Pet Fundies

[yewchapel]

I don't know anniec...I have atheist friends I have more in common with than my conservative evangelical friends (and not all evangelicals ARE fundie or even conservative, I know liberal pro-gay evangelicals). My best friend is another Christian, but is from a very different tradition of it - it's not being Christians that makes us best friends. Despite being a Christian, I have similar experiences to you with conservative evangelical friends from a previous church of mine, and a lot of my really, really great, would-call-in-a-crisis friends are not Christians. So...I don't know. My politics makes more of a difference in terms of friendships. YMMV, obviously.

[Guest Anonymous]

But is racist analogous to homophobe? This is a deeper question that probes into definitions of homophobia. I know completely kind and humane people of religious orthodoxy (any religious orthodoxy) who would treat gay people in their social encounters with respect but who say, 'according to my interpretation of scripture, I cannot condone homosexual acts'. Now, I think they are wrong: both morally and exegetically. And I think their opinions can be harmful at a larger scale but that doesn't make them evil or unworthy of my friendship. In fact, it invites me to talk to them about those very issues. I think that is markedly different from a hateful racist who spews pseudo-scientific nonsense and who is not open to having that conversation and who is actively harming people on account of his beliefs.

I wonder if a cultural/age difference perhaps for some of our difference in experience/perception?

You seem to be setting up a dichotomy between a 'friendly' homophobe vs a 'hateful racist, with a premise that some homophobes can be 'nice' people but all racists are hateful. My experience is that both 'friendly' and 'hateful' versions of each kind have always existed, but the 'friendly' types can only maintain a prominent public face while there is general and widespread public acceptance of them. Given the earlier start to the fight against racism, you will now not see as many people spouting openly racist platitudes as you will find 'friendly' homophobes doing the same, but those people exist and have existed in their droves until the last couple of decades. Several elderly people in my own family would fall into the exact same category that you have set up for 'friendly homophobes' but in their case the issue is race. "I have nothing against black people and always treat them with respect but I just don't think black people should marry white people. There is nothing wrong with them but I don't think it is fair on the children" was a popular refrain from my 70s/80s childhood. How is that different to the homophobe of this decade who has no objection to homosexual people but doesn't agree with them having sex? How can either of those attitudes and behaviours NOT be harmful to the people who hear and are affected by them? How then, can you consider people who espouse those views towards gay people be "completely kind and humane"?

Of course I vehemently disagree with them. Of course I think they're deluded and potentially harmful in some cases. Of course I cannot understand how they can completely misconstrue feminism (again, not a monolith), socialism (not a monolith either), science or sexual rights. But I am also a person of faith who struggles with her own holy scriptures, including the messy, uncomfortable bits that they seize upon. It's fascinating to see them pursue an exegetical agenda that runs so counter to mine based on the same source texts.

In any case, though, I think we have a fairly substantial difference of opinion over what constitutes a friend. While I am OK with being challenged by friends, and don't expect them to blow sunshine up my on a daily basis, I'd be quite upset to think that anyone would try to befriend me, despite thinking me to be 'deluded and potentially harmful'. It is beginning to sound to me as though your pet fundies are actually more like pet projects.....

Edited for riffles

[Soldier of the One]

SotO, something that interests me about your perspective is that you seem to be talking mostly in the past tense about having had friendships with fundies. Have you maintained those friendships into the present? Would you say you are as close to them as you are to your non-fundie friends? Are they people you would turn to in a crisis and/or call up to share your current personal life issues and/or feel that you just have to share something with them that you saw on the news today? What kind of friendship is it?

It runs the gamut, really. I just have a diverse group of friends and even within that definition, there's diversity. There are friends and friends. I've broken off some fundie friendships in the past. Most notably with an Evangelical who basically told me I was going to hell. I was actually kind of OK with that part (because it was part of his theology and not a personal judgment of me as a human being. 'Going to hell' comes with being Jewish). But when he started attacking my personality and calling me arrogant for not accepting Christ, he crossed a line and I broke it off. Because they it became personal and he undermined my dignity - a different matter altogether from a theological difference.

I've broken off Jewish fundie contacts/friendships over offensive stuff said about Palestinians but mostly these were superficial facebook contacts. I have a zero tolerance fb policy: no racism whatsoever on my wall. You trespass, you get banned :)

I've had longstanding friendships with people who become fundie over time so it was more of sticking with it and redressing the new balance.

I'm friends with fundie atheists who think I am deluded for believing in my Imaginary Friend in the Sky and who can be pretty offensive about that. But we're still friends.

I'm friends with Muslim fundies (of varying degrees) who bond with me over a shared minority experience and theological principles but I know we would strongly disagree on any number of other issues (including homosexuality and possibly certain aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

So yes, I've lost friends and gained them. I think it's more of a personal dynamic thing. If the 'fundie' in question is willing to keep an open mind, so am I. I clash more people people (regardless of worldview) who make snap judgments and who are unkind than people I disagree with.

As for banning/breaking off contacts: mostly with ultra-rightwing Jews, actually. I guess I find fundies of my own circle most insufferable :)

Hope this helps!

[Guest Anonymous]

I've broken off some fundie friendships in the past. Most notably with an Evangelical who basically told me I was going to hell. I was actually kind of OK with that part (because it was part of his theology and not a personal judgment of me as a human being. 'Going to hell' comes with being Jewish). But when he started attacking my personality and calling me arrogant for not accepting Christ, he crossed a line and I broke it off. Because they it became personal and he undermined my dignity - a different matter altogether from a theological difference.

So you broke off a relationship when the difference in your beliefs led to a personal attack and undermined your dignity, but you consider other friends to be 'completely kind and humane' despite their expressed views that they do not think homosexual people should have sex.....

[Soldier of the One]

I wonder if a cultural/age difference perhaps for some of our difference in experience/perception?

You seem to be setting up a dichotomy between a 'friendly' homophobe vs a 'hateful racist, with a premise that some homophobes can be 'nice' people but all racists are hateful. My experience is that both 'friendly' and 'hateful' versions of each kind have always existed, but the 'friendly' types can only maintain a prominent public face while there is general and widespread public acceptance of them. Given the earlier start to the fight against racism, you will now not see as many people spouting openly racist platitudes as you will find 'friendly' homophobes doing the same, but those people exist and have existed in their droves until the last couple of decades. Several elderly people in my own family would fall into the exact same category that you have set up for 'friendly homophobes' but in their case the issue is race. "I have nothing against black people and always treat them with respect but I just don't think black people should marry white people. There is nothing wrong with them but I don't think it is fair on the children" was a popular refrain from my 70s/80s childhood. How is that different to the homophobe of this decade who has no objection to homosexual people but doesn't agree with them having sex? How can either of those attitudes and behaviours NOT be harmful to the people who hear and are affected by them? How then, can you consider people who espouse those views towards gay people be "completely kind and humane"?

In any case, though, I think we have a fairly substantial difference of opinion over what constitutes a friend. While I am OK with being challenged by friends, and don't expect them to blow sunshine up my on a daily basis, I'd be quite upset to think that anyone would try to befriend me, despite thinking me to be 'deluded and potentially harmful'. It is beginning to sound to me as though your pet fundies are actually more like pet projects.....

Edited for riffles

You know, I have a hard time putting a finger on it but I do think there's a difference between someone who personally/religiously disapproves of a sexual identity and an active racist. Both are despicable to me, but also different. Maybe it is cultural and personal as well. I've had to engage a lot more with homophobes than with racists so racism is a more abstract thing to me. Also more triggering and easier to hate. There are homophobes in my very close surroundings and I guess I just have to deal with them. Added to that, I do think there are shades of grey in that too - like the example I mentioned. There's a world of difference between WBC and the Orthodox believer quietly living their life and saying, 'I don't want to demonize gays but religiously, I cannot support their choices'. Is it wrong and limiting? Sure. But knowing human nature, we have all sorts of judgments. Is it wrong and limiting for someone to tell me I will burn in hell for not accepting Christ? Sure. And X, Y and Z. I guess I am just not expecting to please all the people all the time.

As for pet fundies/pet projects... well, I am a bit of a missionary for what I believe to be right but prefer to practice it in quiet ways. I like the idea of living by example and so I try to do that. If I can open someone's mind - great. If I can't - too bad, but I still might have learnt something about human nature and a different perspective in the process. There are a few deep friendships that I have with Ultra-Orthodox Jews where we've simply stopped rehashing all that stuff and just accept each other as we are and so that definitely isn't a project. But if I correspond with a random blogger online, yes then it is. They try to proselytize too, so it's fair game for me to try and win them over to my perspective, yes? It's interesting and entertaining to me and I am not terribly emotionally invested in it. I just like people and find them fascinating - warts and all.

[yewchapel]

I don't think a belief that homosexual sex is wrong is fundie, just conservative Christian - but it's still wrong, because even though plenty of people who believe that wouldn't treat a gay person they knew badly, the belief is still derived from homophobia. It's essentially believing that homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual ones. It's like with smacking children - people who smack their children are often nice people, but smacking is still wrong and their niceness doesn't take that away.

I used to believe that I wasn't able to be a Christian and also not opposed to homosexual sex/other gay rights, but that's just not true. Myself and plenty of other Christians are pro-gay. So why can't the homophobic Christians change if we can?

[Soldier of the One]

So you broke off a relationship when the difference in your beliefs led to a personal attack and undermined your dignity, but you consider other friends to be 'completely kind and humane' despite their expressed views that they do not think homosexual people should have sex.....

I don't see the difference. This guy thought in a very real, existential way that I was damned. I chose to maintain that contact as long as we could find a modus vivendi. The cut-off point for me was when he started villifying me as a person, not as a believer/practitioner of another doctrine. I apply the same rule to homophobes: they might existentially disapprove of gay relationships but if we can find a modus vivendi, great. If they start calling someone a dirty, arrogant faggot, that's the end of it.

Why is condemning my soul to hell any less discriminatory than condemning a homosexual's soul to hell? They are both flawed theologies. People are entitled to them and I will debate them, that's the deal. If this can be civil, great. Greatest chance you might actually get somewhere in a debate.

Look, AnnieC - I appreciate you debating me over this and I am happy to receive your criticism... but like Valsa, we might never agree on this particular issue :) I live in a very specific set of circumstances (that I do not wish to discuss online) which inform my conduct and my approach. Again, I'd never intend to hurt, harm or criticize anyone through that but it is what it is. That's my reality and I have to deal with it.

[yewchapel]

Existentially disapproving of people is dehumanising them.

[Soldier of the One]

I don't think a belief that homosexual sex is wrong is fundie, just conservative Christian - but it's still wrong, because even though plenty of people who believe that wouldn't treat a gay person they knew badly, the belief is still derived from homophobia. It's essentially believing that homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual ones. It's like with smacking children - people who smack their children are often nice people, but smacking is still wrong and their niceness doesn't take that away.

I used to believe that I wasn't able to be a Christian and also not opposed to homosexual sex/other gay rights, but that's just not true. Myself and plenty of other Christians are pro-gay. So why can't the homophobic Christians change if we can?

Yewchapel, you've really hit all the 'OMG let's discuss cultural relativism' buttons! :lol:

It's a big, big question you bring up. Can members of the same religious community (not necessarily the same denomination, mind you) force each other into an exegetical position? I'd love to give Orthodox Jews my reading of Leviticus and gay relationships but a) they won't listen because they don't consider my exegesis legitimate by virtue of me being non-Orthodox and b) do I have a right to 'intrude' into the cultural norms of others just because I think they are 'wrong'? Now no easy answers here - sometimes we have to intrude, for the sake of human rights. Sometimes positions are so extreme that they cannot be tolerated. But who determines that? And how does that not become neo-colonialism of one shade or another? And how do we know that we are 'right'? Yes, you can use a philosophical methodology (utilitarianism is a good one: does homosexuality harm the common good? Nope. Therefore, go for it!) but it still raises tough questions.

Good Lord, if I could make people believe the way I do, I am arrogant enough to believe that the world would be a slightly better place. Yay for egalitarian, life-affirming, pro-gay, feminist, pro-science religious doctrine. But can I really say that? And if I do, am I not being just as fundamentalist? I do not believe all things to be true. Some things are clearly false. But I do think truth comes in many guises. That too is my downfall as a liberal :)

Can homophobic Christians change? Depends. On whether they have the exegetical tools, the freedom of mind, the willingness of heart and an insight on why change might be necessary. Often, change is only effected through a personal encounter, not through an ideological conflict. Only when the gay person becomes humanized, can the perspective shift. And yes, I do have such a diversity of friends because I want us all to humanize each other. I think it's better all-round :)

But it also really depends on a trade-off in communal security. If your community says X, are you willing to challenge it? Part of it is also just plain luck: what's the context your're born and raised in? Many people simply do not encounter these hard questions of living and are allowed/able to form judgmental opinions because it's so far from their personal experience. Again, a defense of diversity: variegated contacts increase an incidence of tolerance.

Sorry if this was a bit rambly!

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't see the difference. This guy thought in a very real, existential way that I was damned. I chose to maintain that contact as long as we could find a modus vivendi. The cut-off point for me was when he started villifying me as a person, not as a believer/practitioner of another doctrine. I apply the same rule to homophobes: they might existentially disapprove of gay relationships but if we can find a modus vivendi, great. If they start calling someone a dirty, arrogant faggot, that's the end of it.

Why is condemning my soul to hell any less discriminatory than condemning a homosexual's soul to hell? They are both flawed theologies. People are entitled to them and I will debate them, that's the deal. If this can be civil, great. Greatest chance you might actually get somewhere in a debate.

Look, AnnieC - I appreciate you debating me over this and I am happy to receive your criticism... but like Valsa, we might never agree on this particular issue :) I live in a very specific set of circumstances (that I do not wish to discuss online) which inform my conduct and my approach. Again, I'd never intend to hurt, harm or criticize anyone through that but it is what it is. That's my reality and I have to deal with it.

As a tangential issue, is it a strong feature of your friendships that you insert smilies into conversations and suggest an agreement to disagree, whenever discussions get intense? We're not 'friends' as such here, so I'm happy to test the argument to destruction, if you are....

I wasn't saying that condemning your soul to hell is less discriminatory than condemning a homosexual's soul to hell... I don't understand where you are going with that argument?

What I was suggesting was that the rubber seems to hit the road for you mainly when things become personal, but you seem less bothered by homophobic principles possibly because they don't directly affect you.

Again, how do you justify your position that it not 'actively harmful' for your fundie friend to hold the view that a homosexual person is someone to be treated nicely, but disapproved of for their sexual orientation? I get that it is not actively harmful to you. What about the homosexual person who hears that view, or any person of an influencable age, who hears it and internalises it as their own view?

[Patsy]

Queer person with fundie friends here.

My definition of fundie seems to be most FJers' definition of fundie-lite, but according to valsa even they have an anti-gay agenda. I guess you could argue that even those who aren't agitating for change, or (unwittingly or not) participating in a denomination that sets up "Kill the Gays" bills, etc. are still part of a general group that is anti-gay. Guess what? So's most everyone. Society is sexist, racist and homophobic. If you want to avoid associating with anyone who supports (in some way) those agendas, you're going to have to cut ties with a whole lot of people. I am aware that some radical people do that. I'm not that radical.

[Guest Anonymous]

Added to that, I do think there are shades of grey in that too - like the example I mentioned. There's a world of difference between WBC and the Orthodox believer quietly living their life and saying, 'I don't want to demonize gays but religiously, I cannot support their choices'.

Please could you tell me specifically what you think it means to support a gay person's choices? What choices do you think your fundie friends are talking about? Their choice of breakfast cereal? Their choice of career? Car? Holiday destination? Why would your fundie friend even countenance there being any need for them to disrupt their own quiet life in order to support (or not) a gay person's choices?

Unless your friend is perhaps suggesting that being gay is the "choice" that they cannot support? In which case, do tell me more about the 'world of difference' between their views and those of the WBC, please?

Edited to add: I have received your PM in which you say some things about why you don't want to continue the discussion on the open forum. I don't really understand your reasoning for not wanting to pursue a discussion topic that you yourself started but it is of course entirely up to you if you wish to leave the conversation at this point.

[yewchapel]

Queer person with fundie friends here.

My definition of fundie seems to be most FJers' definition of fundie-lite, but according to valsa even they have an anti-gay agenda. I guess you could argue that even those who aren't agitating for change, or (unwittingly or not) participating in a denomination that sets up "Kill the Gays" bills, etc. are still part of a general group that is anti-gay. Guess what? So's most everyone. Society is sexist, racist and homophobic. If you want to avoid associating with anyone who supports (in some way) those agendas, you're going to have to cut ties with a whole lot of people. I am aware that some radical people do that. I'm not that radical.

I can honestly say that my friends (not acquaintances and excluding family members here since sadly you can't choose those!) are not sexist, racist or homophobic. I absolutely believe it is possible for a person in a sexist, racist and homophobic society to not be those things.

[Soldier of the One]

I second that, Patsy :)

AnnieC, I've just sent you a pm. I hope that clarifies things. The discussion is veering in a direction that's becoming too personal for me. Not too personal because I feel 'attacked' or 'offended' (not at all) but too personal because in order to construct a legitimate counter-argument, I'd have to reveal too much personal information online and I am not willing to do that. I've hopefully addressed some of your concerns in my message.

Respectfully,

STO

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't know if you will be coming back to the thread, but since we just cross-posted, I would add: if the problem is that the subject has somehow become 'personal', can you answer my question in a more general sense:

Please could you tell me specifically what you think it means to support a gay person's choices? What choices do you think fundies are talking about when they use this expression? Their choice of breakfast cereal? Their choice of career? Car? Holiday destination? Why would a fundie even countenance there being any need for them to disrupt their own quiet life in order to support (or not) a gay person's choices?

Unless certain fundies are perhaps suggesting that being gay is the "choice" that they cannot support? In which case, do tell me more about the 'world of difference' between their views and those of the WBC, please?

FWIW, and as an aside, in my world, putting a smilie into a pm does not constitute being 'friendly' and writing 'respectfully' as a sign off to a discussion where you refuse to elaborate on why you have implied that it is ok to describe being gay as a choice, does not constitute being respectful.

[valsa]

Why would you get into a screaming match over being told (even not nicely) you were going to a nonexistent place you don't believe in?

If a Muslim told me I was going to Jahannam because of who I am, or what I did in the bedroom, I'd be all, whatevs, dude.

Fourteen or not.

Who said I didn't believe in hell back then?

[Soldier of the One]

I think there's a 'world of difference' between shouting hateful garbage at random people/mourners/gays/whatever group they picket and between saying 'look I cannot support your choices but it's your life. Just don't expect me to enable it'. Is the latter problematic? Sure. Especially when it comes to legal marriage issues.

I live in an area where gay marriage is possible so I suppose I feel less threatened by homophobes because they have less power.

I am not sure how you want me to answer your question but I'll take a stab at it:

- To me, supporting gay rights means any number of things from:

1) fighting for legal/civil rights

2) breaking down stereotypes

3) creating a gay-inclusive culture in my life, online and offline

4) bringing up gay advocacy and inclusion at work

5) being an 'ally' to out and proud gay friends

6) building a gay-inclusive atmosphere in my religious community through both action and theology

7) interacting with and normalizing gay culture

8) countering homophobia whenever it surfaces in my personal life

As to fundies: of course they want to limit gay civil rights as much as possible (although there might be varying degrees in that too: some may want to stop only gay marriage, others take away even more fundamental rights and others might want to criminalize gay activity. I dunno. Ask the individual fundie - I certainly am not their mouthpiece!). The fallacy starts of course, that they see homosexuality as a 'choice' - which is the basis of their whole argument really. I think it's essential to counter that argument through science, logic, reason and personal narrative as well as political activism. Of course, what they try to do is far more fundamental than breakfast, holiday or car choice. (Part of me can't even believe I'm having this discussion - as if I am somehow on the other side of it!)

But yes, the long and short of it, is that I ultimately do see shades of grey and that there are different forms of judgment and ways to be judgmental. As for me, I'd much prefer if a fundie tells me, 'I respect your autonomy, that is God-given, but you do realize that I believe that your soul is in eternal peril because you do not accept the tenets of Christ's salvation', rather than, 'you're an evil, filthy Jew, a Christ-killer and you will burn in hell!11!!'. (Both have happened to me. I've also been called a 'self-righteous pharisee.' That was particularly offensive and that conversation ended fast ;)). Maybe it's mere semantics and dress-up for others but for me, having the civility to communicate respectfully about fundamental difference is important. Of course this is dangerous. For one, it assumes a level playing-field. And secondly, great crimes against humanity have been committed by 'civil' and 'polite' people. But those two are extreme scenarios as well.

Hey... I cannot win this argument nor am I looking to win it. I just started a thread to share perspectives (as I often do) and if you want to consider my argumentation flawed and think I'm dead-wrong, go for it. So someone thinks I'm wrong on the internet? I can live with that. My particular interest is in how I conduct the debate and whether I can learn from it, not whether I win it or make friends. All I want to communicate is respect, really. Maybe that makes me soppy and naive but I'll take my chances :)

[yewchapel]

The the 'respectful' attitude of some fundies is precisely what makes them so dangerous - it makes it easier for others to agree with them. Haven't we seen all the Duggar defenders say how they can't possibly be involved in a cult because they're 'so nice'?

And how is it possible to respect someone who tells you you're going to hell, even in a 'nice' way? Sorry SotO, I just think there's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

[Soldier of the One]

Who said I didn't believe in hell back then?

Whether Valsa believed in hell back then is not entirely relevant. What is relevant is the power-dynamic at the event: a young, 14 year old girl (you're a female right? I don't want to make assumptions, what do I know?) who is obviously either struggling or expressing her queer identity versus an overbearing, adult male who is undercutting her very dignity as a human being - at an event that is essentially her territory and safe space. I think that makes the scenario problematic as it is.

This is different from a bunch of adults engaging in a level playing field/market place of ideas (the pub, FJ, facebook, whatever) who all feel pretty secure in their own identities and who are debating a morality issue.

I am not speaking for Valsa but that's my take on it.

[valsa]

I think there's a 'world of difference' between shouting hateful garbage at random people/mourners/gays/whatever group they picket and between saying 'look I cannot support your choices but it's your life. Just don't expect me to enable it'. Is the latter problematic? Sure. Especially when it comes to legal marriage issues.

How, exactly, does one "enable" homosexuality? (ignoring the fact it's not a choice)

For that matter, how can one stop "enabling" heterosexuality. Maybe I should give those people a taste of their own medicine.

[formergothardite]

So we have Rebecca(unusual maiden) who wouldn't vote for or against gay marriage, but would tell a gay teen in her youth group that they are sinning and wrong and that they will be an abomination to god if they are gay. And somehow that makes her all nice and sweet and not "that bad" and you could totally connect with these sort of people.

But if we had a racist who wouldn't vote for or against people of color having equality but would tell black teens that they are not equal to white people and tell white teens that dating a black teen would be an abomination. But they are bad people who you wouldn't connect with at all.

You say that this is getting personal, well training children since birth that being gay is an abomination is fairly personal to people who are born gay. It is like you are saying, "Hey they ONLY are saying women and gay people aren't equal to straight men, what's the big deal? They are still good people."

[Soldier of the One]

The the 'respectful' attitude of some fundies is precisely what makes them so dangerous - it makes it easier for others to agree with them. Haven't we seen all the Duggar defenders say how they can't possibly be involved in a cult because they're 'so nice'?

And how is it possible to respect someone who tells you you're going to hell, even in a 'nice' way? Sorry SotO, I just think there's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

I am not a fundamentalist, therefore I do not believe in bending people to my will or interpretation of Life As We Know It. I may be tempted to (it's an easy temptation) but fundamentally, I am a pluralist and don't want to. And yes, with cultural relativism and pluralism comes an inherent cognitive dissonance. I don't think I can help it and I'm OK with it. As long as I recognize it for what it is (and I do - at the original post). I cannot please all the people all the time, as I said before, and I no longer try! We live in a diverse world and we will always have people disagree with our perspective. Sometimes these people are your friends, your inlaws or even your own parents. And what then? Disown them? Cut them off? It's everyone's choice of course, but at the heart of this discussion lies the contentious question how we deal with diversity.

See? Diversity sounds cute/cool when it comes to that nice Thai place around the corner, or the cultural Muslim festival at the local mosque or the street market with the African tchotchkes. But living with real diversity is real hard work and often means negotiating and violating either your own boundaries or someone else's. It's the messy business of modernity and all I am saying is that I am not shying away from the complexity of the issue. I don't have all the answers and I don't expect to. I commit violence to my own integrity by 'enabling' or 'condoning' certain aspects of ideologies that I abhor... yes, perhaps. But I'd also commit a graver violence to my own integrity by violating my principles of freedom and pluralism. And so I live with the cognitive dissonance.

[Vex]

I could never like an actual fundamentalist in this way because they could be the sweetest person in the world and the best friend ever but as long as they're drinking the kool aid they want to deny me basic human rights and think I am less than a person. They judge and persecute me so I sure as hell won't be having any "pet" fundies.

However, that doesn't mean there aren't conservative Christian bloggers (not fundamentalists, there is a difference) who I like. I greatly admire Sarah Pope and I love reading her blog. She is an excellent example of a true Christian.

[Soldier of the One]

So we have Rebecca(unusual maiden) who wouldn't vote for or against gay marriage, but would tell a gay teen in her youth group that they are sinning and wrong and that they will be an abomination to god if they are gay. And somehow that makes her all nice and sweet and not "that bad" and you could totally connect with these sort of people.

But if we had a racist who wouldn't vote for or against people of color having equality but would tell black teens that they are not equal to white people and tell white teens that dating a black teen would be an abomination. But they are bad people who you wouldn't connect with at all.

You say that this is getting personal, well training children since birth that being gay is an abomination is fairly personal to people who are born gay. It is like you are saying, "Hey they ONLY are saying women and gay people aren't equal to straight men, what's the big deal? They are still good people."

Of course it's personal! I never implied otherwise, formergothardite. And I've also tried to express an absolute commitment not to violate the narratives/experiences of people who have been and continue to be oppressed by homophobia. And I am not saying it's OK or that it's not a big deal. I am just trying to find my own path in dealing with it as best as I can while bringing my own (pro-gay) message/agenda to the table. If my approach is flawed, so be it. But it is genuine.

Anyway, I feel like I am going around in circles with this discussion. If you all think I'm wrong, go for it. I just don't think it's useful for me to rehash the same arguments. We're clearly at different interpretations and approaches here and that's OK with me. I just don't see how I can clarify my point any further in a helpful way. Again, if I have caused offense, I apologize. I will take on board what you have all said and think about it. That's all I can promise really. Be well!

[formergothardite]

How, exactly, does one "enable" homosexuality? (ignoring the fact it's not a choice)

For that matter, how can one stop "enabling" heterosexuality. Maybe I should give those people a taste of their own medicine.

Exactly. There is no "enabling " homosexuality anymore than there is "enabling" race. There is a world of difference between burning crosses in someone's yard/lynching people and saying "Look and I cannot support your choices to want equality and interacial marriage. It's your life. Just don't expect me to enable it." There are plenty of racists who would do the latter and not the first. So why again are fundies who do this to gay people not as bad as racists?