A Change of Protocols for the Tol Eressëa Forum

[Pearly Di]

Di and Cerin, I am very sorry for the initial hurt caused by my statements. Your interpretation was so far from my intended meaning that it took several posts for me to understand what clarification you were seeking.

Jn, it's OK I am sorry to bring it up again. And in fact it was another poster's remarks, rather than yours, that caused me the most discomfort.

It's over now.

But for me, that view (love homosexuals, hate homosexuality) is absolutely, positively, 150 percent disingenuous. I cannot see it as kind, loving, caring, or Jesus-like for heterosexuals to see a caring, loving, committed, monogamous gay or lesbian couple, each of whom would die for their partner, and to decry their love, union, and commitment as "evil". That's not love; that's hate.

(((Nel))))

I have certainly met gay-bashers in the Christian community and they get a very stern telling off from me when they express their views.

However ... not all Christians who disagree with homosexual sex actually HATE homosexuals. The language is too strong here. (Yes, I'm aware that applies just as equally to the other side.) OK, 'hate' is too strong to apply to every Christian who would hold this view (although sadly it would certainly apply to some).

I think there's a parallel here with adultery. After all, you can love a friend who is in an adulterous relationship without actually approving the adulterous relationship.

It's not a very good parallel, I grant you, because homosexuality is entirely to do with someone's identity, whereas nobody is born an adulterer. So, um ... yeah.

Anyway. Just thought I'd make the point. The point being that a strong opinion on this might make someone very prejudiced, but they're not necessarily being disingenuous.

Hope this isn't osgiliating too much ...

[yovargas]

tp, while I can't really disagree with anything in particular in your post (well, I could if I tried harder ), it leads to what is for me a pretty uncomfortable conclusion: there are quite a few Christians on this board, some which I imagine think homosexuality is a sin, and yet they are forbidden to speak this belief? That makes me very uncomfortable. I think gay life is okay, someone else thinks it's not okay. Why do I get to express my view but the other person does not?

[Pearly Di]

I get the feeling we're going round in circles here.

I'm not gonna say any more, except that Jewelsong is a big ol' schmooze and that I'm handing out hugs.

[The Watcher]

The very fact that THIS thread is as opinionated as it is and has remained civil and courteous shows that relaxed rules can and do indeed work.

People are fascinated by the topics of religion, faith, spirituality, and philosophy. I do not claim to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan, etc., but I certainly love to discuss such things. Merely because one observes something that might be held contrary to the reader does not mean an attack on or disparagement of the reader's beliefs.

If someone came flat out and said that agnostics would go to hell because they have rejected God, it would not offend me, because I do not believe in that God. So, I try to see it from the other POVs as well. But, merely questioning something or observing something is hardly a criticism.

Put it this way, if you are truly secure in your own beliefs, you either accept the criticisms as valid, or you are able to defend your beliefs and show where the confusion lies. Or, you ignore it. Not all religions are compatable, and history is a very poor record for many of the things that so many of us might wish to hold dear. So, in that regard, it often DOES come down to a matter of faith or a willing suspension of disbelief. There is very little record of human affairs that we can show true when it comes down to individuals and what truly occurred. The same holds true in terms of what the divine intended, conveyed to mankind, and who has interpreted it correctly, if at all. Otherwise, why so many different variations, all claiming exclusivity from all the rest?

I sadly guess at the end of the day that we ALL have gotten it mostly wrong. But, there again, that is only my opinion.

[Pearly Di]

The very fact that THIS thread is as opinionated as it is and has remained civil and courteous shows that relaxed rules can and do indeed work.

Merely because one observes something that might be held contrary to the reader does not mean an attack on or disparagement of the reader's beliefs.

Absolutely.

What tripped me up was the feeling of personal hostility that came across here and there. It was veiled hostility, rather than open, and that in some ways is a lot more difficult to deal with. You then start getting paranoid.

When I think of the religious debates on Manwë, boy they were something. (I very rarely joined in.) But there was, if memory serves me right - very little in the way of PERSONAL ATTACK. Or am I wearing rose-coloured glasses????

[nerdanel]

yov, I never spoke of people being disallowed from expressing their beliefs; I merely stated how I perceived those beliefs. I have no power on this board or in real life to keep people from expressing anti-gay views, and if I did, I would not use it in either case. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think that free speech is a near absolute value.

I am absolutely certain that there are members here who believe that homosexuality is wrong and that "practicing homosexuals" are sinners. Hate the sin, love the sinner. It is my personal belief (which surely is as entitled to respect as any other personal belief) that such a view is bigoted (according to the dictionary definition of "intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices"), whether or not it has religious antecedents. Fortunately, I too have an analogous policy, which I call, "Hate the bigotry, love the bigot." It's possible that some people will object to characterization of their beliefs on homosexuality as "bigoted" - but then, I object to characterization of homosexuality as "sinful".

It's my hope that I can politely and civilly accept their love of me as a sinner, and they can politely and civilly accept my love of them as a bigot. They may not like it that I believe that a religious belief of theirs makes them a bigot, but I do not like it that a deeply, deeply rooted part of my identity qualifies me for the designation of sinner. Thus phrased, it seems that we're on equal footing with each other. In my personal opinion, neither of us should be precluded from expressing these beliefs, as a simple matter of discussion and free speech. We're all adults, and can be polite to people who do or believe things that we believe are wrong.

Di - thank you for the hug.

I can only ask you to imagine yourself in the most loving, profound relationship of your life, and imagine what it would be for millions upon millions of people worldwide to decry your love, everything you feel for your partner, as "sinful" and "evil" - often, with the force of law behind them. For those people to speak (often crudely) about the mechanics of your sexual union with your partner and announce that THAT is evil.

Having pictured yourself in such a deeply moving (and yet, so fiercely condemned by third parties) relationship, imagine hearing it (your wholesome love for this person) even partially analogized to adultery. Yes, you can love a friend who does bad things - whether adultery, embezzlement, grand larceny, or heck, flat-out murder. But homosexuality - something inherent, loving, consensual, and non-criminal - in the very most important relationship of your friend's life? That shouldn't be on the list of things that you can love your friend "despite". Can you imagine the pain that your hypothetical friend would feel at that "despite"?

As a native Virginian, I'm reminded that mere decades ago, many people in my home state believed, on both religious and non-religious grounds, that there was something wrong and immoral about a white person loving, marrying, and reproducing with a non-white person. Indeed, I'm reminded that my beloved home state used to imprison such people (who were commonly thought to be sinners) for a year or more. I'm sure that then, too, people believed that they were hating the sin and loving the sinner in condemning those relationships and believing them worthy of punishment, Di. But is it not blatantly obvious in retrospect that it WAS hate (whether or not religiously motivated) that made people so vociferously attack and fear interracial unions?

EDIT to reduce the severity of my words on adultery

[Voronwë the Faithful]

When I think of the religious debates on Manwë, boy they were something. (I very rarely joined in.) But there was, if memory serves me right - very little in the way of PERSONAL ATTACK. Or am I wearing rose-coloured glasses????

[yovargas]

yov, I never spoke of people being disallowed from expressing their beliefs; I merely stated how I perceived those beliefs. I have no power on this board or in real life to keep people from expressing anti-gay views, and if I did, I would not use it in either case. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think that free speech is a near absolute value.

I am absolutely certain that there are members here who believe that homosexuality is wrong and that "practicing homosexuals" are sinners. Hate the sin, love the sinner. It is my personal belief (which surely is as entitled to respect as any other personal belief) that such a view is bigoted (according to the dictionary definition of "intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices"), whether or not it has religious antecedents. Fortunately, I too have an analogous policy, which I call, "Hate the bigotry, love the bigot." It's possible that some people will object to characterization of their beliefs on homosexuality as "bigoted" - but then, I object to characterization of homosexuality as "sinful".

It's my hope that I can politely and civilly accept their love of me as a sinner, and they can politely and civilly accept my love of them as a bigot. They may not like it that I believe that a religious belief of theirs makes them a bigot, but I do not like it that a deeply, deeply rooted part of my identity qualifies me for the designation of sinner. Thus phrased, it seems that we're on equal footing with each other. In my personal opinion, neither of us should be precluded from expressing these beliefs, as a simple matter of discussion and free speech. We're all adults, and can be polite to people who do or believe things that we believe are wrong.

Ah, so we're on the same page after all.

Or IOW, what she said.
(though I wouldn't choose bigot as the descriptor)

[Pearly Di]

Rose-coloured specs ... errrr, OK.

I never posted much in Manwë ... it was a scary place. Much scarier than silly ding-dongs about purists and revisionists.

Nel ... sorry if I was coming over as insensitive. I have gay friends who are in committed relationships and gay friends who are celibate and one friend who was sexually attracted to men but much more emotionally attracted to women (and had sexual relationships with those women) but is now married with a child and has no regrets. I'm not sure where she would fit on the spectrum.

I think homosexuality is a complex thing, because human sexuality is a complex thing. At least one gay friend of mine maintains that you're either gay or straight; I think the reality is a lot more complex for some people than that. Some people are not quite sure where they fit on the spectrum. Etcetera.

I agree with you about the racism being hate - oh yes, it certainly was.

I can imagine the pain. (((((Nel))))))

[Holbytla]

There are some interesting topics popping up here and I wish some people (TP, Yov, Di) would start some threads regarding them.
I have some questions and comments regarding those subjects, but I fear the ever looming split coming upon us.

[yovargas]

Weeeeell, why don't you just start a thread about it since you know what it is you wanna talk about, eh?

(The thread better not be about how swoonable you are. That info is confidential.)

[The Watcher]

When I think of the religious debates on Manwë, boy they were something. (I very rarely joined in.) But there was, if memory serves me right - very little in the way of PERSONAL ATTACK. Or am I wearing rose-coloured glasses????

Hey - no fair criticizing if you chose to hang on the sidelines. Yes, there were a few heated debates where SOME participants chose to get ugly. By and far, that was NOT the case. Some very close board freindships grew out of some of those debates - my very dear Manweistas, to name just one handful. I also do tend to remember the overall debates more as Di does. I like to think we debated ideas and constructs, not personal beliefs.

:D

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There are some interesting topics popping up here and I wish some people (TP, Yov, Di) would start some threads regarding them.
I have some questions and comments regarding those subjects, but I fear the ever looming split coming upon us.

If it makes you feel any better, holby, I don't really see any way to split off any of those topics. But I do think that it would be great if people started specific threads about them. How 'bout it, guys?

[narya]

"Hate the bigotry, love the bigot."

I've had to do that, by loving my bigoted in-laws. All I could do is let them know I disagreed with them and found their "jokes" highly offensive.

It's becoming very clear to me, through this discussion, that the definition of religion, at its simplest form, is the definition of what is right. Religion defines, for its adherants, what is the right way to treat other people, what is the right way to conduct one's affairs, what is the right thing to do, what is the right thing to say. In some religions, it is very clearly stated in extreme detail, which can be a comfort, as long as you are capable of, and desirous of following those rules. For some religions, there is pleasure in studying the righteous path in more detail, even debating with others the fine nuances of rightness. For some, "right" is more fluid and dependent upon the circumstances and the overall "rightness" of outcome. Sadly, we all have a slightly different take on "right", even within our respective religions.

for someone who may be lurking here and reading the harsh words about adultery. In theory, I don't promote the break up of marriages, but in reality, half the marriages composed of two imperfect people will crumble in some fashion or another. Whether a third party is involved early or late in the death of the marriage, it is hardly my place to cast aspersions and make broad statements. The more I know about the trials of individual people, and the personal hells they go through, the more compassion I have felt. I became much more compassionate and unjudgemental towards all homosexuals when I found out my uncle, whom I love dearly, is gay. I have become more compassionate and unjudgemental towards people in troubled marriages after having come to know and care about people on all sides of the issue. So I think I'll just stick with "Love the person" and leave it at that.

[Erunáme]

Excellent post, narya.

[WampusCat]

Reading through this thread, I shuddered when I came to the suggestion of all-Christian, all-Jewish, etc. threads. I thank God -- without disparaging any other faiths or philosophies -- that this idea sank.

Christianity is not monolithic. I am Christian through and through, but I disagree with much traditional dogma. In fact, I share more viewpoints with a close friend who is training to be a rabbi than I do with many Christians I know. So where would I fit in such a scheme?

I find it hard to look down on anyone's beliefs because I am convinced that God is far bigger than any of our concepts. Is there real truth as opposed to whatever-you-believe-is-OK? Yes. But any human or human belief system can only grasp a tiny part of that truth. If I can get a glimpse of the truth you have found, and I share what truth I have found, we are both enlightened.

I think our notRangers have done all they could do, and the rest is up to us. I hope we can continue to discuss these matters with thick skins and tender hearts.

[JewelSong]

Christianity is not monolithic. I am Christian through and through, but I disagree with much traditional dogma. In fact, I share more viewpoints with a close friend who is training to be a rabbi than I do with many Christians I know. So where would I fit in such a scheme?

I find it hard to look down on anyone's beliefs because I am convinced that God is far bigger than any of our concepts. Is there real truth as opposed to whatever-you-believe-is-OK? Yes. But any human or human belief system can only grasp a tiny part of that truth. If I can get a glimpse of the truth you have found, and I share what truth I have found, we are both enlightened.
.

WampusCat speaks my mind.

Perfectly.

[Impenitent]

Well, seeing I'm so shocking and offensive, I hereby withdraw my membership of this board.

I'll inactivate myself as soon as this is posted.

[Cerin]

But for me, that view (love homosexuals, hate homosexuality) is absolutely, positively, 150 percent disingenuous.

nel, I appreciate you saying that for you that view is disingenuous. It would be another thing to state that others were being disingenuous in holding that view.

I cannot see it as kind, loving, caring, or Jesus-like for heterosexuals to see a caring, loving, committed, monogamous gay or lesbian couple, each of whom would die for their partner, and to decry their love, union, and commitment as "evil". That's not love; that's hate.

No, it isn't hate. But I think I understand that you're saying it seems hateful to you. (And according to my understanding, it would not be their love and commitment that was viewed as sinful, but only their sexual activities.)

"I don't hate women. It's not their fault that they have breasts, a vulva, a vagina, a uterus, a clitoris. They were just born that way. But if they actually act on the fact that they have these things - use them for sexual pleasure (despite the fact that using them is the only way they can achieve sexual pleasure), then that's evil and sinful and wrong."

If they use them for sexual pleasure outside of marriage with male partners, many of the same people who consider homosexual practices wrong would also consider these actions wrong. But that wouldn't mean they hate women who are sexually active outside of marriage. They just have an opinion about the rightness of what they're doing. You really can love people while believing the choices they make are morally wrong.

I am absolutely certain that there are members here who believe that homosexuality is wrong and that "practicing homosexuals" are sinners.

I think practicing homosexuals and everyone else on this board are sinners (including me, of course).

And I love everyone of us.

but I do not like it that a deeply, deeply rooted part of my identity qualifies me for the designation of sinner.

It is not a deeply rooted part of your identity that qualifies you as a sinner; it is the sinful things you do. I imagine we all sin multitudinous times a day. You'd be just as much a sinner whatever your sexual orientation.


Imp, something you said once was offensive to some people in the way they understood it. Big deal. I'm over it, Di said she is over it. I brought it up in order to explain a very serious misconception Jn was apparently laboring under, which was extremely important to me that she not continue to labor under.

You're not the only person to inadvertently give offense on a messageboard (to put it mildly). It doesn't mean you have to leave, for goodness' sake. I think you are an absolutely tremendous person and I enjoy your company and admire you terrifically.

[The Watcher]

Certainly, if giving perceived offense on messageboards were a reason to stop posting, I doubt very many of us would be posting at all anywhere. The Christians, those that seem to be sinners, people of other persuasions, those who think that they are right at all costs, those that apologize profusely, etc.

At the end of the day, we are all in the same boat, and a whole bunch of old adages keep popping into my head - things about glass houses, throwing stones, judge not that ye be judged, presuming to know the mind of G-D, etc.