preserving the cybersanctuary

[scott snedeker]

Recently I was engaged in a discussion on a thread with another poster on anti-gay passages in the Bible. After myself and the other posters offered an interpretation that was gay-affirming or demonstrated uncertainty of the homophobic intent of the original text, my debator started firing "fire and brimstone." He then defended condemnation of homosexuality and threatened any attempt to interpret these passages in any way except his with God's wrath. Steve very appropriately moderated to point out the homophobic implication of the poster.

My reason for bringing this up is to suggest that an additional guideline for posting be considered to prevent self-loathing or hostile posters from sneaking in homophobic messages. Below are some of my thoughts:

* Discussion of these passages should be allowed if the poster is say troubled by how they make him feel and are requesting an alternate way to feel better about them. Another poster may offer an interpretation that affirms the entitlement of gay people to live in accordance with our most intimate nature or that these may not be accurately translated or out of context and not meant for us.

* Bringing up this topic for any other purpose poisons the sanctuary. I think this should be made very clear to posters that the purpose of discussing this topic is to counter the disaffirmation these passages can cause and this purpose should be clearly stated in the post. No cryptic, unclear or unsettling posts should be allowed. I call this good spiritual hygeine

* Stating or implying that homosexuality is evil because that is what is written in the bible should not be allowed. Older gays like my self get no value from hostile dogma. Younger gays need not be exposed to this type of psychological predation and spiritual violence here. The best remedy for emotional injury is to prevent it. Many young people now look to us for the only source of support for their developing sexual identity. Too Few gay sites are safe for teens on the net.


I am seeking respnses from the moderators on this topic. I consider Soulforce to be a precious sanctuary that I want to see preserved and protected.

[keltic63]

Scott,

Jamie, Nathan, and I have been having some discussion about this issue. as the Equality Ride approaches we are expecting some new members who will clearly have comments they feel they need to make, yet comments we know will be a violation of our guidelines.

We agree that this is a cybersanctuary. We are discussing our options to engage these folks in the discussion they seek, if they truly are open to that discussion. There is the possibility of creating a new forum category for such a thing, but we haven't worked out all the details of what that would look like, and what the guidelines there would be.

[RainbowL'elly]

what about a 'touchy topics' section where people are allowed to ask potentially problematic questions and post possibly troublesome discussions with the guideline that anyone who approaches this section with the intent to defile the sanctuary of this site or to rile up its members will be banned? it is usually fairly easy to interpret intent through wording and if nice, bold letters head the section that warns people to be careful how they represent themselves due to the potentially inflamatory nature of the section and the concequences of threads that are obviously hostile being having the IP of the poster banned from the site or from posting for x days, depending on the nature of the comment....

sort of a 'think before you type as your callous comments could lead to unintended concequences' kind of thing?

[BenL]

... that's why I don't dive right into confrontations with people who would exlude us and put us down. I know SoulForce was founded as a vehicle for bringing truth to the gay question in our society, body politic and institutions. But I've never had the b***s to go seeking an argument.

Nor do I have the background to answer these folks, having never lived in a fundamentalist environment. I grew up Catholic (I'm now an Episcopalian), but our family had a healthy streak of anticlericalism and took what we heard from the pulpit with about a peck of salt.

Nevertheless, I have often felt rejected by the church and my own coreligionists. It wasn't until I found a welcoming, diverse parish that I could explore my faith openly as a gay Christian. One of the things the SF forums have given me is a safe place to talk and to learn. The last thing I want to have happen to my new-found safe haven is to have it overrun by a bunch of religious pirates trying to kidnap me/us into a restrictive, unwelcoming kind of faith.

Yet, I realize that the debate has to be engaged somewhere. What better place than this, where we can support one another? But I think there have to be rules of engagement, as the military would say. Some lists I have been on put newcomers on moderated status until they have proved themselves able to fit into the cybercommunity, able can play nicely with others. I don't know if that's possible with the forums software or not. I urge the moderators to find a way to keep this place safe, but to open it to honest inquiry. Who knows? One of the most strident debaters may very well be questioning his/her own sexuality, looking for a human and loving response. This doesn't help much, but these are my thoughts.

BenL