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

[Anonymous]

AA ministers are VERY vocal and public. I never hear Priests/bishops/Rabbis as vocal. People live Rev Sharpton are constantly on the news and in the public eye.

[Anonymous]

Is this official thread for DCUM's Daily dose of "It's time to talk sh**t about Black folks".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AA ministers are VERY vocal and public. I never hear Priests/bishops/Rabbis as vocal. People live Rev Sharpton are constantly on the news and in the public eye.

You've never heard of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell I and II, Joyce Meyer, Binny Hinn, and many more. Some of them have universities named after them. How about Pope John and his successor. I guess you never heard of them either. Get the frack out of here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just for the record ladies, if you live among liberal whites, your boyfriend or husband could still be pulling one over on you, he might be gay too. Never get too comfortable.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes I think that white liberals see black people as their little toy. They feel a need to instruct us on how to live our lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just for the record ladies, if you live among liberal whites, your boyfriend or husband could still be pulling one over on you, he might be gay too. Never get too comfortable.

Why say only liberal whites? Conservative men are just as likely to do this, and probably more so because they're so closeted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AA ministers are VERY vocal and public. I never hear Priests/bishops/Rabbis as vocal. People live Rev Sharpton are constantly on the news and in the public eye.

You've never heard of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell I and II, Joyce Meyer, Binny Hinn, and many more. Some of them have universities named after them. How about Pope John and his successor. I guess you never heard of them either. Get the frack out of here.

Moderate here. Those rarely show up on my news, maybe if I watched more Fox news? Rev Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are on all news channels.

[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.

Yes, yes, yes

Uh, no. Liberals are not afraid of losing AA voters to the Republican Party. At all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AA ministers are VERY vocal and public. I never hear Priests/bishops/Rabbis as vocal. People live Rev Sharpton are constantly on the news and in the public eye.

You've never heard of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell I and II, Joyce Meyer, Binny Hinn, and many more. Some of them have universities named after them. How about Pope John and his successor. I guess you never heard of them either. Get the frack out of here.

Moderate here. Those rarely show up on my news, maybe if I watched more Fox news? Rev Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are on all news channels.

I'm sure Al Sharpton supports marriage equality, and I assume Jesse Jackson does as well, although I haven't seen him on TV in years.

[Anonymous]

bolded text

I asked a black friend about this very thing and she said what you posted.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AA ministers are VERY vocal and public. I never hear Priests/bishops/Rabbis as vocal. People live Rev Sharpton are constantly on the news and in the public eye.

You've never heard of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell I and II, Joyce Meyer, Binny Hinn, and many more. Some of them have universities named after them. How about Pope John and his successor. I guess you never heard of them either. Get the frack out of here.

Moderate here. Those rarely show up on my news, maybe if I watched more Fox news? Rev Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are on all news channels.

I'm sure Al Sharpton supports marriage equality, and I assume Jesse Jackson does as well, although I haven't seen him on TV in years.

Huh? They don't even support racial equality.

[Anonymous]

Just as there is a social justice wing of the Catholic Church, many evangelicals find much in the teachings of Christ that fits well in the Warren wing of the Democratic party. If we could all stop ranting at each other and listening to those more motivated by hatred of the other side than by any desire to find areas of basic agreement, we might accomplish something.

By "we" I mean both those of us here on DCUM and the country in general (especially those of us in Congress).

[jsteele]

This thread seems to have moved away from religion, if it was ever even on that topic. So, I'm going to lock it.