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

[Anonymous]

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?)

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Funny how people will say whatever suits their agenda.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[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?)

Homosexuality is not a behavior. Homosexuality is a state of being - like being AA, for example.

[Anonymous]

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: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.

This is good food for thought. I have wondered why they try to pigeon hole us into trying to accept anything by saying "you should accept . . . because of what happened to your people".

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

I feel you bro, No homo

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

So just to clarify -- AA ministers (and, presumably, all AA individuals) should be allowed to speak about their sincerely held views that homosexuality is simply morally wrong. However, anyone who sincerely believes that such a position is simply morally wrong should...shut up about it?

If your beliefs are that strong -- if you're that sure that you're right -- then you shouldn't have a problem with being called out as anti-gay (which you are) and "unethical." What, only people who agree with you are allowed to voice their opinions?

Believe what you want. Say what you want. But there's no guarantee you'll never have to hear disagreement. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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?)

Coming from a Muslim background, and as someone who does not eat pork, I promise not to make you engage in gay sex when you come to my home. You can eat what you want, and you can love whomever you want.

Deal?

In other words, your analogy makes no effing sense.

No one's making AA ministers, or congregants, or anyone else become gay. Just to respect the legal and free right of others to love and be with whomever THEY want. You're still free to love and be with whomever YOU want. Give others the free and legal right to make their own sovereign choices, otherwise you can't expect others to do the same for you. And no, your "right" does not include voting against the rights of others, the equality of others, or anything others do with their personal and private choices.

[Anonymous]

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.