Where Are the Pro-LGBT Religious Voices in Mainstream Media?

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-murray/pro-lgbt-christian-voices_b_1418604.htmlRoss

MurrayDirector of Religion, Faith & Values, GLAAD

Posted: 04/12/2012 10:13 am


As someone who identifies as gay and Christian, I see parts of myself reflected in the world around me. When I turn on the television, I get caught up in the drama of gay and lesbian students on 'Glee.' I can laugh with a gay couple raising a child and trying to relate to the rest of their relatives on 'Modern Family.' I can cheer on a Chaz Bono, the first transgender man to 'dance with the stars.'

When I sat in Easter worship this last Sunday, I was surrounded by many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, as well as supportive and affirming straight people. I heard an Easter sermon that acknowledged my existence and affirmed my faith in the Easter message.

However, I still long for the day that those two realities, my representation in the media and the affirmation from my faith, would become one reality. My desire to hear an affirming message of faith being broadcast over television or printed in a newspaper grows stronger as I see both increasing representation in the media and growing affirmation in religious communities. And I am not alone. Thousands of us want to see the LGBT-affirming voices of faith lifted up in the mainstream media. But so far, the media has done little to reflect the new religious reality in America.

In recent years, several denominations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) have updated policies to be more inclusive of gay and lesbian people. Beyond policy change, a majority of Mainline Protestants support equality for gay and lesbian people when it comes to non-discrimination, marriage, and adoption. Jewish people are the most supportive of any religious group in the United States, now at 81%. And the vast majority of pew-sitting Roman Catholics are highly supportive of marriage equality and adoption for gay and lesbian couples, despite the messages from Roman Catholic hierarchy. In fact, the organization Catholics in Media Associates, an organization of Catholic media professionals, recently gave an award to the ABC comedy Modern Family, which features a gay couple raising an adopted child together.



more at link

[rrneck]

1. The anti LGBT voices are media empires in their own right.

They have a monopoly of sorts. Controlling a media market takes money. Religion gets money the same way a sports franchise or a political party does it - marketing an ideology people are willing to pay for.

[cbayer]

2. With most of the country in favor of GLBT civil rights, the anti-LGBT voices also cause

the most fire, so they get the most play.

[rrneck]

3. Ain't it the truth.

A small percentage of people profit handsomely off the fears and prejudices of many, even though not a majority. I'm guessing about 1%. They don't call 'em wedge issues for nothin'.

[Thats my opinion]

13. You just find it impossible to affirm something you believe in

because it also affirms religion. I find that distorted and very sad.

[rrneck]

18. Just plain wrong. And a little bit insulting.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Faith, as an emotion, is one half of the human experience. Religion, as the shared experience of faith, is unavoidable if not indispensable for human cooperation and cultural viability.

I affirm the compassion and justice that comes from the shared experience of hope for a better tommorrow. I make that affirmation as someone who has had to struggle for, and usually live without, the natural human impulse for hope that makes religion work.

I denounce any organization or person that would profit from from that most precious of human attributes in any way, whether that profit comes in the form of monetary gain or social status, which usually go hand in hand.

The drive to exploit anything and everything for profit has claimed not only the world but our hearts as well. It has become so pernicious and pervasive that we accept it as a right and natural way to treat each other. It's not. It is cruel and unfair because the most exploited are those least able to bear the burden. The list of wealthy organizations that lines up at the hearts of each and every one of us to feed off our desire to believe grows longer every day and the actual benefit from those beliefs shrinks every day as well.

There is a pumpjack between the shoulderblades of every man, woman, and child in this country. And every time I see someone try to step up to the spigot I'll split their excuse for doing so from groin to gullet. And as you have discovered I'm fairly goddamn good at it.

[dmallind]

4. Ah what a nice anecdote. I too wish such things were more visible

However the data show that the media may have some reason to show such suppoert less frequently than opposition.

Because such support from religious voices IS less frequent

[rrneck]

5. Looks like i underestimated the market. nt

[AlbertCat]

45. Looks like i underestimated the market.

You obviously hang around nice people.

Alas, your anecdotal evidence is not sound statistical evidence. No one's is.

[cbayer]

6. Old numbers, and the tide has definitely turned.

http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Religion-and-Attitudes-Toward-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx

[trotsky]

7. As has been repeated throughout history,

the old guard religionists are either dragged into the future kicking and screaming, or they just die off. It's just too bad that their power is able to keep such attitudes hanging on for so long, and always has. The last pockets of resistance to positive, progressive social change always seem to be religious in nature (the KKK, the Phelps gang, Islamic governments, etc.).

[Thats my opinion]

14. See #13 it applies to you too.

[trotsky]

17. Sorry that I can't just forget history like you want to. n/t

[dmallind]

8. And here's the most recent that shows the effect of religiosity

That ever so proud 31 (now 34! Great!) support from the largest religious group drops like a rock the more devoted to religious adherence you become...

Oh and which group in the religious section has THE strongest support? Over twice that of Protestants and nigh twice that of Catholics? Oh it's those hateful bigoted bastards the atheists. Who'd a thunk it?

[cbayer]

9. How is this more recent? The table I posted includes 2011 data.

[dmallind]

10. read the next words maybe?

[cbayer]

11. I did.

Not surprised at all about the position of atheists, if that is what you are talking about.

But this is not about that. This is about the change occurring among those that claim some religious affiliation and why the media has not covered these emerging trends and voices.

[dmallind]

12. Apparently not. "And here's the most recent **THAT SHOWS THE EFFECT OF RELIGIOSITY**"

Yours is a less discriminating question that shows only denomination, not amount of time devoted to appearing at these supportive - or otherwise - groups.

Why hasn't the media jumped on a minor movement from 31% of Protestants supporting equality to 34%? Other than the numerous stories lauding UCC and Robinson and lesbian clergy while ignoring the massively greater support from the nonreligious? No idea there.

[cbayer]

15. Perhaps they don't cover the greater support from the nonreligious because of the lack

of organizations working on this agenda.

This article is about the religious leaders and institutions that are working for GLBT civil rights. Their numbers are growing, but media coverage is lacking.

[pinto]

16. I think it would be really interesting to see a poll of organized religious observers ->

How many have a LGBT family member - parent, sibling, spouse, cousin, niece, nephew? Friend?

And correlate that with a follow question on support for equality.

I think it would be revealing. Personal interaction with someone close, who's gay, seems to equate to greater support for equality.

[cbayer]

19. Absolutely. I have seen many a mind changed when someone they loved came out to them.

The AIDS epidemic involuntarily brought a lot of people out, and a whole new support community evolved.

[Plantaganet]

20. It isn't really feasible to create a gay-positive religious movement.

Scripture simply negates the possibility. It's like trying to make 2 + 2 = 5.

Ultimately, if you are in favor of gay equality, marriage, etc. it ends up being something that has to be done outside of and against religion.

[cbayer]

21. This is just false.

There are a lot of gay-positive religious organizations. Many religious people see no conflict at all. In fact, many religious people and institutions find that their religious based ethics won't support any policies that don't support full civil rights for minorities or others discriminated against.

[Plantaganet]

22. It's not that gay-positive religious organizations don't exist.

But they're completely invalidated by the tenets of their own faith. There simply isn't a scriptural argument in favor of gay rights. It just isn't there.

[cbayer]

23. Here's one

Do unto others as you as you would have them do unto you.

They are not invalidated at all and they are working for positive change within the bigger organizations.

Many theists, including probably just about all of them who post here, find the contradictions and hypocrisy to lie with those that use their religion to continue bigoted and hateful positions.

[eqfan592]

24. While you could argue that the scripture quote there can validate the idea of...

...gay rights and gay marriage, it's harder to do when there are pieces of scripture that address the issue directly, such as these:

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

So the counter argument can easily be made that "do unto others" doesn't apply to gays because of the clear scriptural anti-gay message.

Mind you, I'm not saying this to take away from those christians that support gay rights, but it does beg the question that how much of the scripture of a particular faith can you discard and still be an adherent of that faith? And I'm far from the only person asking that question, as that is one of the counter arguments (that you aren't a "real" christian) that I have seen from the fundamentalists.

EDIT: to remove a random smiley that appeared in the scripture excerpts. lol

[Plantaganet]

25. Yes.

This is my exact point. As I wrote in another thread:

"...if you're opposed to equal rights for gay people you'll find all the justification you need in the Bible. In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Simple. Direct. Unequivocal.

On the other hand, if you're in favor of equal rights for gay people... things are more difficult. You can point out that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality... but it doesn't really amount to a ringing endorsement."

And that's the whole problem. There really isn't enough good material in the Bible to make a cogent theological argument for gay rights. You can't square the circle.

[cbayer]

28. I think there is a case to be made for Jesus's teachings about *eunuchs*.

In general, he argued for the fair and civil treatment of everyone, even the *worst* among us. His specific teachings about eunuchs (some of whom he identifies as born that way) has been interpreted as referring to homosexual men.

Anyway, I am not a biblical scholar by any stretch, but I do think that bigotry towards GLBT people is antithetical to what Jesus represented and said.

I don't need a more cogent argument than that.

[kwassa]

38. Many gay Christians disagree with your viewpoint, as do many other Christians.

There is much dispute about the translation of some of the words in the King James version.

Here is a long and interesting essay on the subject.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm

A small excerpt:

The Bible's six "clobber" passages:

Two of the six texts, one in Hebrew and one in Greek, clearly condemn certain specific homosexual acts:

Men attempting to engage in bestiality -- sexual acts with another species (Jude 1-7), and

Heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts which are against their essential nature (Romans 1:26-27).

Interpretations of four additional "clobber" texts differ among Christians: Religious progressives have often interpreted these passages as condemning men who sexually abuse boys, men who engage in homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples, men attempting anal rape, etc. They view the Bible as being silent on sexual behavior within a consensual, monogamous committed homosexual relationship.

For example, they might identify the sin of the men of Sodom as explained in Genesis 19 as attempting to rape strangers as an act of humiliation. Alternatively, they might quote other biblical passages mentioning Sodom to show that the main sin of that city was their uncharitable behavior towards strangers, and their uncaring conduct towards the poor, the widows, and needy.

Religious conservatives often interpret all of the Biblical passages that touch on same-sex activity as condemning homosexuality in all its forms.

Edit to add a critique of the translation of Romans:

http://epistle.us/hbarticles/clobber2.html

BISEXUALITY AS A NORM IN ROME – The final major passage is Romans 1:26-27, where Paul writes, "even [the pagan] women did change [NIV: 'exchange'] the natural use into that which is against nature [para phusin]: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another [doing unseemly things and] receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." (The "recompense" here may refer to the pagans' general downward slide, to venereal disease, or [as Philo suggested] to sterility.) Right from the start, three important observations should be noted : (1) This passage is about heterosexuals – and therefore has nothing to do with those with a homosexual orientation. These persons were fully able to enjoy heterosexual passion and pleasure, but then they turned to indulge also in same-sex activities. As John Chrysostom noted in a 4th century sermon on this passage, "Only those possessing something can change it." (2) This passage, in its larger context, is about God-rejecters – and therefore has nothing to do with GLBTs who have been Christian their whole lives but still also have always known that they are "different." (3) This passage is about lust (brothel pickups, back-alley sex, and the like) – and therefore has nothing to do with homosexual love, devotion, and commitment or to GLBT people who would like to find a companion and a long-term relationship. The focus of this passage, then, is narrowly fixed on certain negative aspects of sex, that can, in some cases, characterize both heterosexuals and homosexuals. This is the first (and only) mention of “lesbians” in the Bible (although in ancient times everyone was married or was expected to marry), probably introduced because Paul wishes to show that both genders need to experience God's grace (just as do the pagans and the Jews).

I got an entire analysis from another source that disagrees that lesbianism is even being referenced.

[Plantaganet]

40. That kind of sums it up, though.

If something comes down to interpretation - as everything in The Bible invariably does - then there's no such thing as correct or incorrect. Since the church has been okay with the "homosexuals are bad" interpretation for some 2000 years, then that's pretty much what we're stuck with.

Sorry - there's just no amount of spin that can solve the problem.

[kwassa]

41. Nobody is stuck ever in this universe. It isn't spin, it is a change.

The Bible also condoned slavery and the suppression of women for 2000 years. Christian churches changed on these issues, too.

I am a member of the Episcopal Church. The head of the US church is a woman, the first to hold that role. The assistant rector of my church is a gay woman who was married to her same-sex partner at National Cathedral, the same place that US presidents are buried, by the Bishop of Washington. I know many gay clergy.

The elevation of a gay rector to Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003 provoked an around-the-world argument in the Anglican Communion, with more conservative countries condemning the US church. Did we back down? Will we back down.

Nope.

[cbayer]

26. If one were a biblical literalist, I think your point is valid.

There is a lot in the bible that, if taken literally, is utterly ridiculous in these times. Sure, fundamentalists and other homophobes can use some scripture to make their case, but even those pick and choose what doesn't make sense.

IMHO, the bible is a book full of stories written by men and full of contradictions. So, you can discard any part of it you want and remain an adherent to the faiths that use it.

I am sure you are familiar with it, but the famous letter to Dr. Laura makes the case:

http://thegoodhuman.com/2006/10/17/problem-with-taking-bible-literally/

[eqfan592]

29. Actually, I've never seen that particular letter...

...but it IS a nice way of pointing out the hypocrisy of most biblical literalists. I remember a similar exchange appearing on the TV show "The West Wing."

And you absolutely can discard any pieces of the holy scripture from any religion and still claim to be an adherent of that religion, but then THAT begs the question of "Why?" Why continue to claim to be of a faith who's tenants are so disagreeable that you've had to discard so many of them?

Now I'm not going to ask you to share your specific reasons as that is your own business, I'm just putting it out there to underscore the confusion that I and others feel when looking at this specific issue.

[cbayer]

30. There are things in lots of books that need to be discarded as

humankind evolves. The problem is that this book does not permit editing.

The reason many continue to have faith is because they believe that the good messages of the bible far outweigh the bad. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Once again, there is conflation going on between literalists and those who embrace the good messages and live their lives accordingly. Saying you can't be a christian unless you believe everything in the bible is a fundamentalist POV, one that no one I have seen here has ever posited.

[eqfan592]

33. But that still doesn't fully answer my question

Your saying people continue to have faith because they believe the good in the bible outweighs the bad. Fair enough, but that just begs the question of why you would tie yourself down to the bad at all. You said yourself that the book can't be edited, so why not find or make a new book?

I think this may now come down to a fundamental difference between the two of us that is unlikely to get resolved in a forum discussion.

[cbayer]

35. Who is tying themselves down to the bad?

To be a thinking, questioning, challenging person, particularly when it comes to historical documents written by humans in an entirely different culture, is a positive quality.

Lots of people have made new books with newer interpretations.

Why do others insist that non-fundamentalists have to be fundamentalists in order to call themselves an adherent of one faith or another?

There are lots of varieties of atheists, aren't there? While no single tome exists for atheists, there are collections of books. Does one have to adopt them all (many contradictory) in order to be an atheist? Does one have to even embrace a single one of them? Or can one reasonably adopt some ideas and not others and still consider themselves a member of an atheist community?

Your argument seems to be that if you can't swallow whole everything the bible says, then you should leave the community that embraces some of the stories held within.

That just doesn't make sense to me.

[Plantaganet]

36. Really, though...

...isn't it just plain easier for heterosexuals to pick and choose?

As I've said, scripture is abundantly clear about homosexuality.

Heterosexuals, though, aren't the ones destined for hell, so they have the luxury of taking the good bits and leaving the bad. You don't really have the same burden.

Certainly, there are gay people who can pull off approximately the same trick - but it takes far more work and there's really no way to do it without being compromised at some level. You're never going to be a fully appreciated person, and you'll still be supporting an institution that is, for the most part, working against your best interests.

[cbayer]

37. It may be abundantly clear to you, but it's not so for others.

As I pointed out above, there are many dictums in the bible that even the most fundamental fundie would reject.

I don't know what you mean about heterosexuals being able to pick and choose. While I know they exist, I don't know a single person of faith that believes for a second that GLBT people are destined for hell. Perhaps you should talk to some of our GLBT believers and tell them how compromised they are for being both.

Your view on this is very narrow and I can see you are really dug in on it, so we will most likely have to agree to disagree.

[Plantaganet]

39. Fair enough.

But I would argue that it's religion that is narrow. Not my views.

From one Wallace and Gromit fan to another - thanks!

[eqfan592]

47. I see the point you're getting at, but the parallel you're drawing...

...between a religion and atheism just doesn't work. While there are many books written about atheism, none of them take the form of a "holy scripture" as occurs in religion. An atheist is simply somebody who doesn't believe in god, and while there are atheists that diverge in some areas (gnostic vs agnostic atheists, for instance) it is still simply that one fundamental trait that makes an atheist an atheist.

My statement that christians are tied down to the bad with the good is just addressing the fact that no matter how much a christian may want to distance themselves from the portions of the bible they feel are bad, those portions are still there and are still a part of the holy scripture that lays out the foundation of the religion. And those portions will continue to rear their head for non-fundamentalists so long as they identify with any parts of the bible.

I'm not saying that one must be a fundamentalist in order to call themselves an adherent of one faith or another (a person is welcome to claim themselves an adherent of whatever faith they so choose). I'm asking what is the point of adhering to one faith or another if one must cheery pick heavily from the faiths holy scripture just to find the scripture tolerable and acceptable in modern times.

Or to even get more to the point, I'm saying that I fail to see the point in such a venture. I can read and take from the bible those lessons that are worth while without being a christian, and the same applies to any other religious text, and when I realized this is when I initially became an agnostic and left christianity behind.

Your road is likely to be different from mine, and that is fine, and I'm not telling you this in any effort to "convert" you, but rather so you may better understand where I am coming from when it comes to this topic. If I've made offense, do understand that it was not my intention.

EDIT to fix a horrible typo in my subject line!

[Plantaganet]

48. n/t

[AlbertCat]

46. Do unto others as you as you would have them do unto you.

That is a philosophy that does not require any religious trappings at all. It is a secular act.

[Plantaganet]

49. Pssst!

It's also older than Christianity. But don't tell anyone.

[pinto]

27. Poll Shows Many Religious Groups Support Gay Marriage (jezebel.com)

Poll Shows Many Religious Groups Support Gay Marriage

A new poll shows that, perhaps unsurprisingly, young people are far more likely to support gay marriage than older ones. More surprising, however, is that several religious groups are now in support of marriage equality.

According to the Public Religion Research Institute, 62% of millennials (people aged 18 to 29) favor gay marriage, while only 31% of those over 65 say the same. Not too shocking, although it's worth noting that the poll also found an increase in support for gay marriage over the last five years, suggesting that views are changing. There's good reason to hope that by the time millennials are senior citizens, their pro-equality views will dominate.

The PRRI notes that "conventional wisdom" dictates that religious people oppose gay marriage. However, their poll found that 67% of non-Christians who identify as religious are in favor of marriage equality. So are 52% of Catholics and 51% of mainline Protestants. Evangelical Protestants are largely anti-gay marriage, but the percentage differs by race. Seventy-six percent of white evangelicals are against the practice, while only 60% of black evangelicals are. This contradicts the notion, advanced by Dan Savage and others, that black Americans are disproportionately homophobic. Another interesting finding: a majority of religious people of all denominations (including evangelical Christians) believe that "negative messages from America's places of worship" contribute to the suicides of gay youth. Sounds like it's time for religious groups to start making change from within.

http://jezebel.com/5835789/poll-shows-many-religious-groups-support-gay-marriage

Full poll survey here -

Generations at Odds: The Millennial Generation and the Future of Gay and Lesbian Rights

http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/

[cbayer]

31. While the numbers are still too low, the trend appears obvious

and I believe it will continue.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. About 15 years ago, a friend attended the General Convention of the Episcopal Church

The question was ordination of GLBT persons. She noted that most of the "no" votes on the clergy side came from retired bishops and most of the "no" votes on the laity side came from older people.

The Episcopal Church has never been the province of Biblical literalists. From the beginning, the Church of England (its ancestor) was a compromise between Catholic and Protestant varieties of Christianity for the sake of national unity, and beginning in Elizabeth I's time, with few exceptions, there has generally been some latitude allowed in what you actually believe as long as you use the Book of Common Prayer in worship and recognize the church's authority structures.

Most of the parishes that are really bent out of shape about the changes leave the denomination.

My parish (which I recently found out held weddings for same-sex couples as early as 1991) is home to a lot of "refugees," either GLBT or friends and family of GLBT persons, from Roman Catholic and conservative evangelical churches.

[Plantaganet]

32. Fantastic news.

But, again, this is a result of the influence of secular culture, not anything based in theology.

The point stands, there isn't a scriptural argument in favor of gay rights. Honestly, I wish there were. It would save a LOT of trouble. But there isn't.

[pinto]

34. Good point. And I'd add that secular culture has always had some influence on religions.

Neither are static, though religion is so much slower to change. Yet change does happen.

My mom married a nominal Protestant when that wasn't done, especially in her Irish Catholic world. Now, it's commonplace.

[LeftishBrit]

42. Some senior British clergy just wrote a letter to The Times, supporting gay marriage

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17796511

These do not represent the universal view of the church. You may remember that Jeffrey John, who is openly gay , was nominated to be Bishop of Reading, and then withdrew because of controversy over a gay man being appointed as a bishop. But they do represent one strand of thought.

PinkNews reproduced the letter in its entirety:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/21/senior-anglican-clergy-church-should-rejoice-over-equal-marriage/

[cbayer]

43. Great! Thanks for bringing this here and not surprised

that it hasn't gotten more press.

Without coverage, groups like this continue to be invisible and others are able to falsely maintain that there is no progressive movement within the institution.

[kwassa]

44. The CONSERVATIVE party supports gay marriage there!

just to give fellow Americans a heads up. Imagine the Republican Party strongly supporting gay marriage here.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, a man remarkable for his lack of leadership on anything in the Anglican Communion, is opposed to gay marriage, not that this means anything, either. He is retiring. There is little hope for a more progressive successor, however. They seem doomed to perpetuate their regressive behavior, miles behind secular society there, and miles behind they US, Canadian, and New Zealand churches that are members of the communion.