I was most saddened and more than little appalled at the interview surrounded a response by some to Stonewall's bus advert campaign which saw the statement, "Some people are gay. Get over it." appear on some of London's buses.
The response was, "Not gay, ex-gay, post-gay, and proud. Get over it," which seems to be a statement of fact as realised by the opposing view to Stonewall. Mind you, "Most people aren't gay - live with it!" would have perhaps been a more accurate statement of the reality.
Still, I listened (with growing disinterest) and thought poor Revd Linda Rose (Angican Mainstream) lost the conversation when she dug in and used terms like 'rebellion' - something that is always likely to find the other side personalise the issue into how they (being gay) are 'nice people'and how wicked the opposing side are to vilify them. So the discussion ticked the first two boxes nicely. Could it get any worse?
Of course it could.
Having sought to personalise it (isn't that how the gay gene got his job?) the discussion took the next available and (over used ) position which entails declaring how the other side is 'being abusive and intervening/interrupting'. This is designed to divert from having to engage in any real way and shows everyone else how wicked and nasty those who oppose their view is!
And, of course, having the brains to realise what was going on, the other two played the game and interrupted at the right places to deny discussion and win points for the other side (unless of course the listener expects that gambit to be present I suppose).
And so we can thank Colin Coward (CA), Linda Rose (AM) and Mike Davidson (CIT) for a waste of broadcasting time and thank Lichfield Cathedral for an extremely well-timed and life-saving morning service.
As ever, what might have been informative and perhaps positive descended into the same old same old.
Some people just aren't interested anymore - get over it!
9 comments:
Always the same:
One viewpoint whines about the nasty people;
The other side corrects the naughty people.
Never any dialogue - never any love - never worth listening.
Still, I am 'ex-gay' what do I know?
Thanks
You probably know more than many of the 'experts'on the topic (although I've heard you can't be 'ex' with regard to this but what do I know?).
Seems to be a fruitless discussion with one side talking about obedience and the other repeating the 'not a choice' mantra.
I really find it tiresome and praise God that this isn't anything other than a conceptual challenge where I find myself as it means the fighting and finger-pointing (along with meaningless arguments [apologies to both sides - I'm neither dissing nor denying what you think, just grateful that it generally passes me by]) does just 'pass me by'.
Obviously if you live in it face-to-face with the opposition (or it is your reality) this is very different).
Thanks for the comment
Pax
As usual, we have another shining example that those who scream for tolerance are only tolerant when you agree with their view.
'tis as it has always been!
Sadly the most closed appear to those who bill themselves to be open :-(
Still, if you know the games and the strategies you can avoid the pitfalls ;-)
Pax
Sometimes the adults behave worse than the children...
I apologise on behalf of my bickering generation to all the young gay people in our society who are having a hard time from family members, their peers, their churches, and (almost, but thankfully not for long...) bus adverts. It does get better and I have every confidence that your generation will be the one to make sure that it does. God bless you.
Should perhaps be apologising for then rather than to?
Jane, I have to say that use of the term 'bickering' denies many of the excesses from those who will not tolerate acceptance but demand promotion and what amounts to a positive support fro something which is very much in the minority.
I was saddened that CC glossed over the fact that his lifestyle disobeys that which the CofE requires and used the 'ooh, their being. . .' tack to divert away from the fact that, whatever position you occupy, there is generally disobedience.
All have rights - some think their are greater than others - a sad reality :-(
To the others - thanks for the comments,
V
See loads of media interest in straight become gay after stroke (last November's story) and little mention of people travelling the opposite way.
Is there some spin in evidence here?
There was mention in one of the newspapers (Daily Mail?) of cases where homosexuals have suffered trauma such as a stroke and found themselves happily heterosexual.
At least that staves off the 'homosexuality is a mental aberration' approach - just as the fact there is no evidence for it to be genetic negates that approach :-)
Interesting to hear how incidents at early age set the trend for later but then again others discount this too. Apparently there is no choice involved in anything that we do (unless it is to oppose certain attitudes, behaviours or lifestyles ;-) )
Hey ho!
Post a Comment