they say that homosexuality is a sin, but write off about 98% of the rest of the Bible and don’t actually follow its teachings. They’re bigger assholes than you are, but the hypocrisy scale is about even.

  239. Jadey

    Consistency matters. Doing one good thing doesn’t cancel out doing bad things. When I am an ally, I try for 100%. I’m not saying I succeed, but I don’t turn around and say, “Well, I wasn’t bigoted yesterday, so it’s okay if I am today.” And making a manipulative statement about how you’re going to stop supporting queer organizations because you aren’t getting sufficient cookies for being an ally shows that your true priority is your own vanity, and not a genuine desire to help. If you’re doing something on principle, then you should do it when it’s least convenient and rewarding, not the other way around.

    When the one bad thing is that I allow my religion to define what is and isn’t sin I’ll accept that. I’m not going to be denounce my religion for cookies from strangers. I’m not going to stop supporting gay rights because people on the internet think I am a bigot for being Christian. I do LOTS on principle and I don’t do it for cookies. Their entitled to judging me for my religious beliefs. I’m entitled to think that judgement is unfair.

    1. When the one bad thing is that I allow my religion to define what is and isn’t sin I’ll accept that. I’m not going to be denounce my religion for cookies from strangers. I’m not going to stop supporting gay rights because people on the internet think I am a bigot for being Christian. I do LOTS on principle and I don’t do it for cookies. Their entitled to judging me for my religious beliefs. I’m entitled to think that judgement is unfair.

      You know, you’re not the only Christian in the room. It’s not Christianity itself that’s making people call you a bigot.

  240. It doesnt need to make sense to you, none of you are dictators of my life.

    Actually, if what you’re saying is that we shouldn’t think of someone who believes that homosexuality is a sin as a bigot, it does need to make sense to us. If you’re fine with us thinking of such people as bigots, then indeed, you’re right. But the fact that you’ve been so invested in trying to explain these weird logical contortions suggests that you do want us to think it makes sense.

  241. Jill,

    Either I am the only Christian in the room or I am amongst a bunch of hypocrits, cherry-picking what does and does not apply.

    They’re not “bigger assholes than me” because I’m not a fucking asshole.

    I didn’t say it didnt offer moral guidance. I’ve pointed out the moral guidance I get from it. I cited scripture. I said I’m not judging or condemning people who sin. There are MANY sins, not just the things people choose not to do and if me recognizing that makes me a hypocrit wtf does it say about the people who don’t?

    Christianity sure brings out a LOT of hostility for me to not be the only Christian in here. The only person who has said anything good about Christ or Christianity at all has been me. You’ve all but gave it the finger.

    1. Either I am the only Christian in the room or I am amongst a bunch of hypocrits, cherry-picking what does and does not apply.

      Ha. Right. Unlike you, who is happy to throw around accusations of sinfulness, but doesn’t think that the punishments God demands for that exact same sinfulness should actually apply?

      Do you ask for forgiveness for wearing cotton-blend clothing? Do you ask for forgiveness for donating to gay rights organizations? Do you believe that you need to be forgiven for those transgressions?

      And perhaps we differ on our definitions of “asshole.” Kind of like how we apparently differ on our definitions of the word “sin.”

      I actually think there are a lot of wonderful things about Christ and Christianity — in fact, I’m a Christian! I’ve also taken a few minutes to study the Bible and Biblical history, and I approach the book for what it is: A valuable historical text that guides my faith, but was written down by human beings and so is inherently fallible. A text that reflects its time. A text that was cobbled together over many many lifetimes and was translated and re-translated. A text that cannot possibly encompass or fully relay the divine word, but that can be a helpful guidepost for how so many others have interpreted it over time, in their own cultures and spaces.

      There are many inconsistencies in the Bible, to the point where it is entirely impossible to live a Biblical life. Actually impossible! Perhaps recognizing that makes me a hypocrite, or not a “real” Christian in your eyes. I’ll own that. I’ll take accusations of fake Christianity any day over the cognitive dissonance of believing homosexuality is sinful but then bragging about how I donate money to LBGT organizations as a defense to my bigotry.

      1. Also… you said earlier that, despite what the Bible actually says, it’s up to God to punish sinners. So… if God came down and struck all gay people dead, would you think that was totally ok and justified because, you know, we shouldn’t punish gay people because Human Rights, but gay people are ARE sinners and it’s God’s prerogative to punish sinners, and He already said that they should be killed? Shorter version, if God Himself actually carried out what He supposedly said should happen to gay people… would you have any problem with that at all?

  242. Ever since I happened to be — I think — the first person on this thread, way back in comment 51, to disagree with your point that believing homosexuality is “immoral” doesn’t make you a bigot, I’ve tried to remain as emotionally distanced from the argument as I can, so I don’t get too upset about the fact that this is, in essence, MY son you’re talking about, along with millions of other sons and daughters, and for all you know, your son too someday. Never mind the son of this friend of yours you kept bringing up before you finally admitted that you have the same views she does.

    But I’ll finish up tonight by saying that your attitude is appalling, no matter how often you use the words of the Bible — “hey — that’s what God says, don’t blame me!” — and your contributions to the HRC as an excuse. You could give a million dollars to the HRC (an organization I’m not a big fan of in the first place!), and it wouldn’t lessen my anger. Nobody — nobody, for any reason — gets to tell me that they think that my son acting in accordance with who he is commits a “sin” that he wouldn’t be committing if he happened to be straight, and then claim that doesn’t make them a bigot. All based on an ancient book by multiple authors in different languages, largely from a religious tradition that you’ve repeatedly proved you know less than nothing about (less than, because you refuse to admit your ignorance), which someone once told you was written by God.

    To me, your biggest problem is that because of your straight privilege, calling something a “sin” is entirely meaningless to you, entirely devoid of any relationship to real life, and without any consequence whatsoever. Sin, shmin, who cares? It’s just what God says, but it doesn’t mean that you agree it’s wrong; it doesn’t mean you agree that you have to try to avoid doing it; and so what, Jesus forgives you anyway.

    LGBT people like my son — and like me, although that one verse in Leviticus is of far more dubious applicability than even the condemnations of homosexuality — can’t be as casual about their being labeled “sinners” as you can. It’s not “no big deal.” If you kept your views entirely to yourself and never mentioned them to anyone? Maybe. But you didn’t. YOU brought them up, for no good reason at all. Once you did so, you can’t complain that people called out those views for what they are.

  243. Organized religion has agendas, they cherry pick based on those agendas. I follow the bible as a directive on what is and isn’t sinful, I dont claim to know MORE than organized religions.

    You’re criticizing me because I allow the bible to dictate what is and isn’t a sin. I didnt say I follwoed every sin in fact I have said ad NAUSEUM ugh, that I am not perfect and I sin. I dont see what your point is about this except to criticize me for not following man.

    k seriously you do not know how to read the Bible. it actually takes skills beyond just being able to read words on a page.

    if you identify as Christian you identify as part of an organized religion. Christianity is an organized religion. and you seem to read the Bible in a weirder way than literally any Christian that I’ve met despite not being a part of a fundamentalist separatist church or Westboro or Mars effing Hill.
    no one is criticizing you for “not following man” (btw if you identify as feminist shouldn’t you use gender-accurate language like “not following people”?), they’re criticizing you for your poor understanding of the book you hold dear and your insistence that you can say people are sinning and have that be okay.

    you believe God created people, right? and you claim to “support” homosexuals (whatever that means). but if you honestly believe that homosexuality is a sin, then doesn’t that mean that people who aren’t straight are inherently fallen from grace, since they have no way to not be who they are since God created them that way? and so they’re doomed from the start because of a cruel God and there’s nothing they can do about it because they’re inherently bad?
    because that’s what it looks like. and I’m guessing it reads like that to a lot of other readers/commenters. which is probably why all of your memory verses about God’s love and mercy and kindness are sort of moot.

  245. Ha. Right. Unlike you, who is happy to throw around accusations of sinfulness, but doesn’t think that the punishments God demands for that exact same sinfulness should actually apply?

    I didn’t throw around “accusations” of sinfulness. But I said my ideals on human rights and what the bible says to do differ because there are some harsh and cruel things in there. I said that repeatedly, I don’t get the point on why that is being framed as a “gotcha!”

    Do you ask for forgiveness for wearing cotton-blend clothing? Do you ask for forgiveness for donating to gay rights organizations? Do you believe that you need to be forgiven for those transgressions?

    I don’t list every single sin when I ask for forgiveness, I ask for forgiveness of all of my sins and actions that did not please God. I know what sin is, I know what sins are I’ve admitted to sinning. Again, what is your point? The things I want to do to Shemar Moore are sins. Perfectly harmless from a human rights and societal viewpoint but sins according to my beliefs nonetheless.

    And perhaps we differ on our definitions of “asshole.” Kind of like how we apparently differ on our definitions of the word “sin.”

    I thought you were a bit of an asshole for your man-jewelry diggs but now I have a brand new reason to think so.

    There are many inconsistencies in the Bible, to the point where it is entirely impossible to live a Biblical life. Actually impossible! Perhaps recognizing that makes me a hypocrite, or not a “real” Christian in your eyes. I’ll own that.

    Alas, we agree on something.

    I’ll take accusations of fake Christianity any day over the cognitive dissonance of believing homosexuality is sinful but then bragging about how I donate money to LBGT organizations as a defense to my bigotry.

    That wasn’t bragging, that was fact. If you’re going to make an assumption about someone being a “certain kind” of bigot you’d best well have your facts straight. I support gay rights, not just on messageboards, that was my point in bringing that up. I’d actualy brought up supporting gay rights and LGBTIQ orgs in prior threads without all of the hostility.

    1. I thought you were a bit of an asshole for your man-jewelry diggs but now I have a brand new reason to think so.

      Yes, you’re right that the man-jewelry post was an asshole move. I totally agree with you there! Which is why when people were like, “Hey dude, you are being an asshole,” I took a breath, thought about my intentions vs. the execution and how it made people feel, apologized on that thread, and didn’t defend my asshole post with, “But it’s just, like, my belief, man.” Which obviously doesn’t absolve the post in the first place. But I like to think it’s slightly better than being like, “OMG NO YOU GUYS ARE THE ASSHOLES FOR CALLING ME AN ASSHOLE! THESE ARE MY BELIEFS AND HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THEM?!?! Vogue is my fashion Bible and it says that wearing man-jewelry makes you OBJECTIVELY UGLY AND MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE and all man-jewelry-wearers should be shunned from society and treated like second-class citizens, but it’s not my fault it says that, I have friends who wear man-jewelry and I would never tell them they should be socially shunned or treated like second-class citizens, in fact sometimes I even buy jewelry for the men I know! But Vogue says they are objectively ugly so… it’s really not my fault if I also say those men are objectively ugly and morally reprehensible! You are oppressing me by getting mad! VOGUE SAID IT AND THAT IS MY BELIEF SYSTEM, I DON’T CHERRY-PICK!”

      I will admit that I can totally be an asshole sometimes. Often, even. No argument there! I at least make an effort, though, not to be a bigot.

  246. Also… you said earlier that, despite what the Bible actually says, it’s up to God to punish sinners. So… if God came down and struck all gay people dead, would you think that was totally ok and justified because, you know, we shouldn’t punish gay people because Human Rights, but gay people are ARE sinners and it’s God’s prerogative to punish sinners, and He already said that they should be killed? Shorter version, if God Himself actually carried out what He supposedly said should happen to gay people… would you have any problem with that at all?

    He would kill me too because I’m a supporter so I wouldn’t have anything to say; I’d be dead.

    What would *you* say about that? What would you *do* about it? What you go off on Him?

    1. He would kill me too because I’m a supporter so I wouldn’t have anything to say; I’d be dead.

      What would *you* say about that? What would you *do* about it? What you go off on Him?

      Well, I’d obviously be dead too, but the God I pray to is not one who smites gays or condemns homosexuality as a sin that should be punished by death. We have very different views of God. If I actually believed that the God I was praying to demanded that gays be killed simply for being gay? That it’s “hospitable” for fathers to offer their daughters up for a gang-rape? That women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night should be murdered? Yeah, if I actually believed that the God I was praying to was the God of those things, I would no longer pray to that God. That God would not be my God.

  247. Gaaaaaaaah. Perhaps it is because I was raised in a liberal, hippy-dippy “We don’t even use the King James Bible Church”, but in my Sunday School the only words that we were taught that ever REALLY mattered were the gospel. The ten commandments were important, yes, but when it came to being a Christian, it was what was in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So all of this quoting of Leviticus is pretty meaningless to me, not that biblical quotes carry any weight with me personally any more at all. But I can tell you that the people who were transcribing it back in the day when the words were initially written weren’t writing in the style of the King James bible, let alone English.

    And I still haven’t gotten an answer as to what the son of the woman who thinks he’s a sinner simply because he’s gay thinks about how his mother feels about that. Especially since that is something about himself he can never, ever change, repent, or atone for. I think his feelings on it matter more than how well his mother is coping with his orientation. If anything, he should be praised for being so tolerant for having such a good relationship with his mother who still feels he is flawed in a way that she never was and never will be, no matter how accepting she is on the surface.

  248. you believe God created people, right?

    Yup. Do you?

    and you claim to “support” homosexuals (whatever that means).

    Yeah

    but if you honestly believe that homosexuality is a sin, then doesn’t that mean that people who aren’t straight are inherently fallen from grace,

    I beleive every single person on the planet is a sinner and since no one can be perfect they will always BE sinners.

    since they have no way to not be who they are since God created them that way?

    EVERYONE will always be sinners

    and so they’re doomed from the start because of a cruel God and there’s nothing they can do about it because they’re inherently bad?

    Nope. John 3:16

  249. shfree

    And I still haven’t gotten an answer as to what the son of the woman who thinks he’s a sinner simply because he’s gay thinks about how his mother feels about that.

    He’d lay into someone thick for calling his mom a fucking bigot. No bullshit he wouldn’t take that lightly. They’re very close.

  250. Straight people being called bigots because of their bigotry: totally more morally appalling than queer people being called sinners because of their sexuality.

    Tell you what Azalea, when queer people aren’t being beaten to death because of their “sin”, I’ll give a shit about your precious bigot feelings. Until then, if you continue to refer to us with the language of murderers you should expect to be called on it.

  251. He’d lay into someone thick for calling his mom a fucking bigot. No bullshit he wouldn’t take that lightly. They’re very close.

    Well, I wouldn’t call her a fucking bigot, because she seems like a nice enough person. Otherwise he and I would have to agree to disagree as to whether or not his mom was a bigot wrt to her stance on queer people. Because I don’t give a rat’s ass as to whether or not it’s due to a person’s religious beliefs or not, I’m not more flawed than a straight person simply by virtue of my orientation. And when someone says that to be a homosexual is to be a sinner, they are pointedly excluding heterosexuals in that statement. So EVEN IF, Azalea, everyone is a sinner, heterosexuals have that free leg up. According to you friend. According to you. So, I’m glad you are nice, and pleasant, and work against what you have been taught. But, you still think simply because people are born wanting to love and have sex with people of their own gender, they are automatically, irreversibly sinners. That makes you a bigot as far as I’m concerned.

  252. Azalea, I don’t suppose you know that “original sin” is not even a concept in Judaism? Jews don’t believe all that stuff about how even little babies are sinners from the moment they’re born, so they can’t go to Heaven if they die unbaptized, etc. That must come from your merciful New Testament; it’s certainly not in that harsh, judgmental Hebrew Bible.

    This entire thread has been about your privilege — straight and Christian, both. But that’s the kyriarchy for you, I guess.

  253. but if you honestly believe that homosexuality is a sin, then doesn’t that mean that people who aren’t straight are inherently fallen from grace,

    I beleive every single person on the planet is a sinner and since no one can be perfect they will always BE sinners.

    since they have no way to not be who they are since God created them that way?

    EVERYONE will always be sinners

    and so they’re doomed from the start because of a cruel God and there’s nothing they can do about it because they’re inherently bad?

    Nope. John 3:16

    here’s the difference:
    I can make the choice to not steal something, or to not kill someone. A person’s sexuality is not a choice. Straight people aren’t choosing straightness any more than LGBT people are choosing LGBT -ness or asexual people are choosing asexual-ness. we are who we are. and the idea that someone who we are is sinful is the part that is horrifically offensive. we choose to “sin” or not to “sin”, we do not choose to exist and be the people we are.
    you cannot come into a space that is not specifically Christian and tell everyone that they are sinners. it will either mean nothing to readers, or it will be extremely hurtful to readers. it is not kind/loving/Christlike. if you want to believe we are all sinners, then go ahead, but don’t insist on telling people that what they are, independent from choice, automatically condemns them. it’s hateful.

  254. DonnaL

    Azalea, I don’t suppose you know that “original sin” is not even a concept in Judaism? Jews don’t believe all that stuff about how even little babies are sinners from the moment they’re born, so they can’t go to Heaven if they die unbaptized, etc. That must come from your merciful New Testament; it’s certainly not in that harsh, judgmental Hebrew Bible.

    This entire thread has been about your privilege — straight and Christian, both. But that’s the kyriarchy for you, I guess.

    This thread has been about morality and religion, I comment on it according to my beliefs and I am Christian. I’m speaking from a Christian POV. I can no more speak on what it’s like to be Jewish woman as you could speak on what it’s like to be a black Christian woman. It wasn’t to exclude Judaism it was because I am not Jewish and I can’t articulate what Jewish teachings and text say about all subjects because I haven’t studied it either.

  255. DonnaL

    Azalea, I don’t suppose you know that “original sin” is not even a concept in Judaism? Jews don’t believe all that stuff about how even little babies are sinners from the moment they’re born, so they can’t go to Heaven if they die unbaptized, etc. That must come from your merciful New Testament; it’s certainly not in that harsh, judgmental Hebrew Bible.

    This entire thread has been about your privilege — straight and Christian, both. But that’s the kyriarchy for you, I guess.

    This thread has been about morality and religion, I comment on it according to my beliefs and I am Christian. I’m speaking from a Christian POV. I can no more speak on what it’s like to be a Jewish woman as you could speak on what it’s like to be a black Christian woman. It wasn’t to exclude Judaism it was because I am not Jewish and I can’t articulate what Jewish teachings and text say about all subjects because I haven’t studied it either.

  256. @ Azalea

    **TW for hypothetical racist statements about black people**

    What you seem to be most hung up on is that that we think this woman is being bigoted. But who are you to define, as a straight person to queer people, what is or is not bigoted against queers? We’ve established that you don’t care if people think racist thoughts as long as they don’t engage in racist actions, and I can understand that even if I don’t feel the same way. But what if they turned around and tried to argue that those thoughts aren’t in fact racist? If I stated that I had a belief that black people were innately criminal, dirty, and less human than white people and I would still support their rights and donate to causes supporting them because it’s the right thing to do, but I believe what I do because that’s how I was raised and what people I trust have told me and the social and cultural standards by which I have decided to live my life tell me. And therefore I argue that these abhorrent beliefs are not racist. Would you call me on my racist BS? I should hope so. No matter how I try to justify it, I can’t make those beliefs not be racist because it’s not about *who I am* but about *what those beliefs are*. And if I decide that my upbringing, culture, and ideological socialization are more important to me than being not racist, then I am being racist when I espouse those beliefs, no matter how strongly I feel about the source of authority (in your case, a religious doctrine) I am using to justify them.

    This woman you are defending likely isn’t a horrible person. In fact, I’m sure of it. I believe that she does good things and is kind to people and that her son loves her very much and is justified in doing so. But who she is does not erase what her beliefs mean and their inherent bigotry. As I said, I have a born-again Christian mother who took her own path to reconciling what her pastors told her, what she read and re-read in her Bible (of which she is an avid student), and what her politics and her exposure to me and my friends told her. My mother truly lives a life of love and kindness through her Christianity. Her faith brings out the best in her and she brings out the best in it. That you would call her a hypocrite makes me wonder what Christianity brings out in you.

  257. shfree:

    Although it may be completely meaningless to you at this point; my intention was not to be extremely hurtful to you. It wasn’t to be hurtful at all. I bear no hostility or ill will towards you or homosexual people in general. I know that this is an emotionally charged conversation for all of us but that it’s moreso for you and other people in the LGBTIQ community. I apologize for hurting you. I wont post about it anymore, debating about this isn’t worth being unintentionally hurtful.

  258. This woman you are defending likely isn’t a horrible person. In fact, I’m sure of it.

    She really is.

    I believe that she does good things and is kind to people and that her son loves her very much and is justified in doing so. But who she is does not erase what her beliefs mean and their inherent bigotry.

    I didnt say the belief wasn’t bigoted I said the woman wasn’t.

    As I said, I have a born-again Christian mother who took her own path to reconciling what her pastors told her, what she read and re-read in her Bible (of which she is an avid student), and what her politics and her exposure to me and my friends told her. My mother truly lives a life of love and kindness through her Christianity. Her faith brings out the best in her and she brings out the best in it.

    She sounds like the kind of woman Christianity encourages others to be.

    That you would call her a hypocrite makes me wonder what Christianity brings out in you.

    The best in me. Why would I call your mother a hypocrite? I was called a hypocrite for not doing everything the bible says to do and calling myself a Christian. Before the name calling went down I said people are free to cherry pick as it suits them. Its what just about everyone does anyway.

  260. See, it’s late!

    fifthpevensie,

    Although it may be completely meaningless to you at this point; my intention was not to be extremely hurtful to you. It wasn’t to be hurtful at all. I bear no hostility or ill will towards you or homosexual people in general. I know that this is an emotionally charged conversation for all of us but that it’s moreso for you and other people in the LGBTIQ community. I apologize for hurting you. I wont post about it anymore, debating about this isn’t worth being unintentionally hurtful.

    I was scrolling through so fast trying to reply I got my responses and the posters mixed up but yes shfree, it applies to you too.

  261. I didnt say the belief wasn’t bigoted I said the woman wasn’t.

    Well I believe that if someone espouses a bigoted belief, then that makes them a bigot for the duration of time that they espouse that belief. I try to avoid using essentialist language that implies that someone is innately bigoted (beliefs and actions can be, but not people), but once you engage in those actions or beliefs then you earn the label until you stop engaging. To continue my comparison, as long as I held racist thoughts, I would consider myself a racist. (And to the extent that I have been socialized as a white person in a racist society and can’t be 100% that I’ve expunged the racist beliefs I’ve been raised with, I’m pretty uncomfortable with *not* describing myself as racist, although I’m not definitely not anywhere near the extreme and proud racist category. I don’t think acknowledging my capacity for and likelihood of being a bigot is a horrible insult to me though, so much as it is an recognition of a horrible reality. To that extent, “bigot” to me might mean something similar to what “sinner” means to you.)

    I read your comment to shfree and if you still want to stop engaging, then that’s okay by me. Honestly, I wish you’d figured that out when us queer commenters first started telling you how hurtful and exhausting this all was.

  262. Jadey,

    Yeah I am. Fifthpevensie pointed out that I was being hurtful, that’s not my intent so I’m dropping my arugment in this thread and letting it go.

    FWIW, you made a good points.

  263. I didnt say the belief wasn’t bigoted I said the woman wasn’t.

    Ok, I can’t help to butt in here because I do not get what you could possibly mean by this. How do you hold bigoted beliefs without being a bigot?

    English is admittedly not my first language, but to me that is the definition of the term.

  264. Azalea, which version of the Bible are you using? It’s a translated, interpreted, reinterpreted and retranslated work that has been evolving since well before the Council of Nicaea.

    Different translations have very diferent focuses. KJV was translated to use many poetic features, but is often not regarded as being accurate at all to the Greek and Latin it was tranlated from (and, aside from some of Paul’s letters, neither of those are the original languages either). So different versions can have different lists of sins.

  265. Azalea, if you had made clear from the outset that you acknowledge that the views of homosexuality stated in the Bible, to the extent that homosexuality is characterized as a “sin” or immoral, are, in fact, bigoted views — as you now appear to acknowledge in comment # 284 — and that your only dispute is on the issue of whether someone holding such bigoted views is necessarily a “bigot,” perhaps this discussion could have been narrowed to that issue a very long time ago.

  266. Either I am the only Christian in the room or I am amongst a bunch of hypocrits, cherry-picking what does and does not apply.

    Didn’t you say earlier that Christians aren’t supposed to run around judging people?

    Christianity sure brings out a LOT of hostility for me to not be the only Christian in here. The only person who has said anything good about Christ or Christianity at all has been me.

    Speaking as a Jew, I can’t imagine why anybody would feel hostility toward Christ or Christianity. It’s a total mystery.

    He would kill me too because I’m a supporter so I wouldn’t have anything to say; I’d be dead.

    What would *you* say about that? What would you *do* about it? What you go off on Him?

    I believe there’s an eternal soul at issue when speaking about Christianity, so you could indeed say something. But fuck yes, I’d go off on the Christian god. The god described in the Bible does not deserve worship; any god like that would be just another authoritarian tyrant and it would be a moral imperative to foment revolution.

  267. Azalea, if you had made clear from the outset that you acknowledge that the views of homosexuality stated in the Bible, to the extent that homosexuality is characterized as a “sin” or immoral, are, in fact, bigoted — as you now appear to acknowledge — and that your only dispute is on the issue of whether someone holding such bigoted views is necessarily a “bigot,” perhaps this discussion could have been narrowed to that issue a very long time ago.

  268. But fuck yes, I’d go off on the Christian god. The god described in the Bible does not deserve worship; any god like that would be just another authoritarian tyrant and it would be a moral imperative to foment revolution.

    Hey, arguing with God is a time-honored Jewish tradition!

  270. Donna:

    Hey, arguing with God is a time-honored Jewish tradition!

    Good point!

    Azalea:

    I am not Jewish and I can’t articulate what Jewish teachings and text say about all subjects because I haven’t studied it either.

    Then you’re going to want to avoid making pronouncements about whether or not it’s a Jewish belief that all Christians are going to hell, or that the NT is kind and loving and merciful, unlike Hebrew scriptures. And you’re especially going to want to not argue when not one but two Jews tell you you’re incorrect.

  271. Yeah . . . this whole psuedo-feminism infused with misogynistic religion thing always reads so phoney, so full of excuses and so. much. cherry-picking.

    And this:

    I beleive every single person on the planet is a sinner and since no one can be perfect they will always BE sinners.

    just makes me sad for believers. What a horrible thing to go through life thinking of yourself like this. I pity them.

  272. Can we all stop pretending that objectivity exists? Can we stop pretending that it’s even possible? Can we PLEASE stop arguing about who’s belief’s are in line with the one true external objective perspective? Because that is some oppressive shit right there.

    Many subjectivities do not an objectivity make.

    Unfortunately, the concept of God is rooted in the external objective perspective, and I’m sure many people here will tell me I need to “respect” their belief in objectivity because its comforting or something.

    It’s not comforting to me. It’s scary as hell when people believe that with just the right kind of intellectual alchemy, they can discover the opinion of the One Tru God (of Gaius Baltar)

  273. Just as a point of clarity, as far as I understand from learning with my Rabbis, we’re not supposed to learn ANYTHING from Lot’s behavior. He’s largely condemned in rabbinic texts for his actions. And the verse that God took mercy on him…well…God doesn’t have to take mercy on people who are righteous, only on people who fuck up. My understanding is the Lot is saved for Abraham’s sake, not for his own. It seems to me that you’re meant to contrast Lot’s “hospitality” with Abraham and Sarah’s, in this instance. But, yeah, the rabbis take a lot of how-not-to-live lessons from Lot.

  274. The moderation system is seriously verkakte.

    I know, I’m sorry! I don’t know why your comments always go into mod. We love you and it’s not personal I promise.

  275. Can we all stop pretending that objectivity exists? Can we stop pretending that it’s even possible? Can we PLEASE stop arguing about who’s belief’s are in line with the one true external objective perspective? Because that is some oppressive shit right there.

    This sounds like some discussion other than the one here. With one possible exception, I can’t think of any person in this thread who has even remotely suggested that objectivity, or objective religious truth, is a possibility. Which doesn’t mean, of course, that certain historical facts aren’t true, and that others aren’t false.

  276. When Brother Jed visited my Missouri college campus, his preaching was really amusing to me. So many people tried to engage with him, pointing out contradictory biblical passages, or trying to get him to probe his beliefs further, but it fell upon deaf ears. In my experience, trying to have a serious discussion of beliefs is like trying to pin the tail on an eel; they’ll always evade the point and run you in circles til you get a headache and quit. Case in point: Azalea.

    One of my very best friends is of the christian persuasion that unless you believe in Jesus-as-a-religious-figure, you’re going to hell. Doesn’t matter how good of a person you are, if you don’t believe, you’re going to hell. [Sidenote: When I brought up the “but what about a child rapist/murderer who converts on his deathbed??” her answer was that a sin is a sin. A lie is equal to a murder. I still can’t get over this.]

    And yet she is one of the most caring, accepting people I know, often skipping her church’s services to come to my Unitarian Universalist fellowship services growing up, never trying to “witness” me as an atheist. She would never ACT against the rights of anyone. But she is still a bigot because of her beliefs. Doesn’t mean she isn’t a good person, doesn’t mean she’s ignorant. But it also doesn’t mean she gets a free pass in my book.

    The woman with a gay son situation is like a million others: “I’m not against gay people…___(son/daughter/sister/brother/friend) is gay!” while engaging in hurtful practices (including the use of loaded language like sin). I will NEVER forget the girl in my high school who circulated a petition against gay marriage, and said “But my uncle’s gay! I don’t hate gay people.” ARGH.

  277. This sounds like some discussion other than the one here. With one possible exception, I can’t think of any person in this thread who has even remotely suggested that objectivity, or objective religious truth, is a possibility. Which doesn’t mean, of course, that certain historical facts aren’t true, and that others aren’t false.

    This is exactly what the discussion here is about. There are those who are arguing for tolerance of other religious views and an acknowledgment that having your own morals does not necessarily mean you believe everyone should adhere to those standards. That’s the position of subjectivity, where you realize that your morals are personal, and not based in some sort of externally measured Good.

    The other side (mostly Chiara) keeps viewing morals as something that must be applied universally (universality is a form of the concept of objectivity) because morals are supposed to be a set of values that are defined external to the human mind, through a Book or a God of some sort.

    It’s nice that you’re always here to challenge my opinions DonnaL. It keeps me articulate.

  278. OK, I think I get it now, DLL. What confused me was your statement that we should “all” stop pretending that objectivity exists, as if we were, in fact, all doing so. Which, clearly, you didn’t intend to suggest.

  280. It seems that Azalea has bowed out of this giant clusterfuck of a thread, but I was away from my computer all day yesterday and just read everything now and feel the desire to briefly comment.

    OK. I didn’t see anyone say this directly. So I will. Azalea, while in general, I respect what you’ve posted over time at Feministe, and while I’m sure in many cases on LGBT issues your intentions are nice, based off what you’ve expressed on this thread, I feel pretty confident saying this:

    You’re being a homophobic bigot.

    Yup. You’re a bigot. I know you think it’s unfair for me to say that. But in my own personal judgment as an atheist, bisexual, transgender woman–that’s what you are, and you are also a religious fanatic for valuing your precious Biblical ideology over the consequences of spewing this garbage toward actual, queer human beings (during the first 250 comments, at least).

    So fuck off.

  281. Also, I wonder. . .at this point in my transition, is it more sinful when I’m fingering a girl or giving a guy a blow job? All outside of marriage, of course. Please give me a sign of Thy will, O Lord!!

  282. Hey, arguing with God is a time-honored Jewish tradition!

    And that is, honest-to-Beit-Din, one of the reasons I am so passionate about becoming one.

    I know that is off-topic, but I thought this thread could use a little goodwill and sweetness.

  283. So I suppose I should stop being so fake and end my donations to HRC, don’t defend gay marriage, and disown my gay friends and family members..because *you* say I’m a fake ally.

    There’s not much difference in this discussion between you and racist white liberals who spout off their “anti-racist” cred while spitting in the face of actual POCs. “I voted for Obama! I adopted a black baby! I watched Good Hair and liked it! Just because I think blacks are less intelligent than whites, that doesn’t mean I treat them any differently!”

    Absolutely you should stop being so fake. The fact that you immediately interpret that to mean just giving into your bigotry entirely is rather telling.

    This is pretty much the same exact same bullshit that drove me from Christianity in the first place.

  284. There’s not much difference in this discussion between you and racist white liberals who spout off their “anti-racist” cred while spitting in the face of actual POCs. “I voted for Obama! I adopted a black baby! I watched Good Hair and liked it! Just because I think blacks are less intelligent than whites, that doesn’t mean I treat them any differently!”

    QFT.

    Hey, tmc, did you actually take a course in rocking hard? Because seriously, the consistently awesome that you pull off with the articulate seems unfair to me.

  285. Azalea, if you had made clear from the outset that you acknowledge that the views of homosexuality stated in the Bible, to the extent that homosexuality is characterized as a “sin” or immoral, are, in fact, bigoted — as you now appear to acknowledge — and that your only dispute is on the issue of whether someone holding such bigoted views is necessarily a “bigot,” perhaps this discussion could have been narrowed to that issue a very long time ago.

    That was my intention but even still that may have been hurtful. I want to apologize to you too DonnaL. I understand if you don’t accept it but you are one of few people who are not disrespectful towards me and I could see how this discussion could have felt like a slap in the face to you. Just wanted to extend an olive branch.

  286. I’m late to this discussion, but I’ll chime in.

    My family identifies as Christian, but we no longer attend church and we don’t study the Bible anymore. My mom left the church because of the intolerance and shaming. We still believe in God, we still believe in Christ, we still pray, and we still have faith. (Mine’s a little shaky but it’s been a hard couple of years).

    Anyway, my mom has always raised me to understand that EVERYONE sins. Not just some people. Everyone. We are imperfect people who are doing the best we can, and NO ONE is perfect.
    Maybe that’s what Azalea means when she says everyone sins? It’s an acknowledgement that we’re imperfect, perfectly created, and still loved.

    I don’t feel bad, or stressed, or dirty, or anything because I’m ‘living in sin.’ I’ve always interpreted that to mean ‘imperfect’ and I don’t feel bad for being imperfect. I make mistakes, I learn from them, and I try to do better next time. God’s love (at least not according to the way it was taught to me) doesn’t depend on me never messing up, having the perfect life, or never failing an accomplishment. I’m loved just by virtue of being me.

    This is in response to the person who said the pitied people who thought they were living in sin. I get your perspective, I was just offering another one.

    1. Anyway, my mom has always raised me to understand that EVERYONE sins. Not just some people. Everyone. We are imperfect people who are doing the best we can, and NO ONE is perfect.
      Maybe that’s what Azalea means when she says everyone sins? It’s an acknowledgement that we’re imperfect, perfectly created, and still loved.

      I don’t feel bad, or stressed, or dirty, or anything because I’m ‘living in sin.’ I’ve always interpreted that to mean ‘imperfect’ and I don’t feel bad for being imperfect. I make mistakes, I learn from them, and I try to do better next time. God’s love (at least not according to the way it was taught to me) doesn’t depend on me never messing up, having the perfect life, or never failing an accomplishment. I’m loved just by virtue of being me.

      This is in response to the person who said the pitied people who thought they were living in sin. I get your perspective, I was just offering another one.

      I mean… that’s a fair point and I do think it’s what Azalea was getting at. But what many of us have been saying is that yes, we all sin and we all do reprehensible things (which is the definition of “sin” — sins are not minor transgressions, they’re offenses against God), and no one is perfect, but being gay is not an imperfection. Being gay is not the same as making a choice to do something “wrong” because it feels good or because there are other benefits or because of weakness or for whatever other reasons people sin. Saying that homosexuality is a sin — even with the caveat that everyone sins — is a bigoted view because it places gay people as inherently flawed and imperfect. It situates homosexuality as a thing that is worse that heterosexuality. There are plenty of things that people do which most of us would agree are wrong/bad/sinful/whatever word you want to use. We lie, we cheat, we get jealous, we treat people unkindly, we act selfishly. Of course we all sin and we are all imperfect but still loved. The problem is putting homosexuality anywhere near the category of “bad things.” The problem is assuming homosexuality is worse / less than / more flawed than heterosexuality.

  287. One of my very best friends is of the christian persuasion that unless you believe in Jesus-as-a-religious-figure, you’re going to hell. Doesn’t matter how good of a person you are, if you don’t believe, you’re going to hell. [Sidenote: When I brought up the “but what about a child rapist/murderer who converts on his deathbed??” her answer was that a sin is a sin. A lie is equal to a murder. I still can’t get over this.]

    In Catholicism, there’s the concept of “mortal sin” and “venial sin” (other sects of Christianity?) – anyway, all sins are not equal in Catholicism. There are definite gradations.

    – Current atheist, who got started on the path when I decided if Jesus exists, there’s no way this fucker is concerning himself with who you want to fuck. He probs has bigger issues on his mind. Like North Korea. Swaths of the world where people are dying en masse. And if he doesn’t, seriously, fuck him.

  288. Miss S

    I absolutely love you for the quoted comment below!!!

    My family identifies as Christian, but we no longer attend church and we don’t study the Bible anymore. My mom left the church because of the intolerance and shaming. We still believe in God, we still believe in Christ, we still pray, and we still have faith. (Mine’s a little shaky but it’s been a hard couple of years).

    Anyway, my mom has always raised me to understand that EVERYONE sins. Not just some people. Everyone. We are imperfect people who are doing the best we can, and NO ONE is perfect.
    Maybe that’s what Azalea means when she says everyone sins? It’s an acknowledgement that we’re imperfect, perfectly created, and still loved.

    I don’t feel bad, or stressed, or dirty, or anything because I’m ‘living in sin.’ I’ve always interpreted that to mean ‘imperfect’ and I don’t feel bad for being imperfect. I make mistakes, I learn from them, and I try to do better next time. God’s love (at least not according to the way it was taught to me) doesn’t depend on me never messing up, having the perfect life, or never failing an accomplishment. I’m loved just by virtue of being me.

    This is in response to the person who said the pitied people who thought they were living in sin. I get your perspective, I was just offering another one.

  289. Saying that homosexuality is a sin — even with the caveat that everyone sins — is a bigoted view because it places gay people as inherently flawed and imperfect. It situates homosexuality as a thing that is worse that heterosexuality. There are plenty of things that people do which most of us would agree are wrong/bad/sinful/whatever word you want to use.

    Exactly. The “sin” here isn’t homosexuality, it’s homophobia. I’m a homophobe-a-phobe. I’m afraid of sinful homophobes such as Azalea.

  290. That was my intention but even still that may have been hurtful. I want to apologize to you too DonnaL. I understand if you don’t accept it but you are one of few people who are not disrespectful towards me and I could see how this discussion could have felt like a slap in the face to you. Just wanted to extend an olive branch.

    Azalea, I know this comment was directed at DonnaL, but I really want to point out that I mentioned, repeatedly, that my argument was about definitions of bigotry and not whether or not you’re a bigot, and that I’ve been respectful – sharp, maybe, but respectful – of you and of your religion in general throughout this thread. Also that I tried at least once to reorient the discussion towards definitions of bigotry (it went into moderation so I’m not sure where it is, but it was at least 30-odd comments ago). Criticising a hearsay example you put forward is not the same as being disrespectful towards you. This isn’t to pile on you, just to point out that there have been reasonable and relatively respectful comments from me while you were posting increasingly homophobic and triggery comments.

  291. Exactly. The “sin” here isn’t homosexuality, it’s homophobia. I’m a homophobe-a-phobe. I’m afraid of sinful homophobes such as Azalea.

    Eh, I don’t know. She doesn’t strike me as a homophobe as much as a homophobia-apologist. Some of her comments were questionable, and her defenses were definitely icky and infuriating, but.

  292. I don’t feel bad, or stressed, or dirty, or anything because I’m ‘living in sin.’ I’ve always interpreted that to mean ‘imperfect’ and I don’t feel bad for being imperfect.

    Miss S, I don’t have a squabble with anyone who wants to self-identify as a sinner. Speaking as someone who’s endured spiritual abuse, and whose sexual abuser was a religious figure who used that fact to shameless advantage, I’d rather dismember myself without anaesthetic than do so myself.

    It’s great that you feel that “sinful” is interpreted as “imperfect” and that that’s empowering and freeing to you. However, you don’t get to paste that label on someone nonconsensually. I haven’t been through half as much shit as most of the other LGBTQ peeps posting on this thread and I’m still traumatised by the shit I’ve had to deal with. Being called a sinner, being treated like a sinner, was a huge portion of that. Excuse us for being very fucking tired of our very selves being sinful because we’re not straight conveniently celibate gender conforming beaten down closeted and miserable sufficiently cowed as to bow to others’ definitions of morality.

  294. She doesn’t strike me as a homophobe as much as a homophobia-apologist.

    Ehh. You say “toe-may-toe;” I say “toe-maw-toe.”

    Criticising a hearsay example you put forward is not the same as being disrespectful towards you.

    I’d say you’ve been quite respectful of Azalea, macavitykitsune. Although she has been disrespected on this thread. I’ve certainly been disrespectful of her, for example, and I believe that disrespect is warranted. If someone says people like me are innately depraved conduits of evil; I feel I’m within my rights to tell them their beliefs are bullshit and they should fuck off. I don’t follow the Bible, but I think “an eye for an eye” generally works better for oppressed groups than “turn the other cheek.”

  295. In Catholicism, there’s the concept of “mortal sin” and “venial sin” (other sects of Christianity?) – anyway, all sins are not equal in Catholicism. There are definite gradations.

    She comes from a Methodist background, and I think her point was that we all sin, and as long as we repent those sins (and believe in Jeebus) then we’ll be included in the Pearly Gate Club. Doesn’t matter what the sin is, it’s still sin. So really, if you tell a white lie or murder someone, just repent and you’re all good!

  296. I’d say you’ve been quite respectful of Azalea, macavitykitsune. Although she has been disrespected on this thread. I’ve certainly been disrespectful of her, for example, and I believe that disrespect is warranted. If someone says people like me are innately depraved conduits of evil; I feel I’m within my rights to tell them their beliefs are bullshit and they should fuck off.

    Fair enough, and I actually have much less patience IRL with this kind of passive-aggressive bullshit. I was just pointing out to her that her reimagining this thread as “virtuous woman sad and tired because of the mean gays calling her mean” doesn’t hold nearly as much water as she thinks it does. She didn’t have to engage with anyone being disrespectful and she could still have had conversations with at least three people.

    Ehh. You say “toe-may-toe;” I say “toe-maw-toe.”

    LOL true. Sorry, I’m used to having to draw those lines so as to not repeatedly punch my family in the nose. (They’re better now, but the unconscious stuff still flares up at times.)

  297. Of necessity, I do draw lines. One has to live in this world, not just on the Internet, right?

    Azalea, consistently with that approach, and since you were, in fact, respectful to me as well, I do accept your apology and your olive branch. On my own behalf, and, although I can’t accept it on my son’s behalf, I suspect that he would accept it too.

    All the LGBT issues aside, though, some of the things you said about Jews, and Judaism, and what you call the “Old Testament” (a name I strongly reject, especially in any conversation in which Jewish people take part), were extremely hurtful — and supremely infuriating — as well. Especially since, to be blunt, you spoke from a position of ignorance. I know for a fact — as you must, too — that I wasn’t the only person here who felt that way. I very much hope that in the future you understand this, and try to avoid assumptions that Judaism simultaneously holds the same beliefs as Christianity — with respect to hell, original sin, or otherwise — and is inferior to Christianity in terms of concepts like love and kindness and mercy. Or that Judaism is based solely on the prohibitions in Leviticus, etc., without regard to anything else, like thousands of pages — and 2,000 years — of Talmudic commentary. And, given the history of the last 2,000 years of Christian-Jewish relations, please try to stay away from using language, especially with Jewish people, that displays unthinking Christian-centric attitudes of inherent superiority and triumphalism. Thank you.

  298. PS: I should emphasize that although I’m certainly the furthest thing from an Orthodox Jew, and don’t even belong to a Reform temple anymore, that doesn’t change the fact that I have a very strong Jewish identity — based in part, of course, on what happened to my mother, and her family — and find all this kind of thing every bit as upsetting as homophobia, transphobia, etc. If not more so, because of my loyalty to my mother’s memory, and in honor of all the dead.

  299. Quite frankly, I find informing LGBTQ people that their loving and/or sexual relationships with other consenting adults are sinful but that they somehow shouldn’t consider that to be bigotry or the person who is saying that to be a bigot to be profoundly disrespectful and obnoxious, and I feel no compunction about being disrespectful back.

    To say nothing of the profound ignorance of Judaism on display which Azalea never apologized for or even acknowledged that her statements were incorrect.

    So I believe that what I’m saying is that I second LotusBecca.

  300. Quite frankly, I find informing LGBTQ people that their loving and/or sexual relationships with other consenting adults are sinful but that they somehow shouldn’t consider that to be bigotry or the person who is saying that to be a bigot to be profoundly disrespectful and obnoxious, and I feel no compunction about being disrespectful back.

    Very true. And considering she went off on a tangent about interracial marriage (which was why I bowed out of the thread for a while, I was too fucking furious to think or type anything but FUCK YOU SIDEWAYS) I have very little respect left for her in any area. Also, her repeated “as a WOC” shtick. Yeah, Azalea is feeling persecuted so clearly it’s because she’s a WOC. It’s not that she’s a raging bigot, because then there would be other WOCs and Christians disagreeing with her on this thread and that didn’t happ-

    Oh wait. It did.

  301. However, you don’t get to paste that label on someone nonconsensually.

    So… perfect people do exist? I don’t think anyone is perfect, I don’t think the world is perfect. We’re imperfect people living in an imperfect world. That’s not solely a religious view, I don’t think. Regardless, it’s not as though I would meet you and label you a ‘sinner.’ My mom used the phrase alot when she was shamed for getting a divorce from a deadbeat asshole who cheated on her. The people at our church were like ‘blah God doesn’t want you to get divorced blah’ as though God would no longer love my mom if she got divorced. Her response “nobody is perfect, and God loves us in spite of that.” The phrase doesn’t really come up in everyday conversation.

    As far as homosexuality, given that we don’t really follow the Bible, my family has no problem with it. My sister is bisexual and had a girlfriend. From my mom’s standpoint, she only cares that the person we’re in a relationship with are kind, respectful, good people who make us happy.

    I do recall a Black Student Union meeting in which we were discussing homosexuality and I remember a guy saying ‘Well, everyone sins.” That’s why Azalea’s words resonated with me. I’ve heard them ALOT, and I don’t know if this is something that Black churches are preaching more than others, or what.

  302. Don’t get me wrong, I understand and respect EG’s and Becca’s and Macavity’s viewpoint. Completely. Does that mean I’m trying to have it both ways? Maybe a little. But I’m still willing to accept Azalea’s apology, and give her the benefit of the doubt that she’s re-thought some of the things she’s said.

  303. S, objecting to the use of the specific word “sin” (with everything that implies about an offense to God), and applying it to LGBT people, isn’t even in the same universe as claiming to be perfect. So, please stop. Go read the dozens of explanations above, of what’s wrong with imposing that term on others. Must we go through this entire thread all over again?

  304. So… perfect people do exist? I don’t think anyone is perfect, I don’t think the world is perfect.

    Oh, I’m fine with imperfection. Call me imperfect any day of the week! I’ll nod along. Don’t call me a sinner (by your definition of sinner that isn’t how the word is used as a club over the heads of LGBT people). It’d be a little like my calling you a hypocrite but saying that well, the Greeks have this definition of hypocrite that means actor and I was just praising your performance in your third-grade choir! Come on, what’s wrong with that?

    I do recall a Black Student Union meeting in which we were discussing homosexuality and I remember a guy saying ‘Well, everyone sins.”

    So, I’m terribly curious. If I were at a meeting and someone brought up the fact that you’re a Christian and I said “Well, everyone has their sins, don’t hold it against her”, you wouldn’t be offended? Even if, say, I belonged to another religion that regarded not being part of that religion as a sin?

    If so, you’re a lot more accepting of others’ bullshit than I am.

  305. Actually, scratch my last comment.

    I am perfect and I am offended and persecuted by your belief that I am not perfect. My religion says I’m perfect (no kidding, I’m an advaiti, it’s a fairly literal interpretation) so you saying that I’m imperfect is against my religion.

    Lolbigot.

  306. Does that mean I’m trying to have it both ways? Maybe a little. But I’m still willing to accept Azalea’s apology, and give her the benefit of the doubt that she’s re-thought some of the things she’s said.

    You’re a better woman than I, Donna.

  307. Yeah, really, the words “sin” and “sinner” have very specifically been used as ideological weapons against queer people (among other groups), including in the justification of murder and physical assault. There is no good reason for insisting that queer people (or other people historically harmed under this ideological umbrella) accept those terms as applied to themselves just because they “mean something different” to you (and by “you” I am addressing both participants and lurkers in this thread because it seems like this concept is just not getting through). If queer people who follow a faith which includes concepts of sin want to think of themselves as sinners, then great. But straight people don’t get to decide that calling us en masse “sinners” is totally cool despite the horrible historical and contemporary context, even if they are including us along with straight people.

  308. Donna is certainly a better woman than I, and possibly a better person than anybody else I’ve ever known (which is why I was so enraged at R. Dave on that thread).

    I am not perfect, but I absolutely reject the term “sinner.” First of all, I don’t think I’ve done very many reprehensible things. But more importantly, as an atheist, I reject the concept of some god that gets to judge my flaws as transgressions against him, and even if I were not an atheist, I would not be a Christian. So, no, I am not a sinner. I am a flawed human being, sure. But my bisexuality, my sexual desires for women, that is not one of my flaws. My mother is also flawed, but her divorce? Not one of her flaws. I completely reject the term.

  309. So, I’m terribly curious. If I were at a meeting and someone brought up the fact that you’re a Christian and I said “Well, everyone has their sins, don’t hold it against her”, you wouldn’t be offended?

    I think this is fantastic. I think I may have to start saying this, not just about people but directly to their faces!

    I’m not better, Macavity. Just older and less willing to expend the energy necessary for this kind of thing. When you’re a million years old like me, you have to pick your battles!

  310. My stepfather has a jocular version of this, where I’ll say about a friend “Well, she’s really nice and kind,” and he’ll say “Even so, we like her!” I’m going to start applying it to Christians. “I’m a Christian–” “Even so, you’re still a good person!”

  311. EG, as much as I don’t buy any of that about myself (given how familiar I am with all of my many flaws!), that’s still one of the sweetest things anyone has ever said about me. And without making this sound too much like a mutual admiration society, I think you know that there’s no one I admire more, or think more highly of, than you (not counting J., since he’s my son, not a friend!), and I am honored to be your friend.

  312. Donna is certainly a better woman than I, and possibly a better person than anybody else I’ve ever known.

    EG [. . .] I think you know that there’s no one I admire more, or think more highly of, than you.

    Well I’ll be. I was all ready to continue my delightfully vindictive ranting against Azalea, homophobia, the concept of sin, and Christian bigotry. . .but I feel far too warm and fuzzy inside now for that to be a possibility. If you two aren’t a couple yet, well, yeah, you probably should be. I know y’all both live in NYC. 🙂

  313. DonnaL,

    Thank you. 🙂 I have rethought some things. I do want to clarify though:

    1) When I speak of religion I speak from what I know, Christianity and my beliefs. I reference the bible according to KJV with it broken into “Old” and “New” testaments. Referring to it that way wasn’t me trying to upset you, it was me referencing Christianity according to the KJV of the bible.

    2) Again, I don’t know much of Judaism. I do know Jewish people, some are clergy and my ideas of what Judaism entails comes from those people and our discussion on religion which typically takes place in either a church or a synagagouge. If someone was lying to me in either place about their beliefs I was in no position to call them on it as I do not study Judaism.

    3) Miss S summed up what I was getting at best and I really hope the mess that started when I said it doesn’t come down on her. She doesn’t deserve that, many of those who “came down” on me are people who started their issues with me from other threads that had absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation or sin.

    Miss S:

    Tread lightly. I think you’re awesome, far more patient than I will ever be when liberal racist bigot bullshit pops off and all around cool. I’ve stopped responding to certain posters and some I NEVER posted to are even going in on me in here. This is definitely a no-win situation. There is a very hostile stalemate here.

  314. Tread lightly. I think you’re awesome, far more patient than I will ever be when liberal racist bigot bullshit pops off and all around cool.

    Azalea, I’m curious who’s been racist at you in this thread.

  315. Miss S

    ‘Well, everyone sins.” That’s why Azalea’s words resonated with me. I’ve heard them ALOT, and I don’t know if this is something that Black churches are preaching more than others, or what.

    Not just black churches. I don’t know how familiar you are with African Traditional Religion(s) but when a discussion of it comes up and the comparison is made between that and Christianity; the idea is that sin is a matter of what does or does not pleases God- NOT what is deemed horrible or immoral by man. My mother would put it this way: She has her rules, I can disagree with her rules but I CAN NOT speak for her and change HER rules because me or my friends dont like them. Some of what are against her rules are a matter of teenager’s nature (wanting to stay out, wanting to date etc etc etc, not things that would make me a bad person for wanting to do it but it would mean I was not following her rules if I did). A sin is something that simply put is against God’s rules and the rules are so vast and cover so much of what people tend to do as a matter of basic human nature it is impossible for most of us not to and impropable for any of us to resist the temptation.

    Apparently the issue is, for some a sin is something reprehensible so you choose from what your religion lists (if you are indeed religious int eh first place) as a sin those things that you think are reprehensible and those things are the sins, the rest you disregard.

  316. Adding to my comment above: What I’ve said, repeatedly, is that you do not speak for WOC. Homophobia apologia is not somehow intrinsic to WOC, you do not get to claim that you’re being “come down on” as a WOC when your arguments have nothing to do with race.

    Also, if I were to suggest even as a thought-experiment that us poor WOCs can’t help defending bigots, it’s just how us WOCs work, tmc might unsheathe her awesomeness and beat me to death with it. 😉

  317. Aw. So much for the warm fuzzies.
    What is so tiresome about the “everybody sins” idea is that it imposes someone elses rules on you without your permission. I hate to break it to the Christians of the world, but I am not a sinner because I don’t believe in your imaginary sky dad (who, incidentally, is Super Mean). This means that your arbitrary rules do. not. apply. to. me.
    For example, I occasionally work at a military installation. This means that I can walk around with my shirt untucked, with my hands in my pockets, go outside without a cover and no one gives me shit about it because I am a civilian and their uniform rules DON’T APPLY. It doesn’t mean I’m getting a free pass because the Commanding Officer says so, or they are generously forgiving me my trespasses. Their nonsense rules don’t apply to me, a civilian, because I am not part of their organization.

  318. Tread lightly. I think you’re awesome, far more patient than I will ever be when liberal racist bigot bullshit pops off and all around cool.

    In my opinion, most white people (including myself) say and do racist things pretty frequently. And that’s wrong. Most straight people say and do homophobic things pretty frequently. And that’s wrong, too. I’ve seen you offer many comments on this thread that fall under that second category, Azalea. I’ve personally said lots of homophobic, transphobic, racist, ableist, classist, sexist, and otherwise fucked up things in my life. I still don’t want any sort of prejudice to exist in feminist spaces, or anywhere in the universe for that matter.

    I’m sure posting on this thread was a very unpleasant and stressful experience for you. I mean that genuinely. I’ve been on internet threads where it was basically me against ten different people, and it sucks. Especially when views I held very dear to me were being attacked. And I acknowledge the racial dynamic exists here. Most of the people arguing with you here are white, and I assume a majority of people who post on and read Feministe are white, and you’re a person of color. So yes, in a sense I agree that you were being racially marginalized here. In my opinion, for example, there is really no way white people (in the USA, at least) can debate about slavery–slavery of any kind–with a person of color without abusing our white privilege given the real historical context that’s existed in this country. And reading over that part of the conversation in this thread made me very uncomfortable. Given my position in the kyriarchy, though, I was much more emotionally sensitive to the things that straight people like you were saying about queer people like me.

    All the same, and I know I didn’t post that much on this thread and most of it was rude. . .but if I said or did anything racist here and you feel like telling me what it was, I’d appreciate that information, and I’ll try to modify my behavior in the future.

    I’ve stopped responding to certain posters and some I NEVER posted to are even going in on me in here.

    With due respect, whenever I see someone at a place I frequent posting bigoted beliefs like “homosexuality is a sin” I’m going to “go in on them” regardless of whether they choose to ignore me or not. You saying “homosexuality is a sin” in a public forum I like to go to is not OK with me.

  319. I don’t know much of Judaism. I do know Jewish people, some are clergy and my ideas of what Judaism entails comes from those people and our discussion on religion which typically takes place in either a church or a synagogue. If someone was lying to me in either place about their beliefs I was in no position to call them on it as I do not study Judaism.

    Azalea, I would suggest to you that if you ever again hear a Jewish person (or someone claiming to be Jewish!) say something to the effect that Jews believe in a hell to which Christians and other non-Jews are sent for eating shellfish, or that Jews believe that Christians are bound by all the requirements of Jewish law, or believe in original sin, or anything similarly outlandish, there are several possible explanations that don’t involve lying (because I see no reason for anyone to lie about such things): (1) you misheard them, and didn’t hear the “do not” before “believe”; (2) they have no idea what they’re talking about, either because they aren’t actually Jewish or, if they are, never bothered to learn anything and just assume that Judaism = Christianity minus Jesus; or (3) they were pulling your leg, or being facetious (“yes, of course Jews believe Christians go to Hell for eating shellfish!!”), and it never occurred to them that you would actually believe what they were saying.

    So maybe confirming such statements in the future before you state them as fact on the Internet might be a good idea. Thanks.

  320. S, objecting to the use of the specific word “sin” (with everything that implies about an offense to God), and applying it to LGBT people, isn’t even in the same universe as claiming to be perfect. So, please stop. Go read the dozens of explanations above, of what’s wrong with imposing that term on others. Must we go through this entire thread all over again?

    Um, what the fuck are you talking about? I explained how I (and some others) viewed the word sin. I didn’t say everyone, and I didn’t ask anyone to agree with me. I was sharing a different perspective. I don’t need you to go over anything with me. I also clearly stated that I don’t go around calling people sinners.

    Don’t call me a sinner
    I didn’t.

    So, I’m terribly curious. If I were at a meeting and someone brought up the fact that you’re a Christian and I said “Well, everyone has their sins, don’t hold it against her”, you wouldn’t be offended?

    Honestly, no. I don’t care that much if someone thinks my belief in God is a sin. Also, I’m not the one who said it, so I’m not sure why you’re questioning me. Also, the point the person who said it was trying to make is that even if the Bible says being gay is a sin, it’s not any worse than any other sin.

    I am a flawed human being, sure. But my bisexuality, my sexual desires for women, that is not one of my flaws. My mother is also flawed, but her divorce? Not one of her flaws.

    Is this directed at me? If so, FFS. I didn’t say being bisexual was one of your flaws. I pretty clearly stated that of my friends and immediate family who are Christian, none of them see being gay as a flaw or a sin.

  321. Tread lightly. I think you’re awesome, far more patient than I will ever be when liberal racist bigot bullshit pops off and all around cool. I’ve stopped responding to certain posters and some I NEVER posted to are even going in on me in here. This is definitely a no-win situation. There is a very hostile stalemate here.

    Yeah, there is. Is there a good reason for people to mock you for bringing up your race? Isn’t that going too far. Nope, not for this liberal white space. Also, the questions about whether or not being black was the mark of Cain, or how you would feel about it, or whatever bullshit was said is fucking ridiculous. See also: the bringing up of slavery. I knew you were a woman of color, so I’m pretty sure others did too.

  322. What is so tiresome about the “everybody sins” idea is that it imposes someone elses rules on you without your permission.

    If your mother called things that go against her rules “looping” and she had so many rules that there wouldnt be a single person alive who could not be accused of looping by her do you no longer refer to those things as looping because someone who is not your mother told you so? I’m not Muslim but I don’t have to be in order to be doing something that is against Islamic law. Just because I don’t believe what they believe it doesn’t stop their laws form existing. It simply means I do not have to obey those laws.

    The rest of what you said with regard to Christianity was just fucked up, seriously. You can dislike Christianity or not be a Christian without pretty much making a mockery of it. It’s offensive. Whether or not you care that it’s offensive doesn’t make it any less offensive.

  323. Is this directed at me? If so, FFS. I didn’t say being bisexual was one of your flaws.

    Obviously you didn’t. However, in the context of the thread, I was explaining why saying “everybody’s a sinner” does not make the statement that homosexuality is a sin acceptable.

    I explained how I (and some others) viewed the word sin. I didn’t say everyone, and I didn’t ask anyone to agree with me. I was sharing a different perspective. I don’t need you to go over anything with me. I also clearly stated that I don’t go around calling people sinners.

    Except in response to the statement that

    However, you don’t get to paste that label on someone nonconsensually.

    You replied:

    So… perfect people do exist? I don’t think anyone is perfect, I don’t think the world is perfect. We’re imperfect people living in an imperfect world. That’s not solely a religious view, I don’t think.

    That reply means two things:

    1) That you think that if somebody isn’t a sinner–or if you don’t get to call somebody a sinner whether zie likes it or not–that person must be a “perfect” person

    and that therefore

    2) As nobody is perfect, we must all be sinners

    That is you trying to justify labelling people sinners even when they don’t agree with you that they are, because you are not accepting anything outside of the paradigm of sin.

    As for a new perspective…it’s not anything new that Christian thought thinks of all human beings as sinners. Its something that Western culture is pretty saturated with.

  324. So maybe confirming such statements in the future before you state them as fact on the Internet might be a good idea. Thanks.

    These discussions were had in religious places of worship with members of clergy. It may be hard for you to believe but I know what I heard. There is a lot of racism, sexism, homophobia and classism in just about every “major” religion. Those happened to be the topics of discussion and Judaism was included in those discussions.

    There was debate about whether or not homosexuality: being attracted to the same sex, was the issue OR whether anal and oral sex were the issues. There were both progressive and conservative members of clergy there.

    So if you’re saying that is not the case for Judaism period, then obviously you’re saying that somebody lied to several people in a place of worship.

  325. You can dislike Christianity or not be a Christian without pretty much making a mockery of it. It’s offensive. Whether or not you care that it’s offensive doesn’t make it any less offensive.

    Somehow, I think Christianity will survive, just like men will be A-OK despite my mockery of masculinity.

    If your mother called things that go against her rules “looping” and she had so many rules that there wouldnt be a single person alive who could not be accused of looping by her do you no longer refer to those things as looping because someone who is not your mother told you so?

    If my mother had exerted her massively disproportionate power to kill, torture, and shun people due to what she thought of as “looping” and still maintained a fairly close grip on the dominant culture of the world’s one remaining super-power, I would be awfully careful about whether or not I accused anybody of “looping.”

    Also, the questions about whether or not being black was the mark of Cain, or how you would feel about it, or whatever bullshit was said is fucking ridiculous.

    How is it fucking ridiculous? It’s OK for Azalea to make GLBTQ people on the board feel that their essential selves are sinful, but to point out that the same was said about her in a different religious context is over the top?

  326. So if you’re saying that is not the case for Judaism period, then obviously you’re saying that somebody lied to several people in a place of worship.

    It would hardly be the first time.

  327. Honestly, no. I don’t care that much if someone thinks my belief in God is a sin. Also, I’m not the one who said it, so I’m not sure why you’re questioning me.

    Don’t quote people approvingly that you’re not willing to stand by, then. o.O As this one person said once, “That’s a weaselly move.”

    Of course, I’m not the one who said that, so don’t have a mad at me, okay? 😀

    Yeah, there is. Is there a good reason for people to mock you for bringing up your race? Isn’t that going too far. Nope, not for this liberal white space.

    Azalea was the one who brought up her race as the motivation for her beliefs. It was a cheap move, when race has nothing to do with acceptance of LGBT people. Or are you two seriously arguing that being a WOC somehow means you’re obliged/entitled/required/culturally inclined to apologise for bigoted religious beliefs? That may just be the most intentionally racist thing that is being consistently implied on this thread by a POC. Well fucking done and I want no part of it.

    But thanks for calling me a liberal white! I feel so…so transformed! I’m going to go turn in my Colonial Subject and Racial Minority cards right now and get right on the skin bleaching train.

  328. There was debate about whether or not homosexuality: being attracted to the same sex, was the issue OR whether anal and oral sex were the issues. There were both progressive and conservative members of clergy there.

    So if you’re saying that is not the case for Judaism period, then obviously you’re saying that somebody lied to several people in a place of worship.

    Azalea, I’m well aware that there are many religious Jews who are homophobic and justify their position by referring to the Hebrew
    Bible.

    I thought you knew that wasn’t what I talking about. What I was talking about was your assertion that Jews believe that Christians go to hell for eating shellfish. That’s an assertion that you originally justified by saying you’d heard Jewish people say it. Are you now withdrawing that? Because that has nothing to do with homosexuality; it has to do with (1) Jewish beliefs in hell, and (2) supposed Jewish belief that Christians are bound by Jewish laws on what is and isn’t kosher to eat, and go to hell for violating them. That’s what you claimed originally, and that’s what I was disputing all along.

  329. If your mother called things that go against her rules “looping” and she had so many rules that there wouldnt be a single person alive who could not be accused of looping by her do you no longer refer to those things as looping because someone who is not your mother told you so?

    Well, that depends. I have three answers, actually.
    1) Are the wages of looping death? I’d be terribly afraid to call people loopers if it meant they’d die by my mother’s henchmen’s hands. Basic compassion, you know.
    2) I’d have a lot of words for a being in a position of authority who has so many rules that nobody can avoid breaking them and uses those rules as the conditions for avoiding eternal torment. “Sociopathic asshole” are probably the least inflammatory of them.
    3) Is this my mother? No? It’s some dude’s mother over there? Well how about fuck her, then. I’m not a looper because my neighbour’s mother calls everyone loopers. I have my own goddamn identity, and it’s too bad you seem to be terrified of anyone else not sharing yours. I honestly feel sorry for you.

    By my beliefs, we’re all God – you, me, everyone on this thread – all of us, pure, gloriously complete and unapologetically awesome beings in an eternal game. Does that mean that I get to get angry at you for self-identifying as a sinner? Or insist that I have to call you God even though you’ve specifically insisted I shouldn’t?

  330. Um, what the fuck are you talking about?

    Give me a break. You’re the one who responded to people’s objections to the indiscriminate application of the word “sin” to non-Christians by saying “So… perfect people do exist? I don’t think anyone is perfect.” That statement, as EG points out, necessarily implies that you think the only alternative to “everyone’s a sinner” is “some people are perfect.” When, in fact, the real alternative is not to impose that term on non-Christians in the first place.

    So that’s “what the f**k” I was talking about.

  331. How is it fucking ridiculous? It’s OK for Azalea to make GLBTQ people on the board feel that their essential selves are sinful, but to point out that the same was said about her in a different religious context is over the top?

    Not only make us feel that our essential selves are sinful, but insist that it was perfectly moral for her to say so. That was the part that made me boil, really. Also to refuse to provide examples of how exactly the POCs on the thread are being racist to her, when asked. I’ve asked her thrice now with no reply. It’s fascinating, really.

    Also if she can come up with a concrete example of how tmc, Li or I were racist at her – since we’re not the “white liberals” Miss S seems to hate on – I will buy a hat and eat it.

  332. Give me a break. You’re the one who responded to people’s objections to the indiscriminate application of the word “sin” to non-Christians by saying “So… perfect people do exist? I don’t think anyone is perfect.” That statement, as EG points out, necessarily implies that you think the only alternative to “everyone’s a sinner” is “some people are perfect.” When, in fact, the real alternative is not to impose that term on non-Christians in the first place.

    You don’t have to use the word. It’s a concept I’m familiar with, and I was trying to explain what Azalea meant, and what it means to me. To the extent that I use it, as ‘imperfect’ yes, I do believe everyone sins. I believe everyone makes mistakes. I believe that everyone has struggles and things to overcome. If that’s bigoted, so be it. This is my view. I’m not forcing you to see things my way, or use the word the way I do. I don’t honestly care. I’m not even that religious. For me, it’s about accepting that I will face struggles and challenges, I will make mistakes, and that God loves me in spite of them. Not once did I say that I believed that being LBGTQ was a sin.

    I had a friend who was part of a religion (JW) years ago. Part of her religion was the belief that everyone who was not a JW was doomed. Unlike you, I didn’t really care. I don’t share the same beliefs, so why would I? Why would I be overly concerned that she thinks I’m damned? I don’t think I am.

    Just because I don’t believe what they believe it doesn’t stop their laws form existing. It simply means I do not have to obey those laws.

    I don’t understand why this is complicated for people to get. I have waited on tables that had religious restrictions on what they could eat. I have never taken offense to that. Not me religion, not my concern. They can eat whatever they want.

    I think some people came here for a fight instead of a discussion. I don’t think Azalea is a bigot, I think she was trying to explain her point of view and got ganged up on. I think some people attempted to use her race to illicit an emotional response, and I don’t think that was fair.

  333. How is it fucking ridiculous? It’s OK for Azalea to make GLBTQ people on the board feel that their essential selves are sinful, but to point out that the same was said about her in a different religious context is over the top?

    She was getting ganged up on, and you thought that was an appropriate time to bring up race? Really? I didn’t, and don’t, agree with everything she said but I would not have used to race to prove a point. I have more respect for her than that. And bringing up slavery to prove a point? I’m not sure if that was you, Jill, or both.

  334. I had a friend who was part of a religion (JW) years ago. Part of her religion was the belief that everyone who was not a JW was doomed. Unlike you, I didn’t really care. I don’t share the same beliefs, so why would I? Why would I be overly concerned that she thinks I’m damned? I don’t think I am.

    I don’t really care that much what people believe either — there are probably at least a couple of billion people on this planet who would believe, if they knew anything about me (Jew, trans woman, atheist, Democrat, New Yorker, Yankees fan, etc.) that hellfire awaits me. Less than three months after my mother died in a car accident, someone in my first year law school class, a fundamentalist Christian, saw fit to inform me that, sadly, she was burning in hell as we spoke, because she was a Jew who hadn’t accepted Jesus as her savior.

    I know all about people who think such things (and I’m not saying you or Azalea is one of them).

    But I’m not going to keep my mouth shut if someone, in a place like this, goes out of their way (for no particular reason that I can figure out) to argue that believing homosexuality is a “sin” (in the sense of an offense to God, because stated in the Bible) doesn’t make you a bigot.

    Even if what Azalea seemed to be saying wasn’t what she was actually trying to say, it is completely unfair to suggest that she was a victim in this thread simply because every single person disagreed with her.

  335. Less than three months after my mother died in a car accident, someone in my first year law school class, a fundamentalist Christian, saw fit to inform me that, sadly, she was burning in hell as we spoke, because she was a Jew who hadn’t accepted Jesus as her savior.

    This is why my family stopped attending church. Seriously.
    I’m sorry you went through that.

  336. Even if what Azalea seemed to be saying wasn’t what she was actually trying to say, it is completely unfair to suggest that she was a victim in this thread simply because every single person disagreed with her.

    This, this, this, thank you.

    Also, the speed with which she leaped to “I guess I should hate the gays then since some commenter on a blog disagreed with my interpretation of bigotry” was fairly impressive given that she was basing her entire argument on how bigoted she isn’t. The jury’s still out for me whether she’s bigoted or not – I’m not one to paint apologists in the same light as bigots unless I know damn well that’s what they are – but her wibblefest over being disagreed with is in poor taste, at least.

  337. She was getting ganged up on, and you thought that was an appropriate time to bring up race? Really? I didn’t, and don’t, agree with everything she said but I would not have used to race to prove a point. I have more respect for her than that. And bringing up slavery to prove a point? I’m not sure if that was you, Jill, or both.

    She was getting ganged-up on because she was espousing bigotry and then claiming that it was wrong to call her a bigot. That doesn’t win her any extra consideration from me at all. All I did to her was what she was doing to every LGBTQ person she was addressing.

    As to bringing up slavery: considering that it permeates the Bible, as it permeated the societies in which the Bible was written, I really don’t see how on earth one should or even could avoid discussing it when discussing whether the Bible is an acceptable moral authority, one that could shield somebody from being called a bigot.

  338. She was getting ganged up on, and you thought that was an appropriate time to bring up race? Really? I didn’t, and don’t, agree with everything she said but I would not have used to race to prove a point.

    I didn’t bring up race in my comments (except to state repeatedly that she doesn’t speak for all WOC and to stop acting like she does) but… her argument is pretty much that the poor widdle bigots can’t help oppress anyone who isn’t Sufficiently Heteronormative because THE BIBLE and we should really just be nicer to them. Then why the fuck shouldn’t people bring up the fact that the last time people just had to be assholes because THE BIBLE was over slavery? That’s pretty much the biggest thing the Bible got wrong, in this former colonial country’s citizen’s perspective. And it got it very fucking wrong.

  339. I had a friend who was part of a religion (JW) years ago. Part of her religion was the belief that everyone who was not a JW was doomed. Unlike you, I didn’t really care. I don’t share the same beliefs, so why would I? Why would I be overly concerned that she thinks I’m damned? I don’t think I am.

    Miss S, where are the campaigns by JWs to amend the national and state constitutions to prevent non-JWs from having the same rights as JW’s? Which military funerals are JWs protesting to call attention to how awful non-JWs are? Where are the JW parents openly declaring in public that schools not allowing their children to bully non-JW children is an infringement on their rights as Jehovah’s Witnesses?** Where are the teenage non-JW suicides?

    Your analogy is just plain lousy. You are able to brush aside bigoted or prejudiced comments or opinions by Jehovah’s Witnesses because they aren’t actively working to undermine your basic right to live in peace and have the same rights as everyone else. Being GLBTQ at this time and place is often a fatal position to be in. Not being Jehovah’s Witnesses hasn’t and isn’t.

    **I’m aware that some JW children do bully non-JW children…I lurk at the exmormon.org boards and someone asked for advice on how to help their little girl who was being shunned and mistreated by two JW girls; a teacher posting in the thread shared how some of the combativeness some JWs have manifests itself in elementary school classrooms. But, the bullying of non-JW children is just not as systemic as bullying of GLBTQ children.

  340. I had a friend who was part of a religion (JW) years ago. Part of her religion was the belief that everyone who was not a JW was doomed. Unlike you, I didn’t really care. I don’t share the same beliefs, so why would I? Why would I be overly concerned that she thinks I’m damned? I don’t think I am.

    Fair enough. However. I don’t see Christians being strung up on fences by Jehovah’s Witnesses, or being routinely assaulted, as transfolk often are. You get to not care, because you’re never in the position where someone who thinks you deserve to burn in hell has the power to kill you. You get to not care because you didn’t grow up in a country where your sexuality was criminal. You get to not care because Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t legally forcibly commit Christians to psychiatric wards or send them to reparative therapy for being Christians. You get to not care because Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t out there in gangs trying to “convert” Christians who were a little too Christian in public by means of corrective rape.

    I frankly envy you your ability to not care. Go you and your privilege.

  341. (FTR I’m speaking of India in my last comment. Just thought I should clarify, because Azalea seems incapable of considering that the world outside the US exists, other than the Amorphous African Blob, or take it into account when speaking of, well, anything.)

  342. My original plan today was to stay out of this clusterfuck, but since I am a bisexual mixed Chicana who belonged to and had a bad experience in a Charismatic/WOF church, left it five years ago, and who literally joined the Unitarian Universalist Church this week, I guess the stars are crossed, and I should say something about it.

    My time in the Charismatic/WOF culture included being made to believe I was defective for being bisexual, that I needed to take authority over my attractions to women because that was a sin, that I had to take authority over my bipolar symptoms because depression is sin, especially in my case because it made me miss church a lot, I had to take authority over my triggers and PTSD symptoms because “someday” I was going to marry and someday I would need to submit to his needs, triggers and flashbacks or no, because if I kept saying no due to triggers, that would be a sin too. Once at Bible study I won a dictionary of sorts directed at Christian women, and under “rape,” it said that Christian women should not wear short skirts or other immodest clothing, because yup, sin (and rape).

    So my experience as a Christian was sin, sin, sin, 24/7. I couldn’t stand the torment any more. I couldn’t stand the dirty looks from the pastor when I came back to church after a long period of depression, or of incapcitating mania. I couldn’t stand knowing that I would never become straight no matter how much authority was taken or tongues rattled off in. I couldn’t stand knowing that my PTSD was looked down upon because I was so weak in faith that I couldn’t make my healing “stick.” I couldn’t stand the horrible feeling ingrained in me by church people when my beloved grandma had her last illness that I had to ask her if she “had Jesus in her heart” because Nana was a committed Catholic and her belief system was not good enough, nor Christian enough, for evangelicals. I couldn’t stand that the pastor’s wife organized a shopping trip for church women on the day of my godmother’s wedding so they wouldn’t go to the wedding because my godmother moved her future husband into her apartment because he had nowhere else to do (Living in sin, doncha know!). I couldn’t stand the Latino evangelical and charismatic churches in town voicing support for President Obama AND Prop H8 at the same goddamned time. I couldn’t stand a fellow woman of color being given air time on local news to harangue the community about how disgusting gay people are, or how our County Clerk refused to marry anybody so she wouldn’t have to marry gay people, and when she was called on it she whined that people were violating her religious rights by expecting to do what she was elected to do… I couldn’t stand that a wonderful kid like Seth Walsh left us because he couldn’t take the bullshit of mainly Christian people anymore. I couldn’t stand it, I couldn’t stand it, I couldn’t stand it.

    Would you like to know what my life was like before I went WOF? I was bullied as a child. I was bullied by one of the most spirit-filled Christians in my peer group. Once, she offered me her milk, and when I didn’t respond because I was afraid to, she poured it onto the cafeteria table and told me lap it up, as though I were nothing more than an animal. In high school she was clearly irritated with me in History class because I defended gay marriage by referring to the fact that she and I are both multiracial. Now if you were to look her up on Facebook and such, you will see her go on and on about how she loves God and Jesus, etc. etc. etc. I was also treated as outcast before church by other people…once I converted they were suddenly friendly. I on the other hand was disgusted by them because in many ways I was like the people Jesus associated with that people like my acquaintances would condemn.

    I left the church. I’ve spent the last five years spiritually detoxing. I’ve had to completely demolish the conditioning I underwent in the church and try to make amends to my fellow GLBTQ people and to myself, for my association with an oppressive Christian group.

    This week two things have happened. I have read articles by Christians that feel that they should being loving instead of condemning of GLBTQ people. Like clockwork though, the Christians commented to say that if they don’t tell GLBTQ people that we are fundamentally defective and sinful, they are loving us “too much” and we will go to hell, because sin. Also this week I joined the UU church. It had to be the online congregation because I live in the middle of nowhere and it takes too much time and money to travel to either the UU church to the south of me or the UCC church to the north of me. But I have a church now, one that accepts me for who I am, that doesn’t consider me a lemon as far as human beings go, when I am compared to straight people. I looked at local churches, but I will never ever again join one that thinks I am defective.

  343. Arrgh…I had a lengthy post on my perspective on this issue as a queer Chicana who used to be evangelical…and, it’s stuck in moderation purgatory. 😛

  344. The rest of what you said with regard to Christianity was just fucked up, seriously. You can dislike Christianity or not be a Christian without pretty much making a mockery of it. It’s offensive. Whether or not you care that it’s offensive doesn’t make it any less offensive.

    I’m not Hysterical Bitch, but personally, I do dislike Christianity (certainly, at least, your Biblically literalist variant; I’m cool with most Quakers). And I enjoy mocking it. And I will continue to mock it until Christians like you stop furthering my oppression.

    You want me to stop mocking Christianity? Then stop talking about how me being myself is an affront to your asshole god for 300 comments. Stop threatening to no longer support my civil rights before you’d even consider re-evaluating your literalist interpretation of your book of precious, holy fairy tales.

    I don’t go into churches or people’s houses and mock their religion, but I do mock Christians who insist on talking to me about their bullshit religion after I’ve made it clear I’m not interested. Or in this case, endlessly talk about their oppressive religion and the bigotry it supposedly justifies in a public, secular space I like to spend time in.

    I think some people attempted to use [Azalea’s] race to illicit an emotional response, and I don’t think that was fair.

    I actually agree with Miss S here. What I’m about to say definitely makes me a little uncomfortable and scared, and it goes against my us/them instinct to speak ill of people on my “side” of this argument. But I’m a person who calls it as she sees it. And in my own subjective view, it wasn’t appropriate for white people like EG or Jill to talk to Azalea the way they were about slavery or the mark of Cain. And contexutally, given the overall dynamic of this thread, what I assume is the overall racial composition of Feministe, and the fact that Amerikkka is an incredibly institutionally racist society where black people are still horrifically oppressed. . .I might even say this sort of discourse functioned (probably unintentionally) as a form of racist marginalization. Granted, while all this was happening Azalea was being ridiculously anti-Semitic and homophobic, but that doesn’t make it OK to use subtly racist discussion techniques against her.

    Also, there’s plenty of other reprehensible things in the Bible that demonstrate Azalea’s god is a jackass and the book she claims is his word is a guide for immorality, not morality (and that therefore she should stop defending her oppressive religion and its homophobia on a progressive website). As a woman who has never been raped, but has been sexually abused in other ways, I feel comfortable mentioning the Bible verse I personally find the most disgusting: Deuteronomy 22:28-29. I won’t dignify it by quoting it, but it’s the verse where God commands that when a man rapes a woman, they should get married. Total filth if you ask me, and it boggles my mind that so many people like Azalea can say with a straight face that stuff like this is part of the Absolute Truth of the Creator of the Universe. Maybe you really should consider “cherry picking” for a change, Azalea.

  345. My best friend is a Jehovah’s Witness but often refers to herself as a Christian. So I was confused to read them in this thread as though they are two separate groups… then I went to Google and started to type in “Are Jehovah’s Witnesses…” (it was the first result, finished for me) =P And oh my the results. X_X

  346. Also, I concur that while I don’t really care that she thinks I’m doomed (she never actually told me I’m doomed personally but she has basically said that anyone who isn’t a JW is doomed), it is still disheartening at times. I can’t be in her wedding (although she would be in mine.) I can be at it, just not in it. Now I imagine it would be worse if the people in her religion made the rules for everyone like the Protestant/Catholic majority… but even then, I think (not sure, but I think) that the same rules wouldn’t apply to people outside, because she doesn’t even vote. They are absolutely uninterested in seizing the government. I don’t doubt this doesn’t mean they wouldn’t start killing people (because EVERYONE would start killing people, that is what happens. Look at Islam, where rules aren’t supposed to apply to non-believers. Still killing people!) but the point is that is not what is happening. A JW is as much of a threat as a tuna fish.

  348. I mean the tuna fish that aren’t radioactive, not radioactive JWs… although that would also be dangerous.

    This is awkward, because the comment with context is in moderation.

  349. Miss S, where are the campaigns by JWs to amend the national and state constitutions to prevent non-JWs from having the same rights as JW’s? Which military funerals are JWs protesting to call attention to how awful non-JWs are? Where are the JW parents openly declaring in public that schools not allowing their children to bully non-JW children is an infringement on their rights as Jehovah’s Witnesses?

    Again, this! The posters who argue that religion is just a personal choice of faith–and therefore everybody should stop being judgmental meanies–ignore the fact that most mainstream Christian religions are heavily involved in politics. These politics are often aimed at diminishing my rights or the rights of people that are important to me. A committed Christian who attends church is voting (or at least tacitly agreeing with) for the vision of society presented by the “Religious Right.”

    (Of course, I recognize that there are organizations working for change in Christianity. But, more often than not, they’re vocal about their opposition.)

  350. I couldn’t help thinking about this thread when I saw the video that was all over the Internet yesterday, of a four-year old boy singing a hymn called “Ain’t No Homos Gonna Make It To Heaven” at the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle in Greensburg, Indiana, to wild applause and a standing ovation from the congregants. See the story and video at Gawker: http://gawker.com/5914231/indiana-church-urges-on-four+year+old-boy-singing-sickening-anti+gay-hymn

    The belief that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God leads directly to this sort of thing — which not only exemplifies hatred and bigotry, but constitutes appalling child abuse.

  351. Um, queer black lady here. I have no problems understanding what Azalea and Miss S were getting at, because people have been trying to drill that shit into my head since I was a little kindergartner in Catholic school. I’m fortunate enough in that I never went through any sort of self-hating crisis (not because of my queerness, anyway), but almost every other non-straight and non-cis person I know (including my husband, who is an ex-evangelical Christian and still REALLY struggling with both his attraction to men and his non-conforming gender identity even as he approaches his 40s) has. Hearing it straightsplained by supposed allies doesn’t change the fact that it’s offensive bullshit, I’ve heard it all before, and it stinks just as much (if not more) coming from someone who claims to be on the side of QUILTBAG folks as it would from your run-of-the-mill homophobic asshole.

    Azalea and Miss S: YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. If you are straight and cis, you need to step back and realize that you just plain don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about when it comes to the lived experiences of QUILTBAG people. YOU NEED TO LISTEN FIRST AND FOREMOST. When you say that you wouldn’t be offended if some other person from some other religion said something bad about you, you are showing both your privilege and your asses. Christian privilege is a thing. Straight privilege is a thing. Cis privilege is a thing. Your experiences, your opinions, and your faith are completely and utterly tainted by your privilege. Period. Your lens in this matter is skewed.

    Do you like it when white folks ‘splain shit to you over and over again and compare their white experiences with your non-white experiences as if the two can ever be equal? Do you like being told what is acceptable to find offensive by a person who can never understand what it’s like to actually BE you and is in fact part of the privileged class who is oppressing you? Do you like it when white folks tell you that you can’t be offended by the words they use for people like you regardless of the history of how that word has been used to beat you the fuck down every day?

    The word SIN has been used beat me the fuck down. It has been used to beat my husband down. It has been used to beat my sexual partners down. It has been used to entice youth to kill themselves, to destroy familes, to kidnap children, to excuse murderers. That word has been used for the purposes of obliterating me and everyone like me, for wiping us from the face of the planet, for erasing our very existence and all of our accomplishments from history. Just because no one has weaponized sin against YOU doesn’t mean that the way it has been wielded against ME didn’t happen.

    There are real, live, breathing QUILTBAG people (and not all of them are white, goddammit!) on this thread that are telling you that YOU, straight Christian cis people, are FUCKING UP. You need to just shut up and listen.

  352. My best friend is a Jehovah’s Witness but often refers to herself as a Christian.
    Yeah, this girl did too, but if you weren’t her kind of Christian, then you were damned.

    Also, I had a post in Word document to Donna L, and I guess I forgot to copy and paste it last night. I get why people have the reaction to the word sin- I realize this word has been used to marginalize people. I also realize that I don’t have to care what someone thinks of my belief because of privilege. I was simply answering a question on how I would feel if someone made a particular statement, and my honest answer was that I wouldn’t care.

    I’m going to state this for the last time: I don’t follow the Bible and I don’t believe being gay is a sin or flaw. I was just trying to explain what Azalea meant, and explain that different people have different interpretations of the word sin. I grew up in an African Methodist Episcopal church, maybe similar to the one Azalea attends/attended. Just because I don’t agree with her doesn’t mean I don’t understand her, or what she was trying to say.

    I don’t think asking a Black woman about slavery, or how she feels about it, in a thread where she is getting ganged up on is appropriate. I’m pretty sure everyone on this thread knows that Black Americans aren’t like “yea! Slavery!” And then to turn around and act like you didn’t do that because you knew she was a WOC? Yes, I definitely had a negative reaction to that. At best, you were trying to illicit an emotional response or get under her skin.

    If I were in a classroom, having a discussion, and I voiced a dissenting opinion, and everyone disagreed, and then brought up slavery, it would look like a tactic to bait me into getting upset/agreeing with them or one to keep me in my place. I don’t think most of the commenters here would do that for those reasons, but a couple of you have been particularly bad at discussing racial issues in the past.

  353. My best friend is a Jehovah’s Witness but often refers to herself as a Christian. So I was confused to read them in this thread as though they are two separate groups

    I actually thought it was a perfect analogy, really, since Azalea and Miss S are arguing that there is no possible way to reconcile Christianity and LGBT’ness. (As I said way up there, there’s a whole lot of Christians among my friends that I have to hunt down and tell them they’re not really really Christian, in that case.)

  355. I have a long-ass comment in moderation, probably because of all the cussin’. My tolerance for bullshittery is just so low today.

  356. This thread has suffered so much, I wonder if it’s going to be resurrected in three days.

  358. I am eating delicious olives with roasted garlic and lemon, trying to calm down from being as spitting mad as I have been. I wrote three different posts that I have walked away from, because they were wordy, repetitive, and loaded with Christian privilege, despite the fact that I don’t even ID as one anymore. But what I will say is that words fucking MATTER. And for those of us who have had the concept of “sin” pushed on us at a very early age, for years and years, it is hard to let that shit go. Particularly when the idea that someone could ever be born a sinner is so anathema to everything they have been taught.

    I have worked very, very hard at letting my upbringing go, and most of the time it works. But to come into what should be a place free from that sort of bigotry and be told that simply by walking the earth I’m a sinner, that’s offensive, and goes against everything I’ve ever been taught when I was a wee child, an adolescent, a teenager, and everything I believe as an atheist now. And to hear that I have an extra check mark on the sinner list because of who I can be attracted to, that’s fucked up and painful.

    Azalea, I can deal with that shit when I’m outside of a clinic doing defense, or should I run across any bullshit Phelpsian nonsense, it’s expected, and I’m ready for it. But here? It’s nasty, it’s ugly, even though you don’t wave signs, work against laws being passed, and support all sorts of LGBT rights. In your heart, in your soul, you believe that LGBT people are sinners in a way that heterosexual people aren’t, and you felt perfectly comfortable saying that here. And when called on it, you wrapped it in Christian privilege and used that an excuse as to why it wasn’t any sort of bigotry. And now I really just don’t know what else to say, I am so at a loss.

  360. You know, if you do a Ctrl-F for the word “slave” on this page, you can pretty easily verify that Azalea brought it into the conversation first (in a couple of different comments), and macavitykitsune (also a POC if I remember correctly) was the second person to address it. We can stop pretending that slavery was only brought into the conversation for the purposes of putting the black folks here in their place.

    (And again, this is not even taking into account the fact that the question of the morality of slavery is brought up VERY frequently in discussions about the moral authority of the Bible, including when only white folks are talking about it.)

    And I’m not saying that racial fuckery does not happen on this site. It absolutely does, and with an awful frequency. But as far as what’s happening here? Nah. I wholeheartedly disagree.

  361. I actually thought it was a perfect analogy, really, since Azalea and Miss S are arguing that there is no possible way to reconcile Christianity and LGBT’ness.

    Really? I argued that? Fuck you for putting words in my mouth and twisting my words around. I have no problem reconciling the two, and I never suggested otherwise. Thanks for making shit up though. My sister is bisexual, had a girlfriend, and there was NO PROBLEM. My friends and immediate family who are Christian do not think being LBGTQ is a sin, flaw, or anything else. If I came out of the closet today, no one that I know would care. Literally, no one. I have very open minded and accepting parents. There’s not much I could do that my parents would have a problem with.

    I mean seriously? I came here to try to help explain what Azalea meant, because some people were acting like they couldn’t understand. Now I’m a bigot, I can’t reoncile my faith and LGBT’ness? I think Fundamentalists should strip away rights? Get real.

  362. I’m going to state this for the last time: I don’t follow the Bible and I don’t believe being gay is a sin or flaw. I was just trying to explain what Azalea meant, and explain that different people have different interpretations of the word sin.

    Do you seriously think we don’t understand what these homophobic fuckers want us to think sin means? Do you seriously think we don’t see how said fuckers use it in a completely different way?

    And you can define “club” to mean “happy cuddly puppies”, but it ain’t going to feel any fuzzier to the people being beaten over the head with it.

    If I were in a classroom, having a discussion, and I voiced a dissenting opinion, and everyone disagreed, and then brought up slavery

    Or, if you actually read the fucking thread you’re bopping around misrepresenting, “If Azalea were in a classroom, everyone else was having a discussion about morality in the abstract, and Azalea engaged repeatedly in homophobia apologia out of nowhere, used slavery to back it up, and then got offended when people pointed out that Azalea was engaging in slavery apologia by proxy as a logical extrapolation of her argument.” Yes, WOCs sticking together is very noble and all, Miss S, but you might want to pick a less noxious sample to defend.

    How do I know this?

    Because Azalea brought up slavery first on this thread at 72 and 74. I, a WOC, was first to respond to that point at 77. The next remark with the word “slave” or any word thereafter is EG at 109 on a different tangent altogether. If she wanted slavery to stay out of this thread she did a piss-poor job of indicating it, seeing as she was the first to fucking bring it up. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

    In the meantime, of course, Azalea said that people preferring their kids to have only same-race relationships is A-Okay by her. As a WOC in an interracial relationship, that was probably when I should have told her to fuck herself with a sequoia and gotten out of the thread, but I actually believed she was arguing in good faith. So naive of me.

    And you’re damn right everyone ganged up on her. Why? Because seh was being a fucking asshole and a homophobia apologist while hiding behind her race and her religion. I fucking want an apology from her for conflating her race with her beliefs. “As a WOC” my bi brown ass. WOCs are not necessarily bigoted. WOCs are not required to defend bigots as an act of solidarity because they don’t have printer-paper skin. And some WOCs – brace yourself, this is going to, like, be a revelation – are *gasp* QUILTBAGS!!!!!

  363. I have no problem reconciling the two, and I never suggested otherwise. Thanks for making shit up though. My sister is bisexual, had a girlfriend, and there was NO PROBLEM

    Then why the intense need to defend Azalea, Miss S? Why the deep need to point out that no, being called sinful is just lovely really?

    My friends and immediate family who are Christian do not think being LBGTQ is a sin, flaw, or anything else.

    Seriously. What’s your fucking rationale? No one was dim enough to simply not be able to GET Azalea’s definition of sin. We just thought it was as thoroughly fucked as a non-sacrificial goat.

    I mean seriously? I came here to try to help explain what Azalea meant, because some people were acting like they couldn’t understand. Now I’m a bigot, I can’t reoncile my faith and LGBT’ness? I think Fundamentalists should strip away rights? Get real.

    Point to where I called you a bigot. Point to where I said you wanted to strip rights from QUILTBAGs. No srsly do it.

  365. in my own subjective view, it wasn’t appropriate for white people like EG or Jill to talk to Azalea the way they were about slavery or the mark of Cain. And contexutally, . . .I might even say this sort of discourse functioned (probably unintentionally) as a form of racist marginalization. Granted, while all this was happening Azalea was being ridiculously anti-Semitic and homophobic, but that doesn’t make it OK to use subtly racist discussion techniques against her.

    I would agree with this kind of argument 99.9% of the time, and am well aware of the kind of crap people have historically gotten away with here, with respect to issues of race (among others). But I have to disagree strongly in this case. Not only for all the reasons that tmc mentions, but because I believe that it is fundamentally wrong for someone to use the text of the Bible as a sword, proclaiming that it represents the word of God, and simultaneously shield themselves from any discussion or questioning about whether that belief is truly consistent, and truly extends to pronouncements in the Bible that actually might mean something to them personally, by very reason of their background. Or applies only to lists of sins that they don’t personally have to worry about, like homosexuality.

    For that reason, it’s entirely appropriate to bring up the specific parts of the Bible that have historically been used against people with the same background as someone arguing for Biblical inerrancy, and taking the “it’s not me, it’s the Bible” approach.

    Whoever said, by the way, that the last time the Bible was being so widely used to justify oppression was with respect to slavery, at and around the time of the Civil War, was wrong. The last time was in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, when the words of the Bible were repeatedly and specifically used in speeches and newspaper columns to justify racial segregation and prohibitions of interracial marriage. The kind of “sin” rhetoric used — and it’s not too hard to find — was almost exactly like what’s now being used against LGBT people.

    If you, or anyone else, were arguing with a Jewish person who believed that every word in the Hebrew Bible was the plain and literal command of God that required no Talmudic explanation or commentary, and asked them if that extended to the various massacres of townspeople and other “civilians,” and the Jewish person said, sorry, you can’t bring that up, because of how my people suffered in the Holocaust, and bringing it up constituted an act of anti-Semitism, I would say that the person’s argument was absurd, and outrageous, and that it’s impossible to have a good faith discussion with someone about the Bible if they’re permitted to declare certain aspects of the Bible off-limits for discussion. And I would say that as someone whose mother was a survivor, and, within living memory, had 11 members of her immediate family (grandparents, uncles, aunts, first cousins), and innumerable more distant relatives, murdered, and her people destroyed almost entirely. (Especially if I had brought up the Holocaust first in the discussion.)

  366. Becca, I have a long comment in moderation disputing your argument that it was inherently racist to talk in this thread about Biblical condonation of slavery (even apart from the fact that Azalea was the one who brought up the subject of slavery herself).

  367. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

    Seriously. Miss S and Azalea are claiming that I and Jill brought up slavery in order to bait Azalea (because it’s not like I bring it up in every conversation about Christianity and morali–oh, wait; well, then, it’s not like Azalea herself was the first to bring slavery into the coversa–oh, OK; I guess I used my special powers of mind control to get her to do that or something) and get her all upset and people are being meeeeean–and neither of them can make the connection between how they feel about that and why GLBTQ people react so strongly to the word “sin”?

    So in their eyes, it’s fine if Azalea flings around hurtful words that bring up a history of cruelty, murder, and suffering for GLBTQ peopl, because that’s no big deal, it’s not even bigoted, and all these meanies are attacking her for nothing, but pointing out that the Bible is cool with slavery is baiting.

    Talk about being blinded by Christian privilege.

    Miss S:

    I came here to try to help explain what Azalea meant, because some people were acting like they couldn’t understand.

    Point to where someone didn’t understand. Trust me, everybody understands that the Bible can be read as condemning homosexuality as sinful. I understand that perfectly. And everybody understands that Christianity conceives of humanity as inherently and inescapably sinful. It’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that the first is bigoted bullshit and the second is part of why I object violently to Christianity and utterly reject having that paradigm projected onto me or anybody else who doesn’t buy into it.

  368. My best friend is a Jehovah’s Witness but often refers to herself as a Christian. So I was confused to read them in this thread as though they are two separate groups… then I went to Google and started to type in “Are Jehovah’s Witnesses…” (it was the first result, finished for me) =P And oh my the results. X_X

    That’s another thing that was taught in my ex church…that Jehovah’s Witnesses (and Mormons) are sinful and heretical because they “added on to the Bible.” And while I was still in my former church I googled WOF terms and learned that other churches have similar views of WOF adherents. Just another reminder that the concept of “sin” is constantly used as a club to beat other people over the head with for not being exactly like the person who is accusing the other of sin.

  369. Annaleigh, I just wanted to say I’m really glad you’ve found a spiritual home in your UU online church. While I’m an atheist without much (any) spirituality, I have never felt more included in such a great community than I do when I’m at a UU fellowship. I love that there is also so much range of faith in UU members – from “recovering Catholics” to Wiccans to people who worship a god(s) or goddess(es) of their choosing. Best of luck!

  370. Annaleigh, I just wanted to say I’m really glad you’ve found a spiritual home in your UU online church. While I’m an atheist without much (any) spirituality, I have never felt more included in such a great community than I do when I’m at a UU fellowship. I love that there is also so much range of faith in UU members – from “recovering Catholics” to Wiccans to people who worship a god(s) or goddess(es) of their choosing. Best of luck!

    Thanks, I’m really excited and happy right now! 🙂 It’s so good to know that just because I live in the middle of nowhere, a middle of nowhere that can often be intolerant, that doesn’t mean that’s all lost for me spiritually.

  371. Do you seriously think we don’t understand what these homophobic fuckers want us to think sin means? Do you seriously think we don’t see how said fuckers use it in a completely different way?

    I’m not speaking for them and I already know that!! What part of this is so confusing? I never argued that everyone uses it my way and I know (and typed) that this word is used to marginalize people.

    WOCs are not required to defend bigots as an act of solidarity because they don’t have printer-paper skin.

    I chimed in because some people didn’t seem to understand what Azalea meant. I did. If feeling uncomfortable with the way some people talk about race is solidarity, so be it. I’m not really the Sister soldier type, so I don’t think that was the case here. In my opinion, the tone of the comments was insensitive, and race relations is already a sensitive topic, especially on this site. The repeated questions directed at her about the mark of Cain and slavery were not cool. Especially because the people typing them were already pissed off. People on the site can barely handle talking about race when no one is mad.

    And some WOCs – brace yourself, this is going to, like, be a revelation – are *gasp* QUILTBAGS!!!!!

    Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? How in the world is this directed at me? My sister is bisexual, yet I need you to inform me that Black women/WOC aren’t always straight?? MIND BLOWN at your fucking revelation.

    Oh and this doesn’t imply I’m bigoted?
    I actually thought it was a perfect analogy, really, since Azalea and Miss S are arguing that there is no possible way to reconcile Christianity and LGBT’ness.

    Even though I made it clear that I didn’t think being LBGTQ was a sin. Okay, then.

    For the record, I live in a small town in MD that’s full of white fundamentalists. I already know how religion marginalizes people. You aren’t telling me anything I haven’t seen or experienced first hand.

  372. Miss S,

    Even if what Azalea seemed to be saying wasn’t what she was actually trying to say, it is completely unfair to suggest that she was a victim in this thread simply because every single person disagreed with her.

    How so? People mocked my religion, tried to browbeat me with slavery and equate me with racists. This thread is about people not thinking something is moral but being ok with it being legal I brought up homosexuality – which THE ARTICLE also spoke on and said I could see at least one place and reason why this would occur).

    When I gave an example of someone, I was then asked how *I* felt. I didn’t offer up how I felt, I was asked and then answered but people got upset my answer wasn’t what THEY wanted it to be. Argued with me about my answer all while disrespecting me in the interim.

    People pretty much started going in on Christianity as a whole as if it is the only religion with homophobia and bigotry in it’s religious text- PURE bullshit there!- and because I did not deny that, I was labeled a bigot myself. When asked my personal opinion about whether or not homosexuality was “reprehensible” the answer was no, when asked whether or not it was “reprehensible” in my religion, I said yes. Apparently that is more than enough for people to go on and on about me without restraint and high five each other while they do it. These people were almost all white or non-black. When another black woman stepped in and was like “wait, let’s be reasonable” people jumped on her too.

    It does not surprise me that people who are not black don’t see what the problem is.

    What’s that saying? “If you’re black, step back, if you’re brown hang around, and if you’re white you’re right.”

    If you are not half black (biracial) or black you wont get it just like you say people who are not queer don’t have a dog in this fact neither do any of you who do not identify as black.

  373. Yes, WOCs sticking together is very noble and all, Miss S, but you might want to pick a less noxious sample to defend.

    Are you fucking serious right now? “a less noxius sample” Fucking bigot.

  374. Azalea, you still threatened to stop supporting LGBT civil rights.

    You still said that you believe the Creator of the Universe thinks being homosexual is worse than being heterosexual.

    And you haven’t taken any of it back.Therefore, you’re still a homophobic bigot, even though people were racist to you. Why the fuck should I respect your religion?

  375. In the meantime, of course, Azalea said that people preferring their kids to have only same-race relationships is A-Okay by her. As a WOC in an interracial relationship, that was probably when I should have told her to fuck herself with a sequoia and gotten out of the thread, but I actually believed she was arguing in good faith. So naive of me.

    In closing, a black or biracial woman is NOT allowed to say that she would not get offended about someone *hoping or preferring* that their child have only same race relationships (specifically that a WHITE parent hoping their child ONLY dates whites)? YOU get to go off on me for not being offended by shit that offends you? FUCK YOU. Seriously because I’m not your fucking puppet, YOU dont get to decide what is and is not offensive to ME and have the got damn audacity to threaten to go off on ME because I’m not offended about the shit that offends you. FUCK YOU!

  376. Last night I was thinking about a Chely Wright quote I had read, and I think it says a lot. She said, “I hear the word ‘tolerance’—that some people are trying to teach people to be tolerant of gays. I’m not satisfied with that word. I am gay, and I am not seeking to be ‘tolerated’. One tolerates a toothache, rush-hour traffic, an annoying neighbor with a cluttered yard. I am not a negative to be tolerated.”

    I don’t believe that anyone should have to respect any religious belief that teaches that they are “negative” simply by virtue of who they are, regardless of whether individual adherents like such “negative” people anyway despite the teachings.

  378. I’m black AND queer so fuck you very much, but for some reason the only shit you ever had to say to me was to make veiled threats about yanking your support and to flaunt your fucking privilege. So if QUILTBAG people aren’t sufficiently meek and nonthreatening to het folks while said het folks shit all over them repeatedly, it’s totally okay by you to threaten and/or ignore them? Duly noted, “ally.”

    Stop acting like you’re the only fucking WOC on this thread or the only one who can understand racism. The fact that you won’t even acknowledge the perspectives of the women of color in this thread who aren’t straight is really fucking telling.

  379. When I gave an example of someone, I was then asked how *I* felt. I didn’t offer up how I felt, I was asked and then answered but people got upset my answer wasn’t what THEY wanted it to be. Argued with me about my answer all while disrespecting me in the interim.

    Ahhh the “disagreement == disrespect” thing. I’ve never heard that one before from a religious person.

    Fuck your religious crap, fuck your fucking “i support lgbt rights but its still a sin” doublethink bullshit. And fuck you. And quit fucking assuming who’s black and not black yeah?

  380. Stop acting like you’re the only fucking WOC on this thread or the only one who can understand racism. The fact that you won’t even acknowledge the perspectives of the women of color in this thread who aren’t straight is really fucking telling.

    Pardon the pun, but, amen. Thank you.

  381. Stop acting like you’re the only fucking WOC on this thread or the only one who can understand racism. The fact that you won’t even acknowledge the perspectives of the women of color in this thread who aren’t straight is really fucking telling.

    Thank you, tmc.

  382. Are you fucking serious right now? “a less noxius sample” Fucking bigot.

    Ahahahahaha you haven’t read one comment where I mentioned my race, did you? I only did that like 60 times in this thread.

    But sure, let’s go with my being a bigot. At least I’m one with basic comprehension of English.

    Seriously because I’m not your fucking puppet, YOU dont get to decide what is and is not offensive to ME

    OH MY GOD YOU DON’T EVEN SEE THE IRONY DO YOU. Ahhh, I’m amused, now.

    People pretty much started going in on Christianity as a whole as if it is the only religion with homophobia and bigotry in it’s religious text- PURE bullshit there!- and because I did not deny that, I was labeled a bigot myself.

    Going back to my comment at 77:

    I’m perfectly willing to stand up and say that people of my religion are deeply bigoted, and an increasing number are refusing to be, and that my religion supports both stances.

    I addressed your point about 300 comments before you made it, nitwit. Yeah, sure. Skip all my comments, refuse to answer perfectly valid questions I asked, then get ragey at me when I lose patience. Sterling argumentative skills right there.

    Oh, and tmc:

    I’m black AND queer so fuck you very much, but for some reason the only shit you ever had to say to me was to make veiled threats about yanking your support and to flaunt your fucking privilege.

    Yes, but you’re WOC and queer and don’t agree with Azalea. This means you don’t exist. You’re probably a deep-cover white liberal. You sneaky fuck, hiding under being black all these years just so you could be inconvenient at Azalea on this thread today. *tsk tsk*

  383. tmc,

    I asked you a rhetorical question after you ASSumed that I didn’t support equality because I didn’t deny that my religious text contained bigotry towards homosexuals. This is what the ENTIRE back and forth is about. I never said that *I* think being homosexual is bad, sins are not things that *I* think are bad they are things deemed bad according to my religion. I’ve repeated that ad nauseum but that was being ignored. When asked if I think homosexuality was a sin (something deemed bad by my religion) I said yes. When everyone else acknowledged that as a fact of Christianity they simultaneously demanded that I denounce it or be called a bigot. Yet I am the one who isn’t making any sense or listening. This was nothing more than an opportunity to call me a bad name and you jumped on it. I’m only shocked you didn’t use a different b- word.

    You know what IS telling, Miss S defended the gang up on me and people immediately started attacking her too you included even though she doesn’t completely agree with me either. EVEN though she said she doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin, she’s still labeled a bigot because she has the nerve to call a spade a spade and point out unfairness against me. WTF does that tell you?

    There may be other WOC here but few of them identify as black of the 3(?) here two said it was unfair one said it wasn’t and you did so after coming to the false conclusion that I personally think homosexuality is “reprehensible.” No matter how many times I said that wasn’t the case, after Miss S explained it better than I did, people still went on saying and claiming that I personally think homosexuality was bad. DonnaL, Jadey and I -thought- shfree got the point that it wasn’t the case. From there spawned a discussion on cherry-picking and religion.

  384. People pretty much started going in on Christianity as a whole as if it is the only religion with homophobia and bigotry in it’s religious text- PURE bullshit there!- and because I did not deny that, I was labeled a bigot myself. When asked my personal opinion about whether or not homosexuality was “reprehensible” the answer was no, when asked whether or not it was “reprehensible” in my religion, I said yes.

    I’m sorry, but I can’t help but laugh at this. You acknowledge that your religion is homophobic and bigoted, and yet you still believe in it anyway! And you identify as an LGBTIQ ally! The old “don’t blame me. . .I just work here” defense. As I’ve said to you before, Azalea–please, please, please start “cherry picking.” I want you to explain to me why you think this whole, damn book is Divine Truth when some of that divine truth appears to be so stupid and bigoted. UCC cherry picks! Lots of Presbyterians cherry pick! Why can’t you? I assume that you’re aware that modernist Biblical scholarship (i.e. non-literalist) has existed for more than a hundred years, right?

    Or if you can’t be a real ally and do this, then at least take some fucking personal responsibility for your reprehensible belief that homosexuality is a sin, and stop claiming that just because some book was written thousands of years ago you simply have to believe it’s a sin.

  385. When asked if I think homosexuality was a sin (something deemed bad by my religion) I said yes.

    I think the main problem we have is that you are a member of a fucked-up, homophobic religion. I would be similarly annoyed if a Republican said. . .”hey, opposition to gay marriage is part of my party platform, but as an individual I’m fine with gay marriage! I’m an ally! But all the same, don’t expect me to denounce my party for its bigotry. Don’t except me to try to change the platform or join another party. I mean, my party’s great except for a couple widdle problems here and there like this one!”

  386. There may be other WOC here but few of them identify as black of the 3(?) here two said it was unfair one said it wasn’t and you did so after coming to the false conclusion that I personally think homosexuality is “reprehensible.”

    Really? That’s your response to tmc? That it’s two against one so you win?

    No matter how many times I said that wasn’t the case, after Miss S explained it better than I did, people still went on saying and claiming that I personally think homosexuality was bad. DonnaL, Jadey and I -thought- shfree got the point that it wasn’t the case.

    Distinction without a difference. “Oh, I don’t think it’s bad. It’s just that the creator of the universe and source of all goodness and supreme judge thinks it’s bad, and anyone who says differently and claims to be a Christian is a hypocrite. Why are you all claiming that I’m a bigot? It’s not me. God’s the bigot.”

    Yeah, your interpretation of your god is the bigot, and that’s OK with you. You can split that hair as fine as you want, but what it comes down to is that bigotry is OK with you.

  387. I would be similarly annoyed if a Republican said. . .”hey, opposition to gay marriage is part of my party platform, but as an individual I’m fine with gay marriage! I’m an ally! But all the same, don’t expect me to denounce my party for its bigotry. Don’t except me to try to change the platform or join another party. I mean, my party’s great except for a couple widdle problems here and there like this one!”

    Yes, well, I’m totally on board with communism except for that whole abridgement of human rights/dictatorship of the proletariat thing. Wait, you expect me to split with the party over something as minor as human rights?

  388. There may be other WOC here but few of them identify as black of the 3(?) here two said it was unfair one said it wasn’t and you did so after coming to the false conclusion that I personally think homosexuality is “reprehensible.”

    Hey, Azalea? I’ve called you an apologist for bigotry, not a bigot. (The difference is the same as being a rape apologist vs being a rapist, for the record.) I have not called you a bigot. Not once. And the one time I did bring up slavery it was in direct response to you and then I fucking dropped it. I was consistently respectful until about 50 comments ago when I got tired of your ‘tude.

    I also have a longer comment in mod about the fact that I freely – and first – acknowledged my religion’s flaws about 300 comments before you demanded I do it.

    When everyone else acknowledged that as a fact of Christianity they simultaneously demanded that I denounce it or be called a bigot.

    Except that a whole lot of Christians – I know this is very hard for you to take in, Azalea, but you need to close your eyes, take a deep breath and realise that there are Christians who disagree with you – have pointed out that condemning LGBTness as a sin is not in fact necessary to be a Christian. When you accused such Christians of being cherry-pickers, your own cherry-picking in other matters was brought up. It was your insistence that Christianity is irreconcilable with being accepting of LGBT people as not inherently sinful that made your arguments apologetic for bigoted people, not your own identification as part of Christianity. I can’t speak for others on the thread, but seriously.

    Again.

    A fourth time. Or possibly a fifth.

    Point to where I called you a bigot. Point to where I made a racist comment about you. Point to where I called you anything stronger than “asshole” (which if you can’t take boy are you new to the Internet). Point to where I brought up slavery except in response to your own comment about slavery in comments 72 and 74. Point to where I said that you were bigoted for being Christian. Point to where I’ve been anything but respectful of your identity.

    Now point to where you’ve been respectful of mine.

    You can’t, can you?

    😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

    Also, seriously, if you diss tmc further I’m going to get pissy.

    (Also, ftr, I didn’t realise Miss S was black until several comments in when it clicked why she was at an African American church meeting. I’m dim that way.)

  389. The belief that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God leads directly to this sort of thing — which not only exemplifies hatred and bigotry, but constitutes appalling child abuse.

    DonnaL,

    What exactly does a person who identifies as Christian and accepts the KJV bible as a religious text supposed to do about homosexuality being referred to as a sin? Are we supposed to denounce that part of the bible and proclaim that we *know* this part isn’t true while looking at other parts and deciding we *know* that part to be true, and base it all on our personal feelings , melt it together and call it a representation of the religion itself ?

    The idea that hitting someone that hits me is a sin (“reprehensible”) is not something I personally agree to. I’m pro-death penalty of COURSE I think self defense is a great thing. But do I think it is a-ok with my religion no! Do I think it is something Christ does not like? Yes. When I answer the latter where do I cite my source? The KJV of the bible. Would a person saying that I think self defense is bad be telling the truth? Fuck no! Marissa Alexander should NOT be in prison right now! What if that person had been bullied? Or abused? Should they tell me that I am no better than the person who bullied or abused them because that person told them to turn the other cheek and I believe that the bible says to turn the other cheek..because it actually DOES say that?

    If you cite religious text saying something is classist and you acknowledge that you believe the meaning of the religious text to be classist, is it fair for people to then accuse YOU of being classist?

  390. I didn’t call you or Miss S ANY b-word. I never even used the word “reprehensible.” I certainly never said that you personally think ill of homosexuality. If you’re gonna whine about name-calling you might as well take the time to get it right and read what I actually fucking said instead of making shit up. What I DID say was:

    Also, as a queer woman of color, I resent the fuck out of the fact that you think the fact that I fuck women is something that needs forgiving. That shit is fucked and it makes you a fake as hell ally.

    And I stand by that. The queer folks here have been telling you in ninety different ways that the shit you said is HARMFUL and all you can do is make threats and whine about how unfair it is that your privilege hasn’t gotten you a free pass in this discussion. You’re accusing people of picking on you for kicks even after we’ve shared personal fucking details about how that shit hurts us.

    THIS ISN’T FUN FOR ME. You think all us evil fucking queers are jumping on you for recreation? It really hasn’t crossed your mind that we are being SINCERE and that we are angry because this “sin” shit causes DEMONSTRABLE HARM in our everyday fucking lives? Then yeah. You fucking suck as an ally.

  391. “Oh, I don’t think it’s bad. It’s just that the creator of the universe and source of all goodness and supreme judge thinks it’s bad, and anyone who says differently and claims to be a Christian is a hypocrite. Why are you all claiming that I’m a bigot? It’s not me. God’s the bigot.”

    No shit, right? That’s weaselly, is what it is.

    Also, well done, you people out there who would rather paste active bigotry on God than look at what attitudes they’re prepared to defend and whether those attitudes – and the people who hold them, however personally nice they are – are in fact valid. If I were a theist (and as an advaiti, I’m kind of…not? It’s complicated) I’d rather call myself unenlightened than my god an asshole. Apparently that’s a little too ethical for Azalea’s ilk?

  392. I’m only shocked you didn’t use a different b- word.

    This was sincerely an asshole thing of you to say. I didn’t call you ANYTHING, let alone a sexist slur. Fucked. Up.

  393. I can cite “Mein Kampf” without being a neo-Nazi – this isn’t about citing the Bible. It’s about agreeing with its bigoted tenets – which you do.

    And yeah – I think it’s perfectly acceptable to cherry pick. The writers of the bible were dudes. Perfectly corruptible dudes. And even if there is a god and that bro personally handed down these exact words, it’s okay to reject something if your god is kind of a dick who picked pointless fights over stupid things just for the fuck of it.

  394. You think all us evil fucking queers are jumping on you for recreation? It really hasn’t crossed your mind that we are being SINCERE and that we are angry because this “sin” shit causes DEMONSTRABLE HARM in our everyday fucking lives? Then yeah. You fucking suck as an ally.

    You know, tmc, I….really think that’s what she thinks. It’s kind of mind-bogglingly solipsistic, but I can’t even.

    Sorry that I’ve been ragey, you guys. I had to listen to this asshole in my class tell me off for being an immigrant of colour, today (she’s also tried to convert me and told me that only Christians have morals, btw) and my patience with bigots – and the people who, like Azalea, rush to their defense with Good INtentions(TM) – is fucking thin right now.

    1. She was getting ganged up on, and you thought that was an appropriate time to bring up race? Really? I didn’t, and don’t, agree with everything she said but I would not have used to race to prove a point. I have more respect for her than that. And bringing up slavery to prove a point? I’m not sure if that was you, Jill, or both.

      I pointed this out earlier, but I brought up slavery because I was literally going through Leviticus and pointing to all the ridiculous stuff in there, mostly in order. If you read through my comments on this thread, you’ll see that. Slavery comes up in Leviticus — I brought it up after I pointed to the ridiculous rules about adultery, clothing, farming, vineyards, etc etc etc. So was I using the Bible’s words on slavery to prove a point? Yes, of course. The same way I used the Bible’s words on adultery, clothing, farming, vineyards, etc etc etc to prove a point. It’s a little ridiculous to suggest that Azalea’s own argument — that the Bible should be read literally — cannot be used by anyone but Azalea, and if we touch on a wide variety of messed-up Biblical rules we’re being racists who are using slavery to prove a point.

      Also? Yes, everyone on the thread disagreed with Azalea, because she was making a really fucked-up and bigoted point. If some rando commenter came on here and said, “Well women are naturally unclean and inferior to men, and men should be the head of women, and women should serve men,” and everyone jumped on him and then he cried that he was being “ganged up on,” we would all roll our eyes.

    2. I had a friend who was part of a religion (JW) years ago. Part of her religion was the belief that everyone who was not a JW was doomed. Unlike you, I didn’t really care. I don’t share the same beliefs, so why would I? Why would I be overly concerned that she thinks I’m damned? I don’t think I am.

      So actually, my best friend growing up — who is still one of my best friends — was raised Jehovah’s Witness. I suppose I vaguely knew that her religion said I was doomed, but you know what? She never said that to me. She never HINTED at it. We had all kinds of intense talks and we listened very openly to each other and we were unfailingly honest, but she never once told me that I was doomed.

      And for what it’s worth, she’s left the religion.

  395. Miss S,

    I’ve been reading over the thread, and I think I’ve been unncessarily harsh wtih you – I got so caught up in the defensive arguments you mounted that I didn’t really take your disclaimer about it not being your own belief – not in good faith anyway. I continue to stand by my statement that you can’t actually justify your defense of Azalea, and I would like to reiterate that I did not at any point call you a bigot, but I confused your explanations with your own beliefs and I am sorry I did that, particularly since it caused you distress. Please consider this an olive branch.

  396. Are we supposed to denounce that part of the bible and proclaim that we *know* this part isn’t true while looking at other parts and deciding we *know* that part to be true, and base it all on our personal feelings , melt it together and call it a representation of the religion itself ?

    Since that’s what everybody does, yes, that is what you’re supposed to do. You do it, and justify it with this byzantine rationalization about sins as opposed to punishments and what-have-you. Why is it so hard to construct one more byzantine loophole?

    If you cite religious text saying something is classist and you acknowledge that you believe the meaning of the religious text to be classist, is it fair for people to then accuse YOU of being classist?

    If I cite it and say “And that’s the truth” rather than “And that’s some classist fucked-up bullshit right there,” yes, yes it is. Not only would it be fair of them to accuse me, but they would be correct.

    As to citing the King James Bible, numerous people here have already brought up the issues of translation, context, and interpretation that are needed to accurately derive meaning from any text. So your citation is highly unreliable.

  397. even though people were racist to you.

    Becca, my response to that is out of moderation now, if you’re interested (it’s at # 392).

    Azalea, I’m not entirely sure I understand your comment about that horrifying video I posted a link to. Are you saying that you believe that teaching a 4-year old to sing a “hymn” called “Ain’t No Homos Gonna Make it to Heaven” in public, in a church, is not child abuse? That if you’re a decent person who happens to believe that the KJV is the word of God, this becomes an appropriate thing to do? Will you at least concede that whoever wrote that hymn, and whoever taught it to that child, are, in fact, “bigots,” and don’t simply hold “bigoted views,” even accepting your argument that there’s a distinction between the two?

  398. No matter how many times I said that wasn’t the case, after Miss S explained it better than I did, people still went on saying and claiming that I personally think homosexuality was bad. DonnaL, Jadey and I -thought- shfree got the point that it wasn’t the case.

    You referenced me here, so let me clarify. I never, ever once said that you referred to homosexuality as being bad. I did a ctrl-f just to make sure. What I did say what that you referred to homosexuality as being a sin. Are you taking that back now?

    I made the point that language is important for a very specific reason, which is why I have always used “sin” and not any other word that could be perceived as a synonym for it in this conversation. Because this conversation IS centered around the concept of sin, and don’t try to pretend that “bad” and “a sin” mean the same thing, I would think you would find it offensive to have an unattractive haircut equate to an offense against your god.

    Again, I don’t believe you wish ill on us. But, you believe we are sinners in a way that you aren’t, never were, never will be. And not because we made a conscious decision to be LGBTQ, but it just happened to work out that way. Can you how much that might suck, particularly for anyone who was carrying some baggage regarding the concept of sin, at all? Or do you just not care?

  399. Are we supposed to denounce that part of the bible and proclaim that we *know* this part isn’t true while looking at other parts and deciding we *know* that part to be true, and base it all on our personal feelings , melt it together and call it a representation of the religion itself ?

    Of course, there’s another option, the one I like to call prioritizing morality. You can think “this god and religion consider people sinners simply for loving people of their own sex romantically and/or sexually, but there is nothing whatsoever immoral or wrong with what they are doing, and rather than worship a god like that or accept moral commandments from such a god, I will take a moral stand and break with him.” There’s always that, of course.

  400. Becca, I disagree with you on this issue. “How would it feel if it were you” is a pretty basic question. Judging from Azalea’s response, it would feel pretty fucking lousy. The fact that she can’t extrapolate from that to understand what she is saying to LGBTQ people here is an extraordinary failure of empathy. Or perhaps not so extraordinary.

  401. Can you how much that might suck, particularly for anyone who was carrying some baggage regarding the concept of sin, at all?

    Toss “imagine” between “you” and “how” up there. You would think I would know how to write a damn sentence by now.

  402. EG,

    There are black republicans despite the inherent racism in that party, homosexual republicans despite the inherent homophobia in that party, there are republicans who are women despite the sexism inherent in that party.

    There is a reason religion is a protected class, you can’t just expect people to reject their religion or only accept their religion on someone else’s terms. I did not say God was a bigot, the religious text has bigoted things in it.The text was written by people who proclaim to have gotten this information directly from God himself. When it speaks of what is and is not ok to GOD I accept that at face value, when it speaks on the way we should treat people I accept Christ’s teachings of love, forgiveness and humility in part BECAUSE the bible says to try to be more like Him. SO when what He does contradicts something that was written previously I defer to Him. That is the extent of my cherry-picking because aside from a time machine I have no way of saying with certainty what is and is not a sin according to God outside of the religious text of my faith, the bible. Considering that my religion makes it an offense to God to proclaim you *know* what he will do and it is NOT an offense to defer to the bible, I choose to defer to the bible.

    PERSONALLY, there are things that are reprehensible or that require forgiveness according to Christianity that I think are matters of human rights. Since no one on Earth is God no one could hold anyone else to the standards set forth by Him, ie no one should be criminilizing sins on the basis that it is a sin. Murder is a crime not because it is in the commandments as a sin but because it is an agreed upon human right to live that no one can arbitrarily take away. Adultery is accepted by most as a sin, not because it is in the bible but because they think adultery is bad. What one person think is bad and what God thinks is bad are not necessarily one and the same. You can believe in God, you can study and follow the bible as a guide to the rules and ways in which God would like us to live our lives and conclude that some of it is not only difficult to adhere to, impossible even but you don’t even think it is wrong. THAT IS EXPECTED in the Christian faith. Not everyone practice religion the same, not everyone has the same exact faith even when they are members of the same exact religion. Asking someone to change their faith so that their every action and thought lines up perfectly with their religion is bullshit.

  403. Thanks for your response to me Donna.

    I believe that it is fundamentally wrong for someone to use the text of the Bible as a sword, proclaiming that it represents the word of God, and simultaneously shield themselves from any discussion or questioning about whether that belief is truly consistent, and truly extends to pronouncements in the Bible that actually might mean something to them personally, by very reason of their background. Or applies only to lists of sins that they don’t personally have to worry about, like homosexuality.

    I completely agree with this as a general principle Donna. Which is why I wouldn’t shy away from asking fundamentalists things like “what about your tax evasion? What about your divorce?” and so on. But in my opinion, a member of a socially dominant group (i.e. whites) should never nonconsenually interrogate a member of a socially oppressed group (i.e. people of color) about aspects of their identity. And it seems to me that the legacy of oppression that Black Americans endured during slavery is viewed by most of African-Americans as very integral to their identity as an oppressed people. So I personally would never use slavery as a rhetorical point during a hostile debate with a Black person, period. Especially because this is something I used to do sometimes, and then I saw the harm it caused, and felt bad about abusing my privilege and causing that harm. But obviously this is just my opinion and some people more knowledgable than me about racial issues like tmc disagree with how this applies to this particular thread. So I think people should listen to them rather than me on this.

    If you, or anyone else, were arguing with a Jewish person who believed that every word in the Hebrew Bible was the plain and literal command of God that required no Talmudic explanation or commentary, and asked them if that extended to the various massacres of townspeople and other “civilians,” and the Jewish person said, sorry, you can’t bring that up, because of how my people suffered in the Holocaust, and bringing it up constituted an act of anti-Semitism, I would say that the person’s argument was absurd, and outrageous.

    Of course, you’d have the credibility to do so Donna, since you’re Jewish, too, and especially because of how horribly your family suffered in the Holocaust. But as a gentile who had no family members who died in the Holocaust, I don’t feel qualified to judge what is anti-Semitism and what isn’t in instances like that. I try to oppose anti-Semitism the best I can. But at the end of the day, I feel like I usually have to trust people in marginalized groups when they’re telling me I’m being oppressive. Just like I hope cis people will generally trust me when I tell them they are being transphobic or religious people will generally trust me when I tell them they are marginalizing atheists. To me, it’s a good rule of thumb that when marginalized people speak up about mistreatment, they are usually telling the truth, especially because it’s not easy and it takes courage to stand up to members of a dominant group like that.

  404. Please consider this an olive branch.

    Thanks, I have a comment in moderation now. Basically, I know there are WOC who are LGBTQ; my sister is one of them, this knowledge is not a revelation. I don’t have a problem reconciling my belief in God with LGBTQ people, as I don’t follow/study the Bible. I still don’t think the way race/slavery was discussed is appropriate, so we’ll have to disagree. Olive branch accepted.

    To note: It’s the fact that it’s a group of mostly white women, who are angry, using harsh words, and then questioning a Black women about slavery and the mark of Cain- repeatedly. I don’t think that after everyone is pissed off is the time to talk about race. This site has a hard enough time discussing race when everyone is calm. I get the impression that at least one person wasn’t simply asking out of curiosity, but rather demanding an answer to prove a point. It didn’t sit right with me.

  405. Donna, thanks for engaging with me concerning my thoughts on the slavery discussion. I have a response to you that’s in moderation. EG, I stand by most of what I said earlier in a general sense, but I’m not that knowledgable about racial issues, and I’m still learning the best way to be an anti-racist ally. And obviously there’s Black people here like tmc that don’t see things the way I initially did, so my analysis of this particular situation is very possibly incorrect.

  406. There is a reason religion is a protected class, you can’t just expect people to reject their religion or only accept their religion on someone else’s terms. I did not say God was a bigot, the religious text has bigoted things in it.The text was written by people who proclaim to have gotten this information directly from God himself. When it speaks of what is and is not ok to GOD I accept that at face value,

    I still think you need to do a whole lot more reading about Christianity before you start talking about it like you know what every Christian believes/practices. try some Margaret Farley, or “The Body’s Grace” by Rowan Williams, or NT Wright or Marva Dawn or John Stackhouse or Jan Evans, or I don’t know, someone other than yourself? there are plenty of Christians who are not only vehement QUILTBAG (I have just learned this term, is it preferable to LGBT? it seems more inclusive/accurate) supporters but also renowned theologians who don’t seem to agree with you that God thinks homosexuality is a sin.
    also you might want to consider updating your Bible translation. the KJV is poetic, but not all that accurate. NRSV is the most up-to-date and also gender-inclusive so you don’t have to read “man” when it means “people”.
    and I’ll say again what I said before, you’re reading the Bible poorly. when we fail to contextualize ancient texts and try to force them to fit to our current context we will always fall short.

  407. I don’t think that after everyone is pissed off is the time to talk about race. This site has a hard enough time discussing race when everyone is calm.

    True enough. Fuck that Elizabeth Warren thread blew up.

    There is a reason religion is a protected class, you can’t just expect people to reject their religion or only accept their religion on someone else’s terms.

    I don’t expect anyone to reject their religion because it has bigoted elements to it. I do, however, look askance at people who say that religious bigotry isn’t bigotry because it’s religious. Do you really think your God is so immoral as that? That it’s easier for you to believe your God is a raging asshole than that X number of translations by Y number of Bronze Age people might have horribly distorted things?

    Honestly, if the Virgin Mary came down in Rome tomorrow and told people to lay off the misogyny because it gives her son a sad, do you think Pope Nazinger would listen? No? Then why is it so hard to believe that of the countless thousands of people who’ve had their hands on Bibles and had editorial powers over it might have fucked with what God intended?

  408. For that reason, it’s entirely appropriate to bring up the specific parts of the Bible that have historically been used against people with the same background as someone arguing for Biblical inerrancy, and taking the “it’s not me, it’s the Bible” approach.

    Now, this is where I tell you, that it would help if you knew the entire story:

    So references to slavery started with me referencing groups with bigoted beliefs (ie Democrats and slavery pre civil war) and this comment after someone said something about having a racist relative:

    If your dad was one of those people who thought times were better during slavery BUT he would never vote that way, he’d never try to make it happen again or treat black people differently, if he never showed racism in public or prvate but simply felt that times were better. I wouldn’t call him a bigot and I say that as a WOC with a black caribbean parent where a REVOLT is what gained freedom for slaves so yeah, shit is real. I mean what I said.

    What did I mean by that? I can acknowledge that for many many white people, slavery was beneficial, times were easier because of the free labor. Does that mean that *I* think slavery was a good thing? Come on!

    Then there was a comment about slavery in the bible (I was not the first to mention slavery in the bible). Then there was this from Jill

    The Bible is pretty a-ok with slavery. But hey, word of God! Can’t argue with that!

    This was AFTER I had already said that what the bible deems is a sin, as my religious text was what I used to define sin BUT that I do not personally find fault or wrongdoing in everything that is a sin because much of it is a matter of human rights.

    :

    my coment at 49:

    I dont like interjecting “morality” with laws, human rights aren’t an issue of morality it is an issue of justice. That is how I view many many many legal issues. I think it is unfair to call someone a bigot if they believe homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion, etc etc are immoral according to their religious beliefs so long as that person respects the right of one to be homosexual, have premarital sex or abortions and be treated equally by all. There is a difference between thinking premarital sex is immoral therefore, refusing to engage in premarital sex and thinking premarital sex is immoral therefore NOBODY should engage in premarital sex and those who do are *insert horrible name calling here* and they will go to the equivalent of hell/jail ect ect.

    I threw some emphasis in there.

    BUT evenso, I addressed the slavery stuff with this:

    Slavery as it was in North America was extremely brutal and ruthless. Doesn’t even begin to apply.

    Also Christ had no slaves, the thing with Christianity was being Christlike.

    Slavery existed in Central and Western Africa before European slave trade began. The slavery that existed was vastly different than the slavery introduced by the European slave trade and had a different basis, it was not race based for one.

    This was in response to a verse from the bible commanding that those with slaves NOT be brutal to them. In which Jill says the bible says slavery was a-ok, can’t argue with God, to a black biracial woman in America AFTER I said not all sins were things that *I* thought were personally bad but that my *religion* and religious text says is bad and I believe that because the religious text says it is bad that according to my religion it is bad.

    So that made no sense, it had no place in the discussion. Because whether she was addressing slavery in America or slavery in Rome she was talking about slavery that the bible actually frowned upon because of it’s brutality while falsely declaring that brutality to be A-ok.

    Keep in mind: I NEVER said – killing homosexuals was a-ok because it was in the bible, I NEVER said judging someone because they sinned was a-ok because that is in the bible. So saying “slavery was in the bible so that makes it a-ok” is not ok and it is not synonomous with what I had been saying. Had she said “according to the bible, slavery is not supposed to be brutal ” she’d have been on point.

  409. There are black republicans despite the inherent racism in that party, homosexual republicans despite the inherent homophobia in that party, there are republicans who are women despite the sexism inherent in that party.

    No shit. Ask me how much respect I’d show them in such a conversation.

    There is a reason religion is a protected class, you can’t just expect people to reject their religion or only accept their religion on someone else’s terms.

    Actually, I can. I absolutely can. And I can pass judgment on people who, for example, think that believing what a 500-year-old translation from a Latin translation of a Hebrew and Greek text that consists of what some men who lived hundreds upon hundreds of years ago claim they were told by a god says is more important than the actual substantial emotional and physical harm that actual living people here and now have explained over and over again that said belief causes them.

    You have made your priorities clear, and to you, the well-being of LGBTQ people is less important than one particular interpretation of one particular translation of one text of one religion. I find that to be morally unconscionable.

    Religion is a protected class when it comes to whether or not you can be discriminated against in terms of hiring, firing, public services, etc. However, it does not have some kind of “get out of being criticized for bigotry by other people free” card. You are free to choose your beliefs without being deprived of any material benefit. But your beliefs are not entitled to any respect from anybody else.

  410. Miss S. . .I’d really like to thank you for your contributions to this thread. I haven’t agreed with everything you’ve said here, and yes, some things you’ve said seemed to reflect some unexamined, straight privilege on your part in a way I found offensive. But you’ve subsequently owned your privilege. And overall, I’ve appreciated your calm presence and your seeming desire to heal the rift that has been created in this thread.

    I really find this whole conversation unfortunate. Azalea was easily one of my ten favorite posters on Feministe before this. I’ve almost always found her past comments to be thoughtful, funny, and kind, and I’ve appreciated her past commentary on queer issues. So all this just really makes me sad. I hate that this is happening. And I respect so much Donna and EG and macavity and the people on my “side” here, too. So this sucks because I like all of y’all. It also sucks because it reminds me of how similar types of acrimonious debate and hurt feelings about sexuality, race, and religion have been dividing and weakening progressive movements for decades. Where’s the path through all this?

    I’m aware I have a chip on my soldier about religion, specifically Christianity. And understandly so, given my life experience with Christianity. After stuffing it and feeling ashamed and powerless for so many years, I relish the opportunity now to really tear into religion using as inflammatory of language as I possibly can. But doing this isn’t going to bring people together. When I hear sentiments like “homosexuality is a sin,” regardless of how it’s couched, it hurts. It really hurts. And I’m still working on how to best stand up for myself without unnecessarily alienating others. I don’t know what’s right and wrong here.

  411. Do you really think your God is so immoral as that? That it’s easier for you to believe your God is a raging asshole than that X number of translations by Y number of Bronze Age people might have horribly distorted things?

    Since this may be helpful to understanding the core disagreement, I’d say the belief (in some sects) is that the Christian God defines morality. If xGod came down tomorrow and said all people with cowlicks are sinful, then “people with cowlicks” are by definition sinful. If xGod said they deserved an eternity of hellfire then as the creator that is his prerogative. He doesn’t have to adhere to our ethics or even to logic. He’s the potter…we’re pots. If he says we’re broken, then we’re broken. Period. Full Stop. Don’t ask why..because mysterious ways…his ways are not our ways…yada, yada.

  412. Seriously, you don’t think homosexuality is bad but you think it’s a sin?

    Most bizarre cognitive dissonance ever.

    And quite apart from the fact that you’ve managed to divest sin of its moral dimension, I just want to repeat that the ‘homosexuality is a sin’ is used overwhelmingly to harm queer people, and it’s overwhelmingly used to indicate that queer people are less-than and immoral. You don’t get to use ‘sin’ to refer to us just because your personal meaning of the word somehow skips the moral implications intended by the vast majority of Christians. The word’s loaded by it’s context.

    In September/October of 1998 I went on a family trip to the US. I was 11. Do you want to take a guess as to what one of my most searing memories of being in the US in October of ’98 was as a queer child?

    I started high school in 1999 knowing that gay people were considered so immoral and disgusting that they could be tortured and tied to a fence to die. And you think it’s somehow ok, in that context, to tell us that you think that your God objects to our existence? Do you know what people do with that kind of statement? They decide to enact God’s will on our bodies and lives.

    Fuck. That. Noise.

    Your beliefs and words are not magically devoid of context. You don’t get to say that homosexuality is a sin without invoking the dead queers on whose corpses those words are inscribed (who are, btw, disproportionately queers of colour).

  413. Since this may be helpful to understanding the core disagreement, I’d say the belief (in some sects) is that the Christian God defines morality. If xGod came down tomorrow and said all people with cowlicks are sinful, then “people with cowlicks” are by definition sinful.

    Ah, got it. -_- I was hoping that wasn’t the case.

  414. Since this may be helpful to understanding the core disagreement, I’d say the belief (in some sects) is that the Christian God defines morality. If xGod came down tomorrow and said all people with cowlicks are sinful, then “people with cowlicks” are by definition sinful.

    I find the abnegation of responsibility for one’s moral framework on the part of people who believe that to be so…fundamentally immoral that it boggles my mind. It reflects one of Dawkins’s more convincing arguments against religion, to my mind. If the big boss tells you someone is bad, that’s it? No independent thought at all? No willingness to argue, to risk oneself against authority?

  416. If the big boss tells you someone is bad, that’s it? No independent thought at all? No willingness to argue, to risk oneself against authority?

    Apparently? Easier to hide responsibility that way?

    Don’t get me wrong, Hinduism has its own share of robotic-compliance-is-noble stories, but there’s as many that subvert the idea. This is just….well, ick.

  417. (Late to the party, I know. I’ve been following along in the reading, but it’s taken me a full week to get my head around this.)

    I never said that *I* think being homosexual is bad, sins are not things that *I* think are bad they are things deemed bad according to my religion.

    There is a reason religion is a protected class, you can’t just expect people to reject their religion or only accept their religion on someone else’s terms. I did not say God was a bigot, the religious text has bigoted things in it.The text was written by people who proclaim to have gotten this information directly from God himself. When it speaks of what is and is not ok to GOD I accept that at face value …

    You adhere to a religion that feels that sin is bad and that sinners will suffer eternal torment and goes so far as to take oppressive action against certain kinds of “sinners,” but this isn’t your feeling. So you follow a religion without believing its central tenets, which makes me wonder what the point is; or you follow the religion and do believe its central tenets, which means all of your arguing that your religion believes it but you don’t believe it is called into question. Or is there a third option?

    I hate to use the “if you don’t believe that stuff, you’re not really a [insert sect here], are you?” argument, because it was thrown at me so much> back when I was a Catholic. But after a ton of prayer and soul-searching, I realized that no, I don’t believe that stuff, and it’s a tenet of that church, and I could either sign my name to it or leave. So I left. I didn’t denounce Christianity–I have little to no beef with the guy, and my personal beliefs haven’t changed. But I found a church that didn’t believe that God has condemned all GLBTQ people to burn in hell, since that doesn’t really track with everything else I’ve been taught about a loving and benevolent God.

    As I said, my early indoctrination was in the Catholic style, and mileage may vary, but this is the Catechism’s attitude toward sin:

    Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

    Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.” Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,” knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.” In this proud self-exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.

    This is what you want to hand-wave off as no big deal, everyone does it? “I believe you’ve failed in genuine love for God and turned your heart away from God’s love, but it’s no big. Nobody’s perfect. I don’t hate you–I just think you’re disobedient and trying to become like a god. Hey, it’s just what my religion says–I don’t make the rules here!” You’re okay cosigning that, because when it’s used to justify legislative and physical violence against GLBTQ people, you aren’t going to be swinging the bat?

    It’s not a question of whether you think homosexuality is bad or not–if you say you don’t personally think it’s bad, it’s not my place to argue otherwise. But if you want to label homosexuality a sin, you’re telling homosexual people that they love themselves to the point of showing contempt to the Almighty and are rejecting God’s love. How is that not bigotry? How is that not hateful? How can you possibly justify that by saying, “Well, yes, they do what’s evil in God’s sight and offend reason and truth and reject the salvation of Jesus if they don’t repent. But I don’t hate them or think they’re bad. I’m not actually going to, like, do anything to them. I’ll even donate to the HRC to support the human rights of the hellbound evildoers.”

  418. I find the abnegation of responsibility for one’s moral framework on the part of people who believe that to be so…fundamentally immoral that it boggles my mind. It reflects one of Dawkins’s more convincing arguments against religion, to my mind. If the big boss tells you someone is bad, that’s it? No independent thought at all? No willingness to argue, to risk oneself against authority?

    I find it disturbing myself. Best I’ve been able to figure some people find comfort in submission to a more powerful and p purportedly wiser entity. But that is just the rebellious daughter of satan in me talking, I guess.

  419. Argh when was M using my phone to post? That was me not him as I’m sure everyone could father from the daughter of satan bit.

  420. Azalea, you still haven’t answered my question. Do you see homosexuality as being a sin? And use THAT word, sin, to respond. Not a word like “bad”, but the clear, unmisinterpretable word “sin”. And not say “the Bible sees it as a sin, therefore”, or “God sees it as one, so”, I’m asking if YOU see it as one.

    A simple yes or no will suffice. Is homosexuality a sin? If so, will you listen to us when we say that that word, sin, or sinners, causes many of us in the GLBTQ harm? It’s really simple.

  421. I think Azalea answered that question a long time ago, after I asked her if she shared her friend’s belief that whatever is listed in the Bible as a sin is, in fact, a sin. Her answer was yes. It’s just that the word “sin” seems to have a different, and less significant, meaning to Azalea than it does to many others. On the other hand, her very first post in this thread was about whether believing something was “immoral” makes you a bigot, so I think it’s safe to say that Azalea believes that whatever is “sinful” is also “immoral,” at least in the eyes of God according to the Bible. And, yet, she also acknowledged that to repeat the condemnations of homosexuality stated in the Bible is “bigoted” (but doesn’t necessarily make you a bigot).

  422. My knowledge on what is and isn’t a sin only exists in a religious context because the bible defines sin as anything you do say or think which does not please God. I have no use for the words outd of a religious context. So i

  423. Yeah, but she still seemed to dodge its significance. And since that point, I have clarified what it means to me, and I believe others have as well, what it means to them. She hasn’t addressed her usage of the word since that point, and it is important to me. I need to her to really, really grok no matter what her what her personal view of the word might be, how damaging it can be to LBGTQ people Because language matters. And I think the best way is to get her to directly answer my question.

    Also, the fact that she only apologized for hurting those individuals, by name or implication, she deemed sufficiently respectful, I found that distressing. I wasn’t aware that people who are hurt by words are supposed to be polite and considerate to those that hurt them. While I personally try to make an effort to weigh everything I write, when I feel particularly strongly about a topic, I don’t expect it of everyone else. I personally have walked away from about six or seven posts I could have made on this topic, and my personal experiences with the concept of sin haven’t involved loved ones hurling it as an invective at me, so I can’t imagine how it must feel for those who have. So why should they be polite and considerate of how she might feel, especially the women of color, like macavitykitsune, who came from a place where to be homosexual was literally against the law, and tmc, who came from a cultural background like Azalea and is living as a queer woman now? Why are they less deserving of an apology for being hurt by having the word “sin” blithely tossed at them because they weren’t so polite to Azalea as she was on her way out?

    And I was willing to stay gone, and stay out. But…I could see that Azalea didn’t really get my point. As was clear by her response referring to me. It’s all about the word. The wooooooooooord.

  426. I have no use for the words outd of a religious context

    But the words and meaning found religious declarations don’t just stay in their nice contexts. They’re a part of a large organization–of councils, of bishops, of parishioners, of activist groups, etc.–that seek to impose those contexts on the rest of the context-less world.

    To say homosexuality is sin “because God says so” provides so many people the justification they need to hurt so many other people. How do you come to terms with that? How do you come to terms that words don’t stay in their context?

  427. My knowledge on what is and isn’t a sin only exists in a religious context because the bible defines sin as anything you do say or think which does not please God. I have no use for the words outd of a religious context.

    Then why did you bring them up here, in this thread, outside of a religious context, as a reason not to think somebody’s a bigot?

  428. Azalea,

    Could you tell me if you disagree with any of these claims:

    (1) Homosexuality displeases God. In God’s eyes, homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality.

    (2) God is all-knowing, all-loving and the source of morality.

    (3) In your eyes, homosexuality is not inferior to heterosexuality.

    It seems to me that you are committed to all three claims, but this is a pretty blatant contradiction. You say that you do not see anything wrong with homosexuality because it is a matter of “human rights”, but how can human rights supercede the authority of God, the author of all morality?

  429. So why should they be polite and considerate of how she might feel, especially the women of color, like macavitykitsune, who came from a place where to be homosexual was literally against the law, and tmc, who came from a cultural background like Azalea and is living as a queer woman now?

    Maybe I’m overthinking this by a lot, but it occurs to me that Donna is trans (and being trans is a lot more ambiguously sinful in the text of the Bible, though treated worse in Christian culture) and tmc, Li, Annaleigh and I are actually “sexually deviant”. I think having a real life queer person be so darn ungrateful to her gracious acceptance of our sins was just too repugnant for Azalea to bother apologising. (It’s also worth noting that the people she replied to angrily were all either white or LGBQ.)

    It doesn’t necessarily speak to homophobia on her part, but she certainly seems the sort of LGBQ ally that turns on us at a moment’s notice. Rather like anti-racists who still have really just preferences and personal choices and feel that an awful lot of things are just innocent cultural things really that a lot of POC just happen to think are totally racist. But they’re not racist! They voted for Obama and they have black friends!

    (…which is not to say that Azalea shouldn’t have apologised to Donna, who was nothing but kind to her all through this thread. She damn well ought to have apologised, and my cavernous contempt for her hypocrisy lessened a little when she did.)

  430. Donna is trans (and being trans is a lot more ambiguously sinful in the text of the Bible, though treated worse in Christian culture) and tmc, Li, Annaleigh and I are actually “sexually deviant”

    Hey, people with trans identities can be “sexually deviant” too, you know! How do you know I don’t identify with more than one letter of the alphabet? (Which I do, by the way — even though I don’t identify as “queer,” for a number of reasons I won’t get into right now.)

    PS: I’ve pointed out before that “male and female created He them” can be interpreted in more than one way.

  431. Hey, people with trans identities can be “sexually deviant” too, you know! How do you know I don’t identify with more than one letter of the alphabet? (Which I do, by the way — even though I don’t identify as “queer,” for a number of reasons I won’t get into right now.)

    You’re right, I acted like your only axis of oppression in this thread was your “gender” (which I put in quotes because frankly you seem more together and articulate about your gender than the cis people I know, which IMO says the issue isn’t your gender at all, but what others would force it to be), and I’m sorry I did that. I hope I didn’t hurt you very badly with it.

  432. (Which I do, by the way — even though I don’t identify as “queer,” for a number of reasons I won’t get into right now.)

    By the way what does queer actually mean? Is it like an umbrella term for gay and bi people? Because don’t very often see gay or bi people using it for themselves, the most time I hear it over here is people using it as an insult.

  433. No, no, please don’t worry, it’s fine! It’s just a rather common mistake that I thought I’d take the opportunity to mention.

  434. S, Azalea: I believe that there’s no way I can avoid sinning. Since G*d’s basically booby-trapped the universe, I might as well have fun and piss h*m off. And you ladies do know that G*d really doesn’t like women, right? To H*m, the only good woman is a dead woman.

    I have a theory about that poll-you know, the one that was the topic of the post? Here we go: everyone knows the public is a beast of little brain, regardless of the intelligence of the individuals. The public can only stomach baby steps toward progress. Everyone who’s not straight, male, and white has to depend on the ‘public’s’ good will to advance. So, right now, GLBT people have the advantage, and the public’s contempt is rebounding on the other minority groups- especially women. It’s only logical that support for abortion rights is falling. Everyone knows a GLBT person, but no woman would ever admit having an abortion. Now, I’m off to continue researching ways to scar up my uterus.

  435. It’s just a rather common mistake that I thought I’d take the opportunity to mention.

    Too true, and sorry about that. D:

    Re your PS in your previous post: that’s some seriously thin shit to base the staggering volume of transphobia society has on. But then again, how do I get to talk? There’s trans people, intersexed people, genderqueer people and two-gendered people in Hindu mythology –
    hell, two of the main male deities had a son together. I grew up immersed in the mythology and scripture, and since nobody actually discussed sexuality as a separate thing with me, I extrapolated logically that being trans was probably fairly normal and accepted – look at all the genderbending role models of all kinds! – and was quite relaxed about gender in general. Then I grew up more, started exploring my country on my own and came slap up against a massively transphobic reality.

    So who the fuck knows why people are so terrified and hateful that even a mythology and scripture that is fairly permissive where trans people are concerned (even as it polices cisfolk fairly strongly) is warped to create a transphobic society. It’s fucking disgusting.

  436. Seriously, you don’t think homosexuality is bad but you think it’s a sin?

    Whereas, I define what I think is bad. Whereas, God defines what He thinks is bad. It is hereby proclaimed that the things God think are bad, according to my religion where my first knowledge of the word comes from, are sins. Therefore, it is not logically necessary for those things which can be defined as sin to also be things I define as bad. It is only necessary that things I believe are sins to be in fact things GOD define as bad.

    Just to recap Azalea does not define what is or isn’t a sin, she can only CITE what she believes to be a sin because to Azalea a sin is something that does not please God and can ONLY be quantified and qualified by Him. According to my religion, the KJV is the religious text which informs people of my faith of what does and does not please God.

    Altogether now: Only God can define what is and is not a sin.

    Analogy: God is the Father. As a parent he set forth rules that he knows His children will disobey. he has set forth rules which he knows and expects that His children will not agree with entirely. He expects us to not pretend that we don’t know what His rules are and gave instruction for them to be written, every parent knows a written rule is undeniable a spoken rule can be negotiated.

    The gray area?

    He spoke most of his rules to flawed humans to write so that we may know what those rules are. God the Son came down from Heaven and told us how to treat people who break those rules ; with love, kindness , and a heart without judgement.

    It is CLEAR that although Christians are expected to acknowledge the many sins that will not be deemed as something bad or immoral on a personal level, we are also expected to not use that knowledge to jurt, judge, demean, brutalize. It is NOT Christlike to use the word sin or sinner as a slur or a sword to tear another person down. it is moreso a mark of solidarity; none of us are perfect, we are all His children and all imperfect people are sinners. Though we may amongst ourselves determine that some acts are worse than others because they affect us in different ways; all sins affect God the same way and we are not expected to understand that.

    What has happened so often though is that people like the darling parents of the boy singing that horrible song is th
    THEREFORE

  437. Seriously, you don’t think homosexuality is bad but you think it’s a sin?

    Whereas, I define what I think is bad. Whereas, God defines what He thinks is bad. It is hereby proclaimed that in my opinion and my faith the things God think are bad, according to my religion where my first knowledge of the word comes from, are sins. Therefore, it is not logically necessary for those things which can be defined as sin to also be things I define as bad. It is only necessary that things I believe are sins to be in fact things GOD define as bad.

    Just to recap Azalea does not define what is or isn’t a sin, she can only CITE what she believes to be a sin because to Azalea a sin is something that does not please God and can ONLY be quantified and qualified by Him. According to my religion, the KJV is the religious text which informs people of my faith of what does and does not please God.

    Altogether now: Only God can define what is and is not a sin.

    Analogy: God is the Father. As a parent he set forth rules that he knows His children will disobey. he has set forth rules which he knows and expects that His children will not agree with entirely. He expects us to not pretend that we don’t know what His rules are and gave instruction for them to be written, every parent knows a written rule is undeniable a spoken rule can be negotiated.

    The gray area?

    He spoke most of his rules to flawed humans to write so that we may know what those rules are. Flawed as they may be, we are to trust that he knew what he was doing when he gave them the task of documenting His word. God the Son came down from Heaven and told us how to treat people who break those rules ; with love, kindness , and a heart without judgement. He did not approve of judgemental religious zealots seeking to punish others in His name for sins that they had no authority to judge anyone on. The knowledge of sins is to for each individual to KNOW for themselves what is and is not ok in God’s eyes, NOT to throw stones at people who commit a sin that *you* don’t like.

    It is CLEAR that although Christians are expected to acknowledge the many sins will not be deemed as something bad or immoral on a personal level, we are also expected to not use that knowledge to hurt, judge, demean, or brutalize. It is NOT Christlike to use the word sin or sinner as a slur or a sword to tear another person down. It is moreso a mark of solidarity; none of us are perfect, we are all imperfect, we are all His children and all imperfect people are sinners. Though we may amongst ourselves determine that some acts are worse than others because they affect us in different ways; all sins affect God the same way and we are not expected to understand that. It is also a big deal to tell God He is wrong about something, so telling Him that he did not *mean* to make something a sin because of the way other people have made you feel about it isn’t something I think He’d like very much and I dont want to take my chances on that.

  438. Arrrgggg. Sensitive ass keyboard…
    Anyway,

    DonnaL,

    Homophobia is NOT ok. Transphobia is NOT ok, claiming bisexuality is confusion is infuriating bullshit. Slutshaming would be a crime. Treating anyone who looked, loved or lived differently than you but did not cause harm to others as anything less than a human being makes someone a POS in my opinion. As you can see, clearly one of my sins is my struggle to forgive people I think do bad, stupid, mean or evil things. I’ve come to accept that as part of who I am, Christ loves me despite my venegeful ways and I hope he forgives me for them too.

    I did not know that sin was such a loaded word for other Christians and non believers or a triggering word at all. When I was informed of such I tried to explain what the word meant to me, why I used it and what I meant by my use of it. Apparently that only made things worse which is why I apologized. Shfree, Jadey, DonnaL even if you do not accept my apology (and thank you DonnaL for accepting mine) I know you deserved it. Me repeating myself did not clarify anything it only triggered you, repeatedly. That’s not my intention.

  439. Thank you, Lotus Becca for you words.

    So you follow a religion without believing its central tenets, which makes me wonder what the point is; or you follow the religion and do believe its central tenets,

    Most of the Christians that I associate with fall into this category, myself included. The way my family practices Christianity is literally a mix of family values and morals and Christian values and morals. Yes, we disassociate from the parts we don’t agree with. Does that mean we aren’t really Christians? Honestly, maybe. I’m sure some people would say that.

    My youngest sister came home from school one day very upset because one student told another one that they were going to Hell because they were an atheist. We had a long talk that night about how Christianity means different things to different people. We don’t have anything in common with the people who want to strip away rights (believe me, they want to strip away mine too), yet we use the same title for our religion. How can we all believe in God, yet, act in radically different ways as a result? We didn’t have a simple answer.

  440. It interests me greatly to see that Azalea still hasn’t extended an apology to the POC who are QUILTBAGs on this thread. This newfound ability to apologise for being an asshole also apparently extends only to the (AFAIK) white QUILTBAGs.

    Hmm, and she was calling me a fucking bigot? I start to sense this, like, pattern here.

    What’s the matter, Azalea? tmc, Li and Annaleigh a little too gay-ga-gay-gay-gay while to apologise to, or just a little too impolite?

  441. Azalea: I did not know that sin was such a loaded word for other Christians and non believers or a triggering word at all.

    That must be a really nice cave you’re living in. I don’t even go to church and I know that Christians have been using ‘sin’ as a way to club GLBT people-and everyone else- for at least twenty years. Sheesh.

  442. Apparently if you say harmful and offensive and triggering shit to a roomful of queer folks, the only ones you need to apologize to are the ones who didn’t have the audacity to show their anger. Duly noted!

    And she still hasn’t acknowledged or apologized for the fact that she accused me of shit that I didn’t do.

    With allies like these, who needs enemies?!

  443. So, right now, GLBT people have the advantage, and the public’s contempt is rebounding on the other minority groups- especially women. It’s only logical that support for abortion rights is falling. Everyone knows a GLBT person, but no woman would ever admit having an abortion.

    That makes no historical sense whatsoever. If you look at the past two hundred years of social/political movements, you’ll find that they often come together, piggy-backing on each other, and that social/political movements for different groups take place and are effective within the same eras.

    I was going to point out that I’ve known several women who have told me of their abortions, but then I realized that my social group may not be representative…more to the point, though “everybody” knows a GLBTQ person? I don’t think your social group is representative either.

  444. So, right now, GLBT people have the advantage, and the public’s contempt is rebounding on the other minority groups- especially women. It’s only logical that support for abortion rights is falling. Everyone knows a GLBT person, but no woman would ever admit having an abortion. Now, I’m off to continue researching ways to scar up my uterus.

    That is… one of the most asinine theories I have ever heard.

  445. Okay, I stepped away from this because I made my points (which haven’t changed) and got tired of repeating myself. Also, the thread almost seemed to quiet down there from a moment. But just to wrap up for me:

    @ Azalea

    I accept your apology to a point and I appreciate that you’ve re-thought your position on the word “sin”. However, I hold people responsible for the beliefs of the Gods or other deities that they pledge faith to. So to me (and probably to others here) it does not matter this distinction you are making between what your God believes and what you believe – unless you are actively challenging and criticizing the former (which I gather you are not, as from your perspective He is in charge regardless), then to me these beliefs are one and the same. If these beliefs contradict each other, okay, but unless you are arguing for your unbigoted personal beliefs over His bigoted beliefs, then I still hold you accountable for both. I understand that we do not agree with each other on that score, but there it is.

    @ tmc, Donna, Becca, Mackavity, shfree, and everyone else who has been keeping this thread on a level keel, thanks.

    @ Chiara

    “Queer” is indeed an umbrella term for non-heterosexual people (or sometimes non-sexually mainstream people in general) that has been reclaimed from an insult. It’s still not widely used in some places. I use it because I really feel uncomfortable with any of the more specific labels, including the alphabet soup ones, but it’s got a problematic history too.

    @ politicalguineapig

    W.T.F.? Can you not use “GLBT” as an exclusive synonym for “gay men” in your bizarre accusations, at least? GLBT = women too.

  446. How can we all believe in God, yet, act in radically different ways as a result?

    Sometimes God’s a good human’s reason. Sometimes God’s an asshole’s excuse.

  447. I don’t even go to church and I know that Christians have been using ‘sin’ as a way to club GLBT people-and everyone else- for at least twenty years.

    Much, much, much, much, much longer than that.

  448. the ones who didn’t have the audacity to show their anger.

    I’m certainly not audacious in any way, and never have been, but I really did think I showed my anger in this thread. More than once.

  449. That must be a really nice cave you’re living in. I don’t even go to church and I know that Christians have been using ‘sin’ as a way to club GLBT people-and everyone else- for at least twenty years. Sheesh.

    Yet I know no one personally who gets triggered by that word. It’s pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black, you’d get a resounding “So the fuck what” out of the people I know in the DMV (DC/MD/VA area) who are LGBTIQ, straight, having premarital sex, had abortions, etc etc. In fact that is the FAVORITE accusation so we can throw it back at their asses. As a Washingtonian the best way I can put it is for us, “it’s not that serious” to be called a sinner BY a sinner and considering that the consensus amongst most Christians is that everyone is a sinner, “it’s not that serious” when ANYONE calls another person a sinner, it’s the same as calling them an imperfect human, which we all are.

    Im not clobbering anyone with anything, Im not responsible for the way someone else uses a word. Sin isn’t a slur, the fact that it’s being used as a slur is horrible. But that would be like a black person going off on somebody for believing EVERYONE evolved from apes and say “You’re calling me a MONKEY, you racist bigot!!” How the fuck, like seriously. The reason monkey became a racist slur is because it was used to say we werent human while non-blacks were. The reason sin has become such a sucky triggering word is because it was used to say “only” those deemed bad by society (not God, but society) were sinners and among other things, likened homosexuality to horrible shit. In other words, homosexuals were sinners and heterosexuals werent. Thats not what the bible says and it’s pretty clear on that. I didnt do that but I’m being treated like that’s what I was saying or implying because other people took a word, manipulated it’s meaning to fullfill their agenda and used it wrong.

    By the way, I was ASKED, after I already said what my definition of sin was, whether or not certain things were sin and then that was spun into something ugly and horrible, that I neither said nor implied, to be *just like* what people who hate homosexuals would and have said. In fact, I was accused of doing that while pointing out that I am the *only one* who includes all sins therefore marks everyone a sinner and *gasps* doesn’t see all sinners as these horrible people who do horrible shit. But my golly I’m still somehow JUST like the people who disagree with me about what sin is and what it means.

    Some Christians in America use the word sin to hurt LGBITQ people. Therefore anyone who uses the word sin, even when they use the word to have a meaning wholly different than those Christians who are trying to hurt or condone hurting LGBITQ people are indeed hurting or condoning LGBITQ people.

    Some Muslims in Sudan use their religion to commit genocide. Does that mean Islam is a threat to black Africans , that being a believer of Islam means condoning the conflict?

    1. Some Christians in America use the word sin to hurt LGBITQ people. Therefore anyone who uses the word sin, even when they use the word to have a meaning wholly different than those Christians who are trying to hurt or condone hurting LGBITQ people are indeed hurting or condoning LGBITQ people.

      Some Muslims in Sudan use their religion to commit genocide. Does that mean Islam is a threat to black Africans , that being a believer of Islam means condoning the conflict?

      No, of course not. But if a believer of Islam, when asked about the genocide, said something like, “Well I personally don’t think it’s right to kill non-Muslims because of my own belief in human rights, so it’s not something I would personally do, but it is what the Koran says to do, and how dare you say that anyone who is simply following the word of God is a bigot?” then I would say, “Wow yeah you are actually kind of condoning genocide there buddy.”

  450. I think it’s possible for one to recognize something as a biblical sin, and still believe that the laws shouldn’t reflect that. I feel like Azalea is getting asked “is homosexuality a sin?” If she reads the Bible, looks for an answer, and comes up with yes, how is that bigoted? It’s asking someone to read something and answer a question based on the reading. (Of course, some people come up with no. It’s obviously open to interpretation).

    It doesn’t necessarily follow that you think that LBGTQ people should be punished as a result. It’s not cognitive dissonance; it’s recognizing that no one should be forced to abide by the laws in the Bible.

    1. I think it’s possible for one to recognize something as a biblical sin, and still believe that the laws shouldn’t reflect that. I feel like Azalea is getting asked “is homosexuality a sin?” If she reads the Bible, looks for an answer, and comes up with yes, how is that bigoted? It’s asking someone to read something and answer a question based on the reading. (Of course, some people come up with no. It’s obviously open to interpretation).

      It’s bigoted because she’s not saying, “This historical text says that being gay is a sin.” She’s saying, “This text, which I believe to be the true word of God who is the arbiter of morality, says being gay is a sin, and so I believe that being gay is a sin.” Sorry, but “my religion says so” is not a get-out-of-bigotry-free card! Religious people who use their Book to justify beating women are misogynists — they aren’t suddenly non-misogynist because they justify their actions with religion. The many slave-owners throughout history (and not just in the U.S.) who used their Book to justify owning other human beings (and the people who weren’t slave-owners themselves but thought slavery was fine because the Book said so) were cruel racist bigots — they aren’t suddenly non-bigots just because they justify their actions with religion. The Mormons who used their Book to block non-whites from joining their church were racist bigots — they aren’t suddenly non-bigots just because they justified their racist views with religion. Religious people who think that men should be in charge of everything and women should not be allowed to work or argue with their husbands or lead men are sexist bigots — they don’t become non-sexist because they can justify their sexism with a religious text. Etc etc etc.

      There’s a difference between saying, “A religious text says this” and “I BELIEVE this because my religious text says so.” Believing is a choice.

      It doesn’t necessarily follow that you think that LBGTQ people should be punished as a result. It’s not cognitive dissonance; it’s recognizing that no one should be forced to abide by the laws in the Bible.

      Well, the Bible actually does say that LGBT people should be punished, so I’d say it’s cognitive dissonance to say that you must unquestioningly follow God when says that The Gay is a sin, but you get to deviate from his Word when it comes to what we should all do about it.

      But that said, yes, I think everyone here understands that Azalea doesn’t want gay people to be punished (at least not by law — God will surely punish them, but hey, that’s not her fault!). The question isn’t whether Azalea thinks gay people should be punished. The question is, does believing that a group of people are by their very identity reprehensible, morally wrong and an affront to God make one a bigot? And a lot of us vote “yes.”

  451. Then why did you bring them up here, in this thread, outside of a religious context, as a reason not to think somebody’s a bigot?

    False. When I brought it up first thing I said was “immoral ACCORDING TO religion” as I was pointing out the personal conflict between what one condones and what their religion condemns.

  452. It interests me greatly to see that Azalea still hasn’t extended an apology to the POC who are QUILTBAGs on this thread. This newfound ability to apologise for being an asshole also apparently extends only to the (AFAIK) white QUILTBAGs.

    You called me a bigot and then went on various rants about me after misconstruing what I said and you want to know why I wont apologize to you?

    Me and tmc never get along on shit, nada, nothing. You came out of nowhere, and Li- I addressed Li already.

    But tmc I was wrong for saying you called me a bigot, it wasn’t you it was macavity. You’re right, that was fucked up. And my debate about sin wasn’t me trying to hurt *you* or LGBITQ people and when I asked you about whether or not I should stop being supportive it was in the context of being *told* that I am not supportive because of my belief on what sin is. I framed it wrong and as a result it was taken wrong.

    Not an asshole, an ass.

  453. I think it’s possible for one to recognize something as a biblical sin, and still believe that the laws shouldn’t reflect that. I feel like Azalea is getting asked “is homosexuality a sin?” If she reads the Bible, looks for an answer, and comes up with yes, how is that bigoted? It’s asking someone to read something and answer a question based on the reading. (Of course, some people come up with no. It’s obviously open to interpretation).

    It doesn’t necessarily follow that you think that LBGTQ people should be punished as a result. It’s not cognitive dissonance; it’s recognizing that no one should be forced to abide by the laws in the Bible.

    THANK YOU A BILLION TIMES OVER!!!!!

    No, of course not. But if a believer of Islam, when asked about the genocide, said something like, “Well I personally don’t think it’s right to kill non-Muslims because of my own belief in human rights, so it’s not something I would personally do, but it is what the Koran says to do, and how dare you say that anyone who is simply following the word of God is a bigot?” then I would say, “Wow yeah you are actually kind of condoning genocide there buddy.”

    Jill,

    The Qu’ran calls for the murder of those who are not Muslim? Is that what the Qu’ran says? Because from what I’ve been told, it does not say that.

    Anyway, I never condoned the murder of sinners in general (just murderers and I admit it is not ok to think that way and I’m still pro death penalty). I never condoned bullying, hurting, chastising sinners. I have said REPEATEDLY and pointed to biblical scripture on forgiveness, love, kindness and humility. So someone pointing to murdering non believers would NOT be saying what I said. So bakc to the analogy, pound for pound with no extras, how is it the same?

  454. I feel like Azalea is getting asked “is homosexuality a sin?” If she reads the Bible, looks for an answer, and comes up with yes, how is that bigoted? It’s asking someone to read something and answer a question based on the reading. (Of course, some people come up with no. It’s obviously open to interpretation).

    It’s that last bit. It’s obviously open to interpretation, and she’s opting for the interpretation that condemns GLBTQ people, and she’s saying that that’s true and OK by her, but somehow that doesn’t make her a bigot. Well, OK. Can we do this with any book? Can I pick up my complete Shakespeare, find some quotation and say “Hey, not my fault, Shakespeare says so?” and expect not to get tagged for bigotry? What makes a religious book so very special that its pages and interpretations double as hall passes for bigotry?

    It’s bigoted because she’s not saying, “This historical text says that being gay is a sin.” She’s saying, “This text, which I believe to be the true word of God who is the arbiter of morality, says being gay is a sin, and so I believe that being gay is a sin.”…There’s a difference between saying, “A religious text says this” and “I BELIEVE this because my religious text says so.”…The question is, does believing that a group of people are by their very identity reprehensible, morally wrong and an affront to God make one a bigot? And a lot of us vote “yes.”

    Yes. Precisely this.

  455. Me and tmc never get along on shit, nada, nothing. You came out of nowhere, and Li- I addressed Li already.

    This is news to me.

    And for the record, I am less interested in getting an apology so much as Azalea stopping with the heterosplaining about how it’s not that big a deal to be called a sinner already. Strangely enough, I’m not actually a fan of the implication that we’re all just too sensitive and don’t get how Azalea is saying that god fundamentally objects to our sexual orientations in a not bad way.

    And seriously, having just come off several hours battling the anti-choicers who have just been allowed to affiliate a “LifeChoice” club to our student union and therefore will now have access to student funds with which to ask pro-choice women if they’re done “murdering innocent people” (stay classy guys, stay classy), I am frankly super grumpy that we are still talking about Azalea’s hurt feelings as a straight person instead of REMEMBER WHEN THIS THREAD WAS ABOUT ATTITUDES TOWARDS REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE? Yeah. Them ones.

  456. You called me a bigot and then went on various rants about me after misconstruing what I said and you want to know why I wont apologize to you?

    I specifically did not call you a bigot. I specifically said that you were apologising for bigotry, but were not yourself a bigot. Becca and I even disagreed on that at #321. But thanks for misrepresenting what I’m saying. Again.

    I don’t want to know why you’re not apologising to me, though. I’m fairly sure it’s because I was neither white nor polite.

    Me and tmc never get along on shit, nada, nothing. You came out of nowhere, and Li- I addressed Li already.

    I didn’t realise you had to agree with someone to apologise for hurting their feelings. I disagreed with many of Miss S’ points; didn’t stop me apologising when I realised I’d misread others.

    Please, continue to display your prejudices.

  457. I am frankly super grumpy that we are still talking about Azalea’s hurt feelings as a straight person instead of REMEMBER WHEN THIS THREAD WAS ABOUT ATTITUDES TOWARDS REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE? Yeah. Them ones.

    Fair enough and sorry, Li. I’ll stop discussing the poor straight Christians’ plight now.

    Would you say that the naming of people who conditionally support abortion as “pro-life” is a factor in more people being unwilling to speak up about being pro-choice? I’d be a lot more chary about speaking up about being pro-choice if I felt very few people shared my views. (Or, conversely, if I gave a flying fuck what some religious chucklefucks think I should do with my uterus.)

  458. I absolutely refuse, and have forever, to call people like that “pro-life.” I usually use the term “anti-choice,” or, if I’m especially uncharitable, I call them “forced birthers.”

  459. I’m always uncharitable. Forced birthers. It really annoys members of my family so I know its good.

  460. I absolutely refuse, and have forever, to call people like that “pro-life.” I usually use the term “anti-choice,” or, if I’m especially uncharitable, I call them “forced birthers.”

    Yep, which is why I put “pro-life” in quotes. Usually I call them forced-birthers, but I was using the language of the poll – which is horrifically misleading itself.

    Honestly? As a heavily lesbian-leaning person with massive issues surrounding pregnancy/birth/reproduction, moving to a country where abortion is legal was this massive rise in security for me. I know for a goddamn fact that any pregnancy I have would be unwanted, and (considering my paranoia about sex) most likely the consequence of rape. Fuck me but I’m glad I have this right and I will fight to the fucking death for other uterus-bearers (and frankly others too – who wants to be raped and then wind up having to see their rapist for 18 years just because she bore their child and they’re not willing to abandon it?) to also have this right.

  461. I should clarify that I am less worried about queer people getting what they need out of the derail so much as Azalea prolonging it by continuing to dig.

    And I really don’t know. I’m actually impressed at how many people are actually willing to take a strong stand for choice on campus at the moment: we already have almost 1000 online petition sigs (granted, not all of whom are necessarily Sydney uni students, but it’s a strong start for the numbers we need for an extraordinary general meeting once we begin collecting paper signatures).

    It’s also contextually pretty different in Australia because we haven’t had the strong anti-abortion pushes the US has seen recently, so I suspect our numbers if a similar survey was done here would be very different.

    Still, I think a lot of the discussion we’ve been having so far has revealed that IDing as pro-choice can come with some pretty serious pushback from committed anti-choicers. Only a day into what promises to be weeks of internet slanging matches and it’s already clear that my lack of womb is insulating me from a lot of the worst stuff, and I think I’d be much more reticent to talk about being pro-choice if I had to deal with the kind of extreme rhetoric that’s been hurled at the pro-choice women who have made even casual comments. That is, it’s not so much there not being other pro-choice people around so much as publicly revealing that you are pro-choice, especially as a woman can, sometimes mean being labelled a baby killing whore. Safer to be ‘pro-life’ but believe in abortion access.

  462. Well, the Bible actually does say that LGBT people should be punished, so I’d say it’s cognitive dissonance to say that you must unquestioningly follow God when says that The Gay is a sin, but you get to deviate from his Word when it comes to what we should all do about it.

    Well then a lot of Christians are practicing a lot of cognitive dissonance. It says that shellfish is a sin, but I worked at a restaurant in a fairly religious town, and they all ate shellfish. I don’t know anyone who lives according to everything the Bible dictates. Isn’t there something about mixed cloths? Pretty much everyone I know violates that. You’re acting like the definition of Christian is to follow the Bible exactly, but in my experience, that’s not true. I don’t know anybody doing that. I’m sure they exist, but I’ve never seen it practiced that way.

    People do, in fact, get to deviate from the words in the Bible. What’s stopping them?

  463. People do, in fact, get to deviate from the words in the Bible. What’s stopping them?

    This, this, this, Miss S. Thank you.

    Homophobes cherrypicking Leviticus: they’re just so shellfish about it.

  464. It really annoys members of my family so I know its good.

    *giggle* I’m so glad I’m not the only one who does this.

    I only ever had the “abortion discussion” with my parents once. My mother said she was forced-birth (except she didn’t want to _force_ anyone so I don’t even know how that works) and my dad said he was pro people doing whatever the hell they want with themselves.

    ….I love my dad.

  465. Me and tmc never get along on shit, nada, nothing.

    Huh? Are you sure you’re not mixing me up with someone else? I don’t honestly remember ever talking to you before this discussion. The last person I got into it with on this site was R. Dave, and before that, matlun. I lurk 95% of the time so if there’s some kind of history between us, I’m completely unaware of it.

  466. The more I think about it, the more positive I am that you are mistaking me for someone else (who you apparently do not get along with). I haven’t been posting on this site for very long, and you and I have definitely never butt heads before.

  467. This was nothing more than an opportunity to call me a bad name and you jumped on it.

    This statement suddenly makes a lot more sense. I had no idea why you thought I would jump at the chance to disrespect you.

  468. EG: Actually it does make sense; the march for women’s voting rights got derailed because of the 14th amendment and the uptick in prudery that followed the Civil War. The Equal Rights Amendment was voted down because all of the power brokers had been shamed into voting for the Civil Rights Act and they needed a new pinata. Everything’s related.

    Azalea:Yet I know no one personally who gets triggered by that word. It’s pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black, you’d get a resounding “So the fuck what” out of the people I know in the DMV (DC/MD/VA area) who are LGBTIQ, straight, having premarital sex, had abortions, etc etc.

    Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons. A lot of LGBT people grow up in the Bible belt (which D.C. ain’t.) and get hit with the sin club every day of their lives. I would never call anyone a sinner, because I don’t know their lives, and throwing that around might be extremely hurtful. Unlike you, I prefer to err on the side of empathy. I do not assume that the experiences I have in the state I live in will be the same for everyone EVERYWHERE. It’s really disingenous- and annoying- to pretend that DC is the same as say, Texas, Hell Michigan, or Hicksville Kentucky.

  469. I’m sorry, I know I’m really late to this conversation, but I felt the need to speak up because it’s relevant to my life right now. Specifically, Azalea, your friend sounds a lot like my mother.

    I realized that I was a trans woman and a lesbian about a month ago, and I haven’t really come out to anyone about it yet because I’m trying to figure out the best strategy for that. One of the things I’m trying to figure out is how to come out to my mother. She is a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin, and yet she is also a kind and loving person who I believe will love and support me the way your friend supports her son. And yet because she believes that homosexuality is a sin, it means that I can’t come out to her yet because no matter how much she loves me she will still believe that I am wrong somehow, that my very existence is offensive to God.

    This is why people are coming down on you so hard, Azalea. “Homosexuality is a sin” isn’t a belief that is free of judgement or has no relevance outside of religion. It is POISON. It’s a poison that keeps LGBT people down, that keeps us in the closet, that drives some of us to suicide, and all the love and support in the world won’t wash that poison away.

  470. When I brought it up first thing I said was “immoral ACCORDING TO religion” as I was pointing out the personal conflict between what one condones and what their religion condemns.

    Sure. But then you also said that a whole bunch of us here outside of that particular religion should give somebody who believes that being gay is immoral because their religion says so a pass on bigotry. Given that this religions language is, by your lights, meaningless outside of a religious context, why on earth should any of us take it into account when deciding whether or not somebody’s a bigot?

  471. In other words, you can’t have it both ways. If religious language and concepts are meaningless outside of a religious context, then they’re meaningless when I decide whether or not somebody is a bigot. They’re not meaningless when you want them to be and significant in order to give your friend a pass. It’s one or the other.

  472. And she still hasn’t acknowledged or apologized for the fact that she accused me of shit that I didn’t do.

    tmc, if it makes you feel any better, Azalea has been ignoring entirely every single thing I’ve said to her (and some of the things I said to her were actually nice) since she handwaved me away back at comment 83 with her statement “the rest of the conversation is moot.” I assume everything I’ve been saying since then is moot also. Oh, and Azalea. . .since you’ve already misfired twice. . .I’ll help you out and mention that nope, it wasn’t tmc, and nope, it wasn’t macavitykitsune. . .actually I was the one who called you a bigot. So you ARE apparently reading at least some of my comments even if you aren’t responding to them because you did pick up that someone or other called you a bigot in this thread. Hard telling us queers apart, I know.

  473. Hey, maybe we should cut Azalea some slack for her bizarre and offensive intellectual contortions around sin. You know? This is a confusing time for her. She can’t remember which queer it was that called her a bigot. She thinks she responded to Li when she didn’t. She perceives tmc as some sort of arch-nemesis of hers when, in fact, this is the first time she and tmc have even talked (Azalea kinda remind me of the Monarch from The Venture Brothers).

    Azalea has dipped her toes in our sinful realm, and now she can’t tell up from down. Run Azalea! Get out while you still can!!! The QUILTBAG children of the Father of Lies are dragging you into our bottomless pit of confusion!

  474. Coming to this thread late, but it took me awhile to read and process.

    Some Christians in America use the word sin to hurt LGBITQ people. Therefore anyone who uses the word sin, even when they use the word to have a meaning wholly different than those Christians who are trying to hurt or condone hurting LGBITQ people are indeed hurting or condoning LGBITQ people.

    Azalea said this several comments ago, like she was in disbelief that this could be the case…But it’s true. Azalea, language has power. “Sin” is often used in a condemnatory, hurtful way; you can’t divorce it from its context, particularly when that context is the dominant worldview (as it is in America).

    I understand you may not perceive “sin” in that way, but the actual, lived experiences of many of us QUILTBAG folks should be evidence enough for you to reconsider. As others have said, please stop and listen to those of us who have experienced the pain. Whether or not you meant your use of “sin” to be connected to hundreds of years of QUILTBAG bigotry and pain, it is.

    Then Jill said:
    The question is, does believing that a group of people are by their very identity reprehensible, morally wrong and an affront to God make one a bigot? And a lot of us vote “yes.”

    What if a religion said that women, by their very identity, are reprehensible, morally wrong and an affront to God? Just being a woman, who you are, is a “sin”? Would that religion be misogynistic?

    Yes. If I thought women weren’t, just for being women, morally wrong, I’d have to question my religion. Maybe that’s a tenet I could no longer believe in. Maybe I’d question how and why that tenet came to be. Maybe I’d see if there was another interpretation (perhaps one that was historically and culturally contextual). What I couldn’t do is hold two diametrically opposed ideas in my head: that women are not morally repugnant and that women are morally repugnant.

  475. Koach: What if a religion said that women, by their very identity, are reprehensible, morally wrong and an affront to God? Just being a woman, who you are, is a “sin”?

    I hate to point it out, but that’s actually a central tenet of the Abrahamic religions. Most Christians and Muslims still believe it, but it seems to have been toned down in mainstream Judiasm- at least outside of Isreal.

  477. Yeah, I know, I was just trying to use an example of an innate, non-race characteristic.

    It also occurred to me that Azalea’s description of how she and her friends use the word “sinner” is an in-group thing. My lesbian friends and I might lovingly, laughingly refer to one another as “dyke,” but outside of those relationships, where the word has a specific context, I’m damn careful with that word. It can be, and has been, very hurtful. Doesn’t seem like a difficult concept to me.

  478. For those of you still hanging around, check out this article. Boo for the Vatican being pompous a-holes, yay for Sister Farley writing a book exploring theological rationales for same-sex relationships, masturbation and remarriage after divorce.

    Nice to know there are some decent, critical-thinking christians out there.

Comments are currently closed.