Equality Ride: Common Goals, Semantics, Responsibility

[TheSecretsLessTraveled]

I originally posted this on my myspace (www.myspace.com/manonfyre). It is a summary of the conversations I had with members of the EqRide. These are points that I feel are very important, and I hope to get some feedback.

---------------------

Today is the first of the two-day Equality Ride visit, and I've had some really incredible discussions with maybe half the members of the group overall. I wanted to get some of these things down while they're still fresh in my mind, so I jumped onto myspace. That way, I'll have a record of this stuff, plus other people get to read it.

Common Goals
In talking with members of the group, I've come to realize that we in fact share their two primary goals: 1) To tell gay students that they don't have to be afraid, and 2) To encourage open discussion on the issue of homosexuality. And who would argue with these goals anyways?

When asking them about their goals and how they plan to measure their success, I noticed that their answers seemed very off-the-top-of-the-head'ish, so initially the answers they gave for their goals were varied and were many. But gathering that information, I was able to narrow it down to the two goals mentioned above, and when I asked if those were their big goals, they took a "yes, exactly" kind of attitude. They didn't right out say that those two goals were their primary goals at first, but through discussion that's where we invariably ended up.

My point was that the differing theological views of homosexuality are way too complex to be reconciled during a two-day visit. Therefore, other goals must be taking precedent over theological resolution. My question to them was, Which goals are they? And that's how we were able to identify their goals and realize that we are in agreement on those goals. We don't want people to live in fear, and we want open discussion on the subject; all of us want that.

I furthermore pointed out that Lee has made great strives toward those very goals in the past several weeks, and I acknowledged that Lee has been very un-proactive in those areas until faced with a confrontation like this. I also told them about Dr. Conn's apology on Thursday (two weeks ago) to the student body for neglecting these important issues. I told them that they could get CDs of this chapel, as well as CDs and DVDs for Tuesday's chapel and Wednesday night's panel discussion on the subject of homosexuality.

Semantics
My discussions with the equality riders, so-called, eventually moved to the importance of semantics. They had been rejected by other colleges and my contention was that semantics played a big role in this rejection.

I pointed out that certain words, like "bigot" and also the prefix "anti" (anti-gay), wield a great deal of emotional power that works contrary to their cause. Additionally, I pointed out that by failing to investigate the veracity of various student "testimonies," they undermine their own credibility in the eyes of the schools they visit. I suggested that they preface such testimonies with "This is so-and-so's account. We asked for the school to give an account, but the school declined." This, I said, would at least demonstrate that they had made an honest effort to get all sides of these stories. I also noted that a school may decline to comment on such stories for reasons of privacy, a legal issue which takes precedent over the current debate.

I discussed more specifically the importance of semantics. While you could just take words at their "face value," it is the semantics which carry the emotional weight of their message, which determine the connotation of the message, and whether it is positive or negative. And I felt that the way in which they present themselves (through the semantics in question) seems to foster an air of enmity between their group and the schools they wish to visit. I suggested that they might have more success if they instead sought to foster an air of partnership, in the name of free thought.

Now that we know we share the same goals, this is possible.

Responsibility
One of the biggest problems they have with the administration here, and this was one of their strongest points, was that Lee is allowing an ex-gays group to have an open forum on campus but they are not allowing a pro-gay group to have an open forum on campus. They say that if indeed Lee wants open discussion on the topic, they ought to allow both groups. This decision of the administration to allow one group but not the other seems very revealing to the equality riders.

I explained that just as they have a particular theological view on homosexuality, the administration also holds a particular theological view on homosexuality. I got around to making this next point by discussing one equality rider's discomfort with comparisons being made between homosexuality and other sins (murder, prostitution, rape, etc.). I can understand the discomfort, but the comparison is not qualitative. When I compare homosexuality to other sins, as it were, I'm not saying that homosexuality is as bad as murder. I'm merely saying that all of these behaviors fit under the general category of sin.

As a Christian institution, Lee university recognizes a moral responsibility to help students who struggle with various types of sin. If someone deals with pornography, alcoholism, etc., the school seeks to help these individuals; it is the school's ethical duty. Since the theological stance of the university recognizes homosexuality as a sin, the administration also recognizes a responsibility to help gay students. One equality rider asked why the school doesn't allow homosexuals to form clubs. I explained that this would run contrary to what the school feels is its biblical, moral obligation to its students. This point was very well received, especially with the understanding that there is only so much that can be accomplished in two days.

I further explained that if a student is only going to get one side of the issue, the school does not want that one side to be what the administration holds to be biblically sinful. Therefore, it seems that the school must present both sides in a single forum to simultaneously ensure the avoidance of this risk and also preserve freedom of thought.

From these discussions, I have noticed that these issues habitually get back to theology, which is impossible to resolve in such little time. And we are again left with only the goals that all parties share: 1) Tell students that they don't have to live in fear, and 2) Encourage open discussion on homosexuality.

[Venari]

Originally Posted by TheSecretsLessTraveled

Additionally, I pointed out that by failing to investigate the veracity of various student "testimonies," they undermine their own credibility in the eyes of the schools they visit. I suggested that they preface such testimonies with "This is so-and-so's account. We asked for the school to give an account, but the school declined." This, I said, would at least demonstrate that they had made an honest effort to get all sides of these stories. I also noted that a school may decline to comment on such stories for reasons of privacy, a legal issue which takes precedent over the current debate.

I agree, we are seeing this in the case of some of the schools where a student was dismissed for being gay, yet there has the school been given a chance to comment on the reason... well, no due to student privacy rights. But that means the student can sign a release allowing the school to comment.

I think that should be a first step before taking anyone’s word about something, that way their claim can be verified. I think that is a good step to take to make sure people know what really happened and all the ‘facts’ are known before a claim is made.

-Venari

[themattperry]

Originally Posted by TheSecretsLessTraveled

I originally posted this on my myspace (www.myspace.com/manonfyre). It is a summary of the conversations I had with members of the EqRide. These are points that I feel are very important, and I hope to get some feedback.

Thanks for this -- it is very helpful.

Originally Posted by TheSecretsLessTraveled

We don't want people to live in fear, and we want open discussion on the subject; all of us want that.

The only thing I'm a bit confused about here Secret is who "we" refers to .. I am going assume that you are speaking as a student at Lee, and that "we" referrs to the perspective of either the college community, the students, or you as an individual.

Originally Posted by TheSecretsLessTraveled

I furthermore pointed out that Lee has made great strives toward those very goals in the past several weeks, and I acknowledged that Lee has been very un-proactive in those areas until faced with a confrontation like this. I also told them about Dr. Conn's apology on Thursday (two weeks ago) to the student body for neglecting these important issues. I told them that they could get CDs of this chapel, as well as CDs and DVDs for Tuesday's chapel and Wednesday night's panel discussion on the subject of homosexuality.

it's great to hear about this progress.

Originally Posted by TheSecretsLessTraveled

I pointed out that certain words, like "bigot" and also the prefix "anti" (anti-gay), wield a great deal of emotional power that works contrary to their cause. Additionally, I pointed out that by failing to investigate the veracity of various student "testimonies," they undermine their own credibility in the eyes of the schools they visit. I suggested that they preface such testimonies with "This is so-and-so's account. We asked for the school to give an account, but the school declined." This, I said, would at least demonstrate that they had made an honest effort to get all sides of these stories. I also noted that a school may decline to comment on such stories for reasons of privacy, a legal issue which takes precedent over the current debate.

I think this is very good to take into account ... what you say is reasonable and I agree with it, except that when a term accurately describes a policy (as anti-gay very well might in some cases) ... I think it can justifiably be used. "Bigot" on the other hand ... is a harsh word and is probably best avoided. It does not foster compassion.

Originally Posted by TheSecretsLessTraveled

I got around to making this next point by discussing one equality rider's discomfort with comparisons being made between homosexuality and other sins (murder, prostitution, rape, etc.). I can understand the discomfort, but the comparison is not qualitative. When I compare homosexuality to other sins, as it were, I'm not saying that homosexuality is as bad as murder. I'm merely saying that all of these behaviors fit under the general category of sin.

Fair enough, but then why not pick the little sins, like "stealing candy" or "not tipping a waiter enough" and put us on that list? I find your argument slightly disingenuous. Putting gay and lesbian people on a list with murderers, sex offenders, thiefs, etc etc ... is an insult to gay and lesbian people because it MORALLY ASSOCIATES us with those persons. Do you agree? What might be a better list of sins to list alongside the "sin" of homosexuality?

Originally Posted by TheSecretsLessTraveled

From these discussions, I have noticed that these issues habitually get back to theology, which is impossible to resolve in such little time. And we are again left with only the goals that all parties share: 1) Tell students that they don't have to live in fear, and 2) Encourage open discussion on homosexuality.

I agree --- theology and hermeneutics are at the core of all of this. Howevrer, I'm not sure your college can really claim to share these two goals with SF given their policies and the way SF was received. If I were a gay kid at Lee, I would be very afraid ... of expulsion, ridicule, ostracism ... are you honestly telling me that I would have reason to feel comfortable and secure given your school's policies, statements and actions? Where is the welcome and comfort in your president's public statements? What message do they send to gay students?

As for open discussion ... why restrict debate at all if you are right? Are you that easily swayed from the truth? In a completely open forum where all sides are free to speak without hinderance, the truth will emerge. Am I wrong?

It's great to read your post ... it was intelligent and compassionate.

Thanks for that.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by themattperry

I find your argument slightly disingenuous. Putting gay and lesbian people on a list with murderers, sex offenders, thiefs, etc etc ... is an insult to gay and lesbian people because it MORALLY ASSOCIATES us with those persons.

I agree. When Fred Phelps makes this association it is foul. When a evangelical Christian makes this association it is just as equally foul.

And anti-gay should be used, though I do think we should talk about the problem of bigotry rather than labeling someone a bigot.

[TheSecretsLessTraveled]

themattperry, I think you ought to read my introduction to myself under the "Hello, My Name is..." section so that you know where I'm coming from.

The only thing I'm a bit confused about here Secret is who "we" refers to .. I am going assume that you are speaking as a student at Lee, and that "we" referrs to the perspective of either the college community, the students, or you as an individual.

The context was my discussion with EqRide members about our common goals. So “we” is inclusive of the EqRide, the administration, the students, and whoever else. Perhaps I could rephrase: Who doesn’t share these goals?

Howevrer, I'm not sure your college can really claim to share these two goals with SF given their policies and the way SF was received. If I were a gay kid at Lee, I would be very afraid ... of expulsion, ridicule, ostracism ... are you honestly telling me that I would have reason to feel comfortable and secure given your school's policies, statements and actions? Where is the welcome and comfort in your president's public statements? What message do they send to gay students?

This is a bit histrionic coming from a non-student. You don't seem to be aware of the gay students at Lee who have thanked the faculty for their compassion, and your effort to locate such examples is not apparent. So I will leave you to answer some of your own questions, since I feel that you are equally as competent in that endeavor as I am. If you should ever find yourself living in fear on the Lee campus, you might extend some of the blame to those who have told you that Lee is a bigoted epicenter of hate and oppression that prohibits the enrollment of gay students.

As for open discussion ... why restrict debate at all if you are right? Are you that easily swayed from the truth? In a completely open forum where all sides are free to speak without hinderance, the truth will emerge. Am I wrong?

No you are not wrong, and I agree with you. But I think you should take the issue up with SF, as they are the ones who declined Dr. Conn's offer to debate.

what you say is reasonable and I agree with it, except that when a term accurately describes a policy (as anti-gay very well might in some cases) ... I think it can justifiably be used. "Bigot" on the other hand ... is a harsh word and is probably best avoided. It does not foster compassion. ... And anti-gay should be used, though I do think we should talk about the problem of bigotry rather than labeling someone a bigot.

My problem with “anti-gay” is that it is too broad a term. If you describe a school as “anti-gay,” it does not paint the picture that a school is merely “anti- gay behavior” but that a school is “anti- gay people”. If your goal is to stigmatize your opponents, then such a broad term will help you to achieve that. If however your goal is to gain a hearing with your opponents, it will be a detriment to your cause – and indeed, it has been. If my memory serves me right, it was Regent University that prohibited EqRide activity because they felt they had been misrepresented. So you're going to have to decide what you want to do more.

Fair enough, but then why not pick the little sins, like "stealing candy" or "not tipping a waiter enough" and put us on that list?

The selected “list” is chosen based on how it complements the argument, and most times it is a provocative list which best enhances a reductio ad absurdum. Exaggerated examples are selected for their ability to amplify the point. All sides are guilty of such amplification, and it is not my purpose to offer excuses. I leave that to the respective parties. What I’m trying to do is help you in the midst of your frustration to see the legitimate point being made, and to understand that the motivator is not bigotry.

Putting gay and lesbian people on a list with murderers, sex offenders, thiefs, etc etc ... is an insult to gay and lesbian people because it MORALLY ASSOCIATES us with those persons. ... I agree. When Fred Phelps makes this association it is foul. When a evangelical Christian makes this association it is just as equally foul.

Let me say that I personally do try to be sensitive to this, though not at the expense of my point. At some point during the discussion, homosexuality is going to be categorized as sin. This is the core of our disagreement, and it doesn't seem fair to promote the negative while stigmatizing the affirmative. People make the comparison by way of cold logic. That they should be so selective in their chosen examples does not always occur, hard as that must be to imagine especially if you have prior assumptions. Perhaps it is taken for granted that people will understand that the comparison is completely disconnected personally, or that the comparison is made with the understanding that we are all morally associable with said examples anyway, regardless of sexual orientation. All I’m really trying to stress is that the offense is rarely intentional, and we would be remiss to allow such uncomfortable inevitabilities to establish themselves as roadblocks.

I find your argument slightly disingenuous.

To say that I am being disingenuous implies that I am willfully overlooking some important detail, but I would encourage you to consider the possibility that you are overlooking something as well.

[awediot]

My problem with “anti-gay” is that it is too broad a term. If you describe a school as “anti-gay,” it does not paint the picture that a school is merely “anti- gay behavior” but that a school is “anti- gay people”.

In such a belief, there is no room for a gay person at all, only levels of messed up straight ones. If one is thought of as a homosexual, they are either acting on it, sinning away and have given up the fight, or obsessed (posessed) with sinful urges, refraining and seeking help. Responsible, acceptable gay action is never okay. We're either really sick and deserving sympathy and prayer, (gee thanks, not too insulting) or a little less sick but at least we know it (prayers answered, thanks again).

[TheSecretsLessTraveled]

In such a belief, there is no room for a gay person at all, only levels of messed up straight ones. If one is thought of as a homosexual, they are either acting on it, sinning away and have given up the fight, or obsessed (posessed) with sinful urges, refraining and seeking help. Responsible, acceptable gay action is never okay. We're either really sick and deserving sympathy and prayer, (gee thanks, not too insulting) or a little less sick but at least we know it (prayers answered, thanks again).

Yes, I'm quite aware that you will always have a problem with my theology until we agree. But as I've said, theological reconciliation is secondary to other goals. For example, my goal in the comments you quoted was not to discuss whether or not you like Lee's position on homosexuality - I already know the answer to that question. Rather, my goal was to help the equality ride by showing its members how their use of semantics has negatively affected their effectiveness.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by TheSecretsLessTraveled

You don't seem to be aware of the gay students at Lee who have thanked the faculty for their compassion....

Originally Posted by TheSecretsLessTraveled

My problem with “anti-gay” is that it is too broad a term. If you describe a school as “anti-gay,” it does not paint the picture that a school is merely “anti- gay behavior” but that a school is “anti- gay people”.

Originally Posted by TheSecretsLessTraveled

Rather, my goal was to help the equality ride by showing its members how their use of semantics has negatively affected their effectiveness.

Had I lived in the 60's, I couldn't imagine myself going into the SCLC office and saying, "I'm here to help. For starters, you all need to stop using the term 'racism' when trying to get Americans to hear your demands."

The activists may have entertained my idea to a point -- until I revealed that I myself believed interracial marriage was wrong and that I felt some segregationists were actually quite kind to blacks.

I think they would have politely declined my offer to help.

[awediot]

Yes this is a long post and I dove in late. My goal was not theological reconciliation, nor was it meant to be another example of its impossibility (though unfortunately it is). It was to help you see how I see the use of the terms, merely "anti-gay behavior", and why it is a crock. I was doing for you what you are doing for us...please read the thread this started. Maybe it was out of context and I appologize if it was.

[themattperry]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

Had I lived in the 60's, I couldn't imagine myself going into the SCLC office and saying, "I'm here to help. For starters, you all need to stop using the term 'racism' when trying to get Americans to hear your demands."

The activists may have entertained my idea to a point -- until I revealed that I myself believed interracial marriage was wrong and that I felt some segregationists were actually quite kind to blacks.

I think they would have politely declined my offer to help.

Jamie,

I couldn't have said it better myself. Your anaolgy is absolutely applicable here.

I would add that imho, it is not the Equality Ride that needs help ... it is the community of Lee and other universities. They are currently struggling under the heavy yoke of discriminatory and unfair policies. My thought is that ER is there to help them rid themselves of this burden.

[themattperry]

Thanks for your reply to what I posted, Secrets. I would love to continue this discussion, as I find some of what you say very heartening, and some less so ...

themattperry, I think you ought to read my introduction to myself under the "Hello, My Name is..." section so that you know where I'm coming from.

Thanks ... I have read it now and probably should have before ... welcome by the way!

You don't seem to be aware of the gay students at Lee who have thanked the faculty for their compassion, and your effort to locate such examples is not apparent. If you should ever find yourself living in fear on the Lee campus, you might extend some of the blame to those who have told you that Lee is a bigoted epicenter of hate and oppression that prohibits the enrollment of gay students.

You are quite right ... I am not aware of the compassion you describe, nor am I aware of the reality (except for a first-hand account I have read) of the experience of gay and lesbian Lee students. My comments about being afraid at Lee were just those ... of how I would feel as a student at a college with discriminatory policies. I went to a college that, while religious. did not discriminate and I still had a heck of a time losing the fear that no one would love me, that I would be embarassed and rejected etc etc ... Adding the full force of College policy to my fear would have made it that much more intense.

Let's get down to it though ... there is only one, necessary reason why Equality Ride was at your college, Secret. Here it is (bold added):

Originally Posted by Lee University Student Handbook

"The university encourages wholesome interaction between the sexes but stands firmly against those elements of the society which condone pre-marital and extra-marital sexual relations,homosexual practices and other forms of sexual behavior which violate Scripture. Engaging in sexual acts expressly condemned in Scripture (premarital sex, adultery and homosexual practices) will result in suspension or expulsion."

If the four words I've highlighted above were removed from your handbook, then ER would not have come to Lee University. Do you agree? These four words are what turn a strict policy that applies (somewhat) equally to everyone (banning "pre-marital or extra-marital sexual relations") into a policy that discriminates against a particular class of God's Children .... namely people like me. The issue is not sex. If sex is to be banned, then ban sex, not "homosexual practices" in particular. This is discriminatory language which sends a clear and terrible message to any gay person who reads it.

I think it is admirable to talk about shared priorities and values, but let's be clear. Lee University discriminates against glbt people and that is why SF was on your campus. I'm not trying to shame you or disparage Lee ... but this is a truth that must be stated clearly -- do you agree with me? If not, please tell me how I am mistaken. And please, without reference to the following argument:

If you describe a school as “anti-gay,” it does not paint the picture that a school is merely “anti- gay behavior” but that a school is “anti- gay people”.

There is, in fact, no difference. Hating the sin and loving the sinner is impossible. How can you really love me, for example Secret, if you hate (in the sense of hating sin, which I assume you do) the idea of the kind of intimacy and love that I was truly put on this planet to experience? I was born as someone who erotically loves other men, not women ... that is just my experience and reality. If you hate -- as sin -- the act of a man loving another man -- you hate a part of me. There is plenty of sin in me, just like there is in anyone else. However, the love that I feel for and the intimacy (including sexual intimacy) that I have with my partner is of God -- it is love in its purest and most holy sense. Deny that in me and you deny something very close to my core.

Perhaps this is what I really want to say to you Secret ... this issue is incredibly important to me. The two men I have truly loved (as boyfriends/partners) in this life, have at least these two things in common: both grew up in conservative, religious environments and both tried to (and thankfully failed) to kill themselves while attending conservative Christian Colleges with discriminatory policies like the one that Lee has. Call that histrionic if you want ... it is also absolutely true. Especially in the case of my current partner, with whom I wish to spend the rest of my life, this suicide attempt was directly related to the belief that he would never measure up to or be accepted by the community he loved (his College and Church. his family, his loved ones) The terror of hell, judgement and loss still visits him and I am often left to comfort him for the loss of love and acceptance that was denied him by the family and community in which he grew up. If he and I were in our committed, mongomous, lifelong partnership while we were students, he would have been suspended and/or expelled from his college. Would his fate have been different at Lee?

I don't tell you this to be dramatic ... I realy don't. I tell you this stuff to let you know that whether or not your College has discriminatory policies on the books IS in fact very important to me. So while I applaud your efforts at agreeing on common ground (especially insofar as you are able to agree on the common goal of reducing fear among gay students) let's also not be afraid to speak the truth:

Lee University has discriminatory policies on the books.

Wouldn't changing this fact -- getting rid of those four little words -- be a good first step in achieving the goal of reducing fear among GLBT students at Lee? If I suggested that you were willfully overlooking an important detail, then perhaps it's just that.

I welcome a continuation of this discussion ... as you can tell, I am passionate about these issues.

[Jennifer5]

TheSecretsLessTraveled, here, I have a challenge for you..... if you're not willing that's your loss of what could end up to be a very good experience.

I find your views of gay and lesbian people to be a little incomplete..... so here is my idea

Challenge:
Go out and find 2 people (that aren't currently your friends) one (openly)gay or lesbian and one straight. Then just to see how these people feel about things; become their friend, be friends with both of them. But, don't let yourself judge them, no matter how much you disagree. Let it be there turn, listen to what they have to say and try and understand where they are coming from. Comfort them in time of need and be a true friend, even when you don't agree with them.

I think in time, if you act as a true friend to them and don't judge them, that you'll find that they both have very good points to how they feel about things.... and I think in time you'll realize that in many ways both of them are right.... and plus, you have 2 new friends that you don't know why you didn't have before..