Why are AA ministers called out as being anti gay, and "unethical"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good question, OP. At the risk of getting too political here, I think it has more to do with the liberals being fearful that they will lose some of their voting base to the Republicans. Because AA’s typically vote Democrat, liberals believe that their voters should embrace ALL policies viewed as liberal.
When AA’s don’t embrace such policies, liberals fear that they will lose the African-American vote.
So, by calling them out as unethical or anti-gay, liberals believe they will shame them into changing their stance.
The irony is that it may just do the opposite.

+1000
Id love to have coffee and chat.

I would take you up on that, but you may have to travel quite a ways.
I don’t live in the DC area anymore - glad to be in a place less crowded and more tolerant.

[Anonymous]

I think you are correct about the Orthodox thing, but Jews don't proselytize. It's offensive to have a minister calling me/others to worship in his church and at the same telling condemning or telling gays that they are not welcome. How can a minister on the one hand spread the "word of God" and at the same time close that hand to others? While Orthodox Jews may not be welcoming of Gays, they don't exactly welcome anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you are correct about the Orthodox thing, but Jews don't proselytize. It's offensive to have a minister calling me/others to worship in his church and at the same telling condemning or telling gays that they are not welcome. How can a minister on the one hand spread the "word of God" and at the same time close that hand to others? While Orthodox Jews may not be welcoming of Gays, they don't exactly welcome anyone.

Call it what you don't want, but they get their message out loud and clear.


http://forward.com/articles/147684/orthodox-rabbis-oppose-gay-marriage/

http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/12/05/100-orthodox-rabbis-issue-same-sex-marriage-declaration/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
(BTW, I know a TON of gay people who are hopeless racists. Is that unethical? If you are gay do you have to be tolerant of other races, unbiased and liberal?)

Just because no one's addressed this yet: Yes. It is unethical for gay people to be racist, not because they are gay, but because they are people.

[Anonymous]

The reasons have to do with the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on the black community.

African Americans have suffered from HIV at higher rates than other ethnic groups in the U.S. In contrast, the HIV rate among Orthodox Jews is very low. Critics believe the black church should have done more to protect the community.

In the first two decades of the HIV epidemic, many public health officials and critics pointed out that historical prejudice against homosexuality prevented black clergy from using the power of the church to help reduce sexual behaviors that spread HIV. The stigma of injecting drug use had the same affect, because clergy wouldn't advocate for needle exchange and other programs that reduce HIV risk. Views have changed over time, however, and the black church now does much more to use its considerable power in promoting healthy behaviors -- a very good thing for the community.

You might find this piece interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/whither-the-black-church-on-hivaids/2012/07/20/gJQAcB3syW_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference between the orthodox Jews and black ministers on homosexuality may simply be that black ministers are more outspoken in actively preaching AGAINST homosexuality. I don't think too many rabbis get up at the pulpit and rail against it.

Also, I think there's a particular stigma against being gay in the black community that actually has its roots in racism. Resentment over the availability of "quality men" to marry, so when one of them is into guys, it causes an even bigger backlash.

A lot of forces at play here. But the combination of these two in particular probably prompts the criticism you speak of.

How many preachers in the pulpit have you heard speaking about homosexuality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9ukYpLP6G0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB5ECWgHXgs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFELQE6k1tg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8nvVOQ94Q

Wow, do you know what the heck a pulpit is? Not one of those youtubes are from a pulpit. Two are news reports, one is someone speaking at a mike at a city council member, and another is someone speaking at a mike with reporters around asking his views.

Wow. Do you know what the heck a bully pulpit is?

Literal much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes I think we should just ban people from talking to each other. Ever.

+1

But fascinating discussion. Political correctness, nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difference between the orthodox Jews and black ministers on homosexuality may simply be that black ministers are more outspoken in actively preaching AGAINST homosexuality. I don't think too many rabbis get up at the pulpit and rail against it.

Also, I think there's a particular stigma against being gay in the black community that actually has its roots in racism. Resentment over the availability of "quality men" to marry, so when one of them is into guys, it causes an even bigger backlash.

A lot of forces at play here. But the combination of these two in particular probably prompts the criticism you speak of.

The reasons the Rabbis don't get on the pulpit and say anything is because they are not a proselytizing faith.But I am sure that it is said within the congregation at some time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reasons have to do with the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on the black community.

African Americans have suffered from HIV at higher rates than other ethnic groups in the U.S. In contrast, the HIV rate among Orthodox Jews is very low. Critics believe the black church should have done more to protect the community.

In the first two decades of the HIV epidemic, many public health officials and critics pointed out that historical prejudice against homosexuality prevented black clergy from using the power of the church to help reduce sexual behaviors that spread HIV. The stigma of injecting drug use had the same affect, because clergy wouldn't advocate for needle exchange and other programs that reduce HIV risk. Views have changed over time, however, and the black church now does much more to use its considerable power in promoting healthy behaviors -- a very good thing for the community.

You might find this piece interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/whither-the-black-church-on-hivaids/2012/07/20/gJQAcB3syW_story.html

Woah. The infection rates are similar when you control for SES. Also, the IV drug abuse had a HUGE impact on the spread of HIV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference between the orthodox Jews and black ministers on homosexuality may simply be that black ministers are more outspoken in actively preaching AGAINST homosexuality. I don't think too many rabbis get up at the pulpit and rail against it.

Also, I think there's a particular stigma against being gay in the black community that actually has its roots in racism. Resentment over the availability of "quality men" to marry, so when one of them is into guys, it causes an even bigger backlash.

A lot of forces at play here. But the combination of these two in particular probably prompts the criticism you speak of.

How many preachers in the pulpit have you heard speaking about homosexuality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9ukYpLP6G0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB5ECWgHXgs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFELQE6k1tg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8nvVOQ94Q

Wow, do you know what the heck a pulpit is? Not one of those youtubes are from a pulpit. Two are news reports, one is someone speaking at a mike at a city council member, and another is someone speaking at a mike with reporters around asking his views.

Wow. Do you know what the heck a bully pulpit is?

Literal much?

where in your original statement did you say bully pulpit. you said pulpit. English is literal. and none of your examples were bully pulpits, stretching much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reasons have to do with the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on the black community.

African Americans have suffered from HIV at higher rates than other ethnic groups in the U.S. In contrast, the HIV rate among Orthodox Jews is very low. Critics believe the black church should have done more to protect the community.

In the first two decades of the HIV epidemic, many public health officials and critics pointed out that historical prejudice against homosexuality prevented black clergy from using the power of the church to help reduce sexual behaviors that spread HIV. The stigma of injecting drug use had the same affect, because clergy wouldn't advocate for needle exchange and other programs that reduce HIV risk. Views have changed over time, however, and the black church now does much more to use its considerable power in promoting healthy behaviors -- a very good thing for the community.

You might find this piece interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/whither-the-black-church-on-hivaids/2012/07/20/gJQAcB3syW_story.html

Woah. The infection rates are similar when you control for SES. Also, the IV drug abuse had a HUGE impact on the spread of HIV.

"Whoa" for what reason? I already mentioned that the stigma of IDU was another problem. If you deny there's an IDU problem, or won't condone needle exchange programs because you're afraid the message will be that you condone IDU, you can't effectively combat the spread of HIV.

And yes, HIV disproportionately affects lower-SES African Americans. So?

You have to realize that when gay sex is highly stigmatized, some men will conceal that they have sex with other men and they'll also have sex with women. You know the phrase "on the down low"?

There's a huge and multidisciplinary body of literature on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am tired of hearing that rhetoric.

Again today someone told me that he found it sad that so many AA ministers say that homosexuality is a sin, especially since blacks were discriminated against in the past. That blacks should know better.

Well folks, two things, being black does not mean automatic tolerance of issues that one considers to be sinful. If a person's religion or culture does not condone a behavior, then that is that. If Muslims are not to eat pork, and you're serving at your home, their refusal to eat it is not unethical or rude.

What I find even more interesting is that Orthodox Jews do not tolerate homosexuality either, but they are not called out on this. Heck, Hitler persecuted and killed both groups, so you would think that the Orthodox would just change their religion around to suddenly accept homosexuality! Let's get them to change their unethical minds too.

(BTW, I know a TON of gay people who are hopeless racists. Is that unethical? If you are gay do you have to be tolerant of other races, unbiased and liberal?)

Orthodox Jewry don't get called out in DC because they are a tiny minority and don't make up half the city. And of course there are some racist gay white people out there. So does that justify some straight AA people being homophobic? I didn't know that one group's prejudice justified the prejudice of another group. I try not to live my life that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference between the orthodox Jews and black ministers on homosexuality may simply be that black ministers are more outspoken in actively preaching AGAINST homosexuality. I don't think too many rabbis get up at the pulpit and rail against it.

Also, I think there's a particular stigma against being gay in the black community that actually has its roots in racism. Resentment over the availability of "quality men" to marry, so when one of them is into guys, it causes an even bigger backlash.

A lot of forces at play here. But the combination of these two in particular probably prompts the criticism you speak of.

The reasons the Rabbis don't get on the pulpit and say anything is because they are not a proselytizing faith.But I am sure that it is said within the congregation at some time.

I agree. If people think they do not share your disapproval among their worshippers, they are lying to themselves. When the thousand rabbis signed that letter against gay marriage, to whom do you think they were speaking. They were letting their followers no their stance in regards to their religion.

BTW--Do Catholics and White Evangelicals not speak out against homosexuality? Well I have the answer and it is yes. Are the overwhelming majority of the Mormons in this country White? Have the Mormons not spoken out forcefully against homosexuality from their churches and more importantly, have they not put financially influence backing against gay marriages? Why indeed they have. It's a religious thing shared by many religions of people of many different races.

Why does DCUM always want to make this a race thing when it's not. I don't get this hateful fascination many white people have against any and everything Black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am tired of hearing that rhetoric.

Again today someone told me that he found it sad that so many AA ministers say that homosexuality is a sin, especially since blacks were discriminated against in the past. That blacks should know better.

Well folks, two things, being black does not mean automatic tolerance of issues that one considers to be sinful. If a person's religion or culture does not condone a behavior, then that is that. If Muslims are not to eat pork, and you're serving at your home, their refusal to eat it is not unethical or rude.

What I find even more interesting is that Orthodox Jews do not tolerate homosexuality either, but they are not called out on this. Heck, Hitler persecuted and killed both groups, so you would think that the Orthodox would just change their religion around to suddenly accept homosexuality! Let's get them to change their unethical minds too.

(BTW, I know a TON of gay people who are hopeless racists. Is that unethical? If you are gay do you have to be tolerant of other races, unbiased and liberal?)

Orthodox Jewry don't get called out in DC because they are a tiny minority and don't make up half the city. And of course there are some racist gay white people out there. So does that justify some straight AA people being homophobic? I didn't know that one group's prejudice justified the prejudice of another group. I try not to live my life that way.

But you come onto DCUM and judge people you know nothing about and make excuses for those you choose. Alrighty Now!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am tired of hearing that rhetoric.

Again today someone told me that he found it sad that so many AA ministers say that homosexuality is a sin, especially since blacks were discriminated against in the past. That blacks should know better.

Well folks, two things, being black does not mean automatic tolerance of issues that one considers to be sinful. If a person's religion or culture does not condone a behavior, then that is that. If Muslims are not to eat pork, and you're serving at your home, their refusal to eat it is not unethical or rude.

What I find even more interesting is that Orthodox Jews do not tolerate homosexuality either, but they are not called out on this. Heck, Hitler persecuted and killed both groups, so you would think that the Orthodox would just change their religion around to suddenly accept homosexuality! Let's get them to change their unethical minds too.

(BTW, I know a TON of gay people who are hopeless racists. Is that unethical? If you are gay do you have to be tolerant of other races, unbiased and liberal?)

Orthodox Jewry don't get called out in DC because they are a tiny minority and don't make up half the city. And of course there are some racist gay white people out there. So does that justify some straight AA people being homophobic? I didn't know that one group's prejudice justified the prejudice of another group. I try not to live my life that way.

But you come onto DCUM and judge people you know nothing about and make excuses for those you choose. Alrighty Now!!

Tell me what I said in the above paragraph tells you that I judge people I know nothing about. The argument suggested that one group's prejudice was justified by the prejudice of another group. And yes, I judged that argument and found it to be weak. Uh, am I not supposed to have an opinion on an argument? Well, then, I guess you'd prefer just to state your argument and never get any critical response to it because, oh now, that would be judgmental! It sounds like you want to be able judge and have the rest of us just shut up.

But in case it's not clear to you pp, let me state it in a different format. White gay people should not be racist. Straight black people should not be homophobic. Hey, no one should be homophobic or racist. No justification for it whatsoever regardless of what some other group of people believes.